UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

Building Beyoğlu
Histories of place in a central district in Istanbul
Maessen, J.M.A.H.

Publication date
2019
Document Version
Other version
License
Other
Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):

Maessen, J. M. A. H. (2019). Building Beyoğlu: Histories of place in a central district in
Istanbul. [Thesis, fully internal, Universiteit van Amsterdam].

General rights
It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)
and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open
content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations
If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please
let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material
inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: [Link] or a letter
to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You
will be contacted as soon as possible.

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam ([Link]

Download date:02 Nov 2025

 Free and Accepted Masons 145

NUR-İ ZİYA

T
SOKAK hose who observe Beyoğlu’s crowds may notice
that on certain days of the week small groups
of men will pass down one of the many hills
from İstiklal Caddesi towards the Bosphorus.
All dressed plainly in black suits, white shirts

free and
and black ties, they proceed together towards
‘their street’, chatting, laughing and stopping
in front of a group of buildings across from
the French consul general’s residence. They are one of the few societies

accepted
in the city that has been able to lay a definitive claim to place-making in
this area, by having its street named to a concept – Nur-i Ziya (Literally:
Light of the Divine Light) from its philosophy. The buildings itself stand
somewhat in the shadow of the building across the street: the opulent
neoclassical Palais de France, the residence of the French Consul Gen-

masons eral in Istanbul. If not for the security booth and the flag of the Grand
Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons in Turkey, one might not notice
this group of buildings. The freemasons’ two main buildings on num-
bers 13 and 15, nonetheless, display a sense of modest elegance: arched
windows on the first two floors, adorned by distinctive wrought-iron
fences and balconies. Looking more closely, one notices the main en-
trance is sealed off from the street by a heavy armed door, reflecting the
brethrens’ position in this street: its presence expressly claimed by the
name of the street, a flag, security booth and several plaques attached to
the walls of their premises, yet still, secluded and inward-looking.
The scene described above is one of the few recurring public
performances of freemasonry in Istanbul as the brethren walk towards
their premises on the Nur-i Ziya Sokak. It is here that the Grand Lodge of
Free and Accepted Masons has had its headquarters for several decades.
The brethren of the Nur-i Ziya Sokak have friendly relations with 147
Grand Lodges in the world. It adheres to the Turkish rite, which is spe-
146 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 147

cified as largely adhering to the Modern Ritual of Scotland, with several

additions from continental masonic rites. It currently has lodges that
operate in Turkish, English, French, German and Greek.1 This chapter
will focus on the freemasons of Nur-i Ziya Sokak, historically contex-
tualizing and analysing their position in Beyoğlu during the twentieth
century.
Jan Snoek argues that generally speaking the body of academic
work on freemasonry world-wide has been steadily growing since it be-
came a subject of academic interest in the late 1970s. In several univer-
sities in the United States and Europe key works were published, while
chairs and research centres were created as well.2 Snoek notes that al-
though in this early phase half of the academics involved were also free-
masons themselves, the fact that half was not is more relevant. The in-
volvement of freemasons in research on the history of freemasonry is
quite natural, since one of the aims of freemasonry is to study its own
history, although Snoek distinguishes history writing in the academic
sense from what he terms ‘so-called “legendary” or “traditional” histo-
ry’. The latter category should be understood in terms of the functions
of Greek mythology in classical antiquity or the stories of the Bible in
Medieval Christian Europe.3 According to Jean-Yves Beaurepaire the
strong tradition of freemasons studying own history has also led to an
obstruction in the study of freemasonry which is in fact rather similar
to the development of historiography of some of the exact sciences. As
Frank Huisman, Joris Vandendriessche and Kaat Wils for instance note,
since the 1980s the study of medical history has steered away from his-
tory writing by practitioners and by professionals, thereby integrating
medical history in the wider paradigm of social historiography and, per-
haps more importantly, problematizing positivist narratives that had
dominated medical historiography until then.4 Equally so, Beaurepaire
notes that freemasonry has always striven for academic recognition yet
the discipline of masonic Studies remains isolated and is insufficiently
recognized. He argues that this problem is twofold, it is related to the
bonds of the subject with Grand Lodges and other masonic institutions
on the one hand and its integration (or lack thereof ) into broader aca-
demic debates on topics such as public space, political culture, history
Image 29: The main buildings of the Grand Lodge on Nur-i Ziya Sokak, 2018. of ideas and social networks.5
Snoek adds that the historiography of freemasonry has devel-
148 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 149

oped immensely since 1986 when John Hamill, himself a freemason

and Master of the Quator Coronati Research Lodge, criticized previous
work on the origins of freemasonry in The Craft: A History of English
freemasonry (1986).6 Theories on the origins of English freemasonry
are highly diverse, though Snoek argues the so-called Gould thesis is one
of the most prominent ones. Named after Robert Freke Gould who, with
friends, established the first research lodge Quator Coronati No. 2076 in
the 1880s. The thesis asserted that ‘simple’ freemasons, i.e. craftsmen,
established lodges around 1717 (an entirely artificial or legendary date,
according to Bogdan and Snoek) without symbolically interpreting the
craft or their tools. The interpretation of crafts, tools and history as
symbols, which – depending on the branch of freemasonry – can be con-
sidered in a very diverse way, e.g. from a moral, scientific, psychological,
esoteric, philosophic, political and religious perspective.7 Significant
symbols stem for instance from the Bible, the Temple of Solomon with
two pillars; a chequered floor and an eye in a triangle which signifies the
Great Architect of the Universe (a metaphor for God), or tools from Me-
dieval stonemasonry.8 The interpretation of these and other symbols
is also known as ‘speculation’ in the jargon of freemasons. When an in-
creasing number of ‘gentleman masons’ became members, the ‘specula-
tive’ ideas started to be introduced in these lodges. This thesis was taken
as a matter of fact for over a century until John Hamill threw into ques-
tion the thesis. Snoek explains that the first ‘freestone masons’ were
architects and sculptors; men who were the most skilled and trained
and allowed to work with freestone (limestone or sandstone), the most
expensive of materials. Contrary to what the Gould thesis asserted,
Snoek following Hamill, points out that these operative freestone ma-
sons did speculate and that this is exactly what attracted ‘gentleman
masons’ – non-operative masons – to the craft. The dichotomy between
Map 7: The Grand Lodge’s parcels in their cadastral context.
speculative and operativ freemasons is therefore a false one, since – ac-
cording to Hamill and Snoek – it would only make sense to discriminate
between gentleman masons and stone masons, all involved in specula-
tion, but the latter being operative and the former not. Snoek points out
elsewhere that, Hamill’s publication revealed the necessity of delving
into the masonic archives in Britain, a task not seriously undertaken
until then, contrary to France.9 In these archives the oldest documents
related to freemasonry date back to as early as the fourteenth century,
150 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 151

with the ‘Old Manuscript Constitutions’. Though Snoek indicates that it

is somewhat complicated to understand whether or not these were used
during initiations, documents from the late sixteenth century onwards
explicitly indicate that they should be read during the ‘acception’ (ini-
tiation) of a candidate into a lodge.
Starting with the Grand Lodge of England, in the early eighteenth
century the first Grand Lodges were established, the English one quickly
followed by the Scottish and Irish Grand Lodges after which freemason-
ry spread over continental Europe and British colonies, starting – with
the exception of a short-lived unofficial yet influential lodge of British
masons in Rotterdam – in France after 1725. By the second half of the
eighteenth century freemasonry was flourishing over the globe.10 By the
1730s onwards Jews were also initiated, but it would take until 1808 be-
fore the first Muslim to be initiated in Paris, the Persian diplomat Askar
Khan Afshar. Thierry Zarcone adds that the continental tradition of
freemasonry was more rigid in excluding Jews and Muslims from their
lodges, while British and Dutch freemasonry were more open to allow-
ing their admission. Contrary to Snoek, Zarcone argues that a few Mus-
lims, students, diplomats or merchants mostly, were admitted to lodges
as early as the eighteenth century, though their numbers were few and
the conditions to allowing their admittance were exceptional.11 Snoek
and Henrik Bogdan note that since the most central symbol of freema-
sonry, the Temple of king Solomon, features in both the Torah and the
Quran, the symbolism of masonic rites would make ‘at least some sense’
to Jews and Muslims.12 Additionally, freemasonry works to honour the
‘Grand Architect of the Universe’ (the deity), which singular interpreta-
tion resulted in Hindus not being admitted until the 1870s.
Zarcone, who has done extensive research on freemasonry and
other mystical orders in the Middle East, also argues that two types of
lodges should be distinguished. On the one hand the lodges in colonial
settings, such as British India or the Dutch East Indies, aimed for ‘fra-
ternal assimilation’, while on the other hand lodges in the Ottoman Em-
pire were mostly composed of reformist groups – the connections be-
tween freemasonry and the Jeunes-Turcs were for instance particularly
strong – including intellectuals, high officials, diplomats and others who
Map 8: The Grand Lodge’s parcels (848) in the insurance maps of Eduard Goad, 1905. may be considered to belong to the local bourgeoisie.13 Apart from free-
masonry’s political and social character, Zarcone attributes the popu-
152 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 153

larity of freemasonry among these various communities – rather prob- es on the late Ottoman Empire as well, but exempts the Ottoman capital
lematically – to what he describes as the fascination of Muslims with and focuses on the Ottoman provinces in the Levant instead. Historians
secret societies.14 On a different note, through the increasing impact of Paul Dumont and Thierry Zarcone have been among the most prolific
European colonialism and the expanding settlement of Europeans in writers on the topic. Dumont has performed crucial research through
other parts of the world, the ideas of tolerance and discrimination in introducing and investigating sources on freemasonry in the Ottoman
freemasonry were gradually reconsidered. Bogdan and Snoek do point Empire from the archives of the French Grand Orient. Yet in the case of
out, however, that if non-Christians would strongly identify with a dif- Dumont and Zarcone, the bulk of their research also focuses on the im-
ferent religion, particularly the non-Abrahamic religions, freemasonry perial period and deals only marginally with the early years of the Turk-
could only be meaningful if they had been assimilated in the culture of ish Republic and more contemporary episodes.17
the colonizer. They go on by arguing that polytheistic religions were For discussing the history of freemasonry in modern Turkey authors
generally considered a complication, since freemasonry dedicates itself rely mostly on secondary material, particularly the work of three au-
to honour a single ‘Grand Architect of the Universe’. In a British colo- thors, the journalist İlhami Soysal who wrote Türkiye ve Dünyada Ma-
nial setting it would take until the 1870s before Hindus were admitted. sonluk (Freemasonry in Turkey and the World) in 1978, Celil Layiktez,
Nonetheless, the authors consider freemasonry as an emancipatory himself a mason, who published on the history of freemasonry in Tur-
tool for non-Christians, including Jews and Muslims in non-colonial or key between 1721 and 1990 and Orhan Koloğlu’s Cumhuriyet Döneminde
semi-colonial settings.15 This resulted in the rise of freemasonry’s im- Masonlar (Freemasons in the Republican Period) published in 2003.18
pact beyond the borders of Europe and North America during the nine- Interesting and useful as these publications are, they also fit to what
teenth century. Beaurepaire describes as the ‘positivist, factual, chronological history
of freemasonry’. He indicates that this positivist history has its obvi-
ous value, if only for freemasons and the general public with an interest
RESEARCH ON FREEMASONRY IN TURKEY in freemasonry. Apart from methodological concerns, however, these
works obviously have little or even lack connection with broader his-
In the context of the Ottoman Empire and Turkey it is safe to say that toriographies regarding Turkey’s society, politics and culture, or that of
peer-reviewed academic research, executed outside of the context of Istanbul or Beyoğlu.19
masonic institutions, is limited. This is less so the case for the Ottoman The state of affairs regarding academic research on freemasonry in
Empire, as it is for freemasonry in modern Turkey. Due to the impact of Turkey could not be further from the situation Beaurepaire envisions
freemasonry on the most important reformist movement of the nine- as ideal for researching freemasonry according to the standards of
teenth and early twentieth century in the Ottoman Empire, namely the twenty-first century academia. Little academic archival research that is
Jeunes-Turcs or Young Turks, the society has also entered the social and embedded in the context of social, political or cultural historiography
political historiography of the late Ottoman Empire. Şükrü Hanıoğlu, exists, particularly with regard to the twentieth century. Beaurepaire,
who has one of the prominent voices in the historiography of the Young moreover, argues that membership lists and statements should no lon-
Turk movement, assessed the freemasons as one of the most decisive ger be the sole source for historians to investigate freemasonry. They
elements in the movement. This is particularly interesting considering should also involve ego documents and track the relational network of
the official stance of freemasonry to not involve themselves in politics freemasons. Although Beaurepaire’s suggestions deserve full endorse-
as a society or discuss politics in any way. Their active political involve- ment, the reality of freemasonry in Turkey as well as the contemporary
ment resulted, according to Hanıoğlu in their becoming of a particular – as well as arguably historical – political situation in the country se-
scapegoat and target of Abdülhamit II.16 Dorothe Summer’s work focus- verely limits the flexibility of the researcher. There is a certain degree of
154 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 155

interest and endorsement of the Grand Lodge of Turkey towards the re- ally been imprinted in the cultural genetics of our freema-
search of non-masonic academics, yet my own research experience has sonry.’20
unfortunately proven that it is impossible to proceed beyond the work
published by the Grand Lodge’s own research lodge, i.e. being limited The importance of freemasonry in the socio-economic, cultural and po-
to working with published rather than archival material. This may be a litical elites of Turkey and Istanbul during the focus period of this the-
result of the current political situation which complicates the freedom sis would make it hard to imagine excluding them from Beyoğlu’s map
of movement for freemasonry. It is a concern for many associations and of social institutions. The political reality of Turkey and the way this
institutions in Turkey, but freemasons have historically always been political reality is considered by some brethren who have influence on
a target of ultranationalist and Islamist propaganda and thus are well the access of externals to the Grand Lodge’s library and archival facili-
warranted in being extremely cautious. ties, unfortunately implies that there are limitations to integrating the
On the other hand, it also appears to be a result of the convictions of some Grand Lodge’s history in modern Turkey into the social historiography
– certainly not all – within the Grand Lodge, which run in consonant of Turkey, Istanbul and Beyoğlu in the twentieth century.
with Beaurepaire’s argument that many freemasons are convinced that Nevertheless, the sources that I have been able to use for the purpose
the only ones who can write the history of freemasonry are the freema- of writing this chapter focused the Grand Lodge and its buildings in the
sons themselves, since they are the only ones who would be able to fully Nur-i Ziya Sokak in Beyoğlu, will prove to be interesting as the brethren
grasp its project. Hamill’s key publication, however, is a case in point writing on Nur-i Ziya Sokak not only have been able to use archival mate-
of why this assumption is problematic. It is understandable that Beau- rials to which I had no access, but also convey interpretations and repre-
repaire’s suggestions for a so-called ‘strategy of generosity’ – meaning sentations of their presence in Turkey broadly speaking and in Beyoğlu
opening up archives, providing expertise to academia, exchange ideas more precisely. As I will show in this chapter, these representations and
and proceed beyond introverted perspectives – have unique complica- interpretations contain valuable assumptions about the presence and
tions in the context of Turkey, yet it would certainly prove to provide the right of freemasonry to be present in Beyoğlu. Indeed, I would argue
invaluable research and knowledge opportunities for both the Grand that the freemasons provide a highly significant narrative for compre-
Lodge and historiography on the Ottoman Empire and Turkey. The ne- hending elements of the socio-cultural complexity of Beyoğlu’s history.
cessity of fact-based research, employing archival material, is in fact Particularly before and after the domination of the Young Turks, the so-
also acknowledged by researchers in the Grand Lodge of Turkey. Remzi ciocultural composition of the freemasons was very eclectic. From the
Sanver and Yavuz Selim Ağaoğlu emphasize for instance that in the past freemasons and other informants that I have spoken with informally it
a substantial part of the Grand Lodge’s archives had been lost in fires becomes apparent, moreover, that various brethren were also members
and another part had been sold to junk dealers. Only after it was almost of clubs like the Büyük Kulüp, or were alumni of one of the foreign-lan-
too late the archives started to be treated with more care. They argue guage high schools and universities in Beyoğlu and Istanbul. It should
that this complicates doing research on Turkish freemasonry based on also be noted that many brethren were highly educated and would thus
historical documents. They go on by stating – referring to the period find themselves in influential and international communities as well,
around 1965: for which Beyoğlu would remain a significant place of gathering.

‘it does not help our understanding of controversial periods

when personal opinions are as time progresses treated as
facts. The risk of drawing rigid conclusions from personal
convictions presented as the actual state of affairs has virtu-
156 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 157

THE GRAND LODGE OF FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS religion.’24

After the 1850s freemasonry in the Ottoman Empire started to
The history of freemasonry in the Ottoman Empire dates back to at develop and by the end of the 1860s 15 freemason lodges were estab-
least the nineteenth century, although the earliest example appears lished in the imperial capital and several other lodges were established
to date from the eighteenth century. Paul Dumont cites a document in Smyrna, Alexandria, Ismailia, Port-Said, Cairo, Cyprus, Beirut and
from the eighteenth century in which the French ‘Ordre de la Grappe’, Salonika. Dumont points out that all the lodges in Istanbul/Constanti-
a group dedicated to consuming good food and wine, had a section in nople adhered to foreign Grand Lodges; four to the Great Lodge of Eng-
Istanbul/Constantinople. Dumont argues that this section also pursued land, four to the French Grand Orient, five or more to the Grande Oriente
‘esoteric objectives’ and asserts that this was the first organisation with in Italy, one to the Great Lodge of Hamburg, one to the Great Lodge of
a masonic character. Yet most of the long-lasting lodges date back to Ireland and one or possibly two to the Greek Meghali Anatoli.25 The va-
the mid-nineteenth century. It would for instance take until 1855 be- rieties of the lodges’ composition appear to have been rather diverse,
fore formal contacts between the Grand Orient of France and French with lodges comprising mostly of European foreigners such as the
freemasons in Istanbul/Constantinople were established. This was the French Étoile du Bosphore, lodges organised by Ottoman millet, includ-
Étoile du Bosphore, made up of 15 members, mostly middleclass men – ing members from one of the Ottoman ethno/religious communities,
Dumont mentions an architect, tradesmen and a captain working in the mixed lodges with mostly non-Muslim Ottomans and Europeans and
long-haul trade.21 By 1860, they had 39 members, still mostly comprised mixed lodges with a large share of Muslim Ottomans.26 The latter cat-
of French nationals, though their ranks now also included a Mexican, egory is particularly significant, since Dumont argues that the attitude
some Italians, a Pole and a Turkish secretary at the Ottoman govern- towards freemasonry among Muslims was hostile during the second
ment. Various European masonic lodges started to set up lodges in the half of the nineteenth century. Nonetheless, various foreigners actively
Ottoman capital. Dumont states that one of the main reasons as to why aimed to recruit influential members of the Ottoman elite. Despite the
this occurred at that point was the Islâhat Hatt-ı Hümâyûnu (Imperial antipathy among Muslims, a substantial number of Muslim Ottomans
Reform Edict) from 1856. Selim Deringil indicates that this edict was in did become members, famous nationalist writer Namik Kemal, is said
fact introduced to implement the promises that were made in the ear- to be among them, of one of the lodges and freemasonry from the 1870s
lier Tanzimat-i Hayriye (beneficial reforms) from 1839.22 On the initia- onwards rose to become of the most influential movements in the Otto-
tive of Mahmut II the Tanzimat Edict, as Zürcher points out, brought a man Empire.27
governance model to the empire that resembled a bureaucratic appara- This became particularly clear during the ascendance of Murat
tus and transferred the gravity centre of legislative power from the sul- V to the throne. Murat V, known to be close to the reformist Young Ot-
tan and the Palace to the Sublime Porte (the central government).23 Yet tomans and their ideology, and sympathetic to the ideas of freemasonry
it also promised judicial equality of all Ottoman subjects, regardless of (Dumont goes as far as saying that one of the French lodges ‘recruited’
their religion. Zürcher indicates, however, that the issue of equality was him). The turn of events, however, would develop rather tragically for
described rather ambiguously and Deringil confirms that it was only Murat V. He appeared not to have been able to bear the pressure of his
until the announcement of the Imperial Reform Edict of 1856 that the rulership, soon become an alcoholic and suffered a nervous breakdown
Ottoman government made its attitude towards the freedom of religion resulting from the suicide of his uncle and former sultan Abdülaziz as
more specific, stating that: ‘As all forms of religion are and shall be freely well as the murder of several of Murat’s cabinet members. His cabinet
professed in my dominions, no subject of my empire shall be hindered deemed the sultan unfit to rule and turned to Murat’s younger brother
in the exercise of the religion that he professes, nor shall he be in any Hamit to become sultan. The reign of this sultan, Abdülhamit II, would
way annoyed on this account. No one shall be compelled to change their turn out to be tough years for the freemasons in the Ottoman Empire.28
158 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 159

Particularly after Abdülhamit II found out that they were exploring

possibilities abroad to put Murat V – by then imprisoned in Çırağan Pal-
ace – back on the throne, his government framed the freemasons as ‘a
habitual source of sedition’.29
During the Abdülhamidian era (1876-1909) a significant number
of Young Turks became freemasons and a trend of opposition among
freemasons against Abdülhamit’s authoritarian regime became notice-
able. According to Şükrü Hanıoğlu, several pamphlets targeted against
Abdülhamit II were published in outlets such as a periodical titled La
Turquie Libre, which appeared in London starting from 1891. The pam-
phlets were written by a group that called itself Le Comité Libéral Ot-
toman, described by Hanıoğlu as a political wing of the Ottoman free-
masons in Turkey, though the organisation appears to have remained
separated from the actual lodges. The freemasons, however, supported
the Young Turks’ endeavours nonetheless.30 Zarcone argues that the
Young Turks used Spanish, French and Italian lodges in Salonica to
further their cause. They had by then been united in the İttihat ve Ter-
akki (Committee of Union and Progress, CUP) whilst its organizational
structure was based on that of the Italian revolutionary network, the
Carbonari, and masonic frameworks.31 After the Young Turk Revolu-
tion in 1908 and the reinstating of the Constitution that Abdülhamit II
had suspended, the freemasons came increasingly into the open. Three
masons, Enver Pasha, Taalat Pasha and Djemal Pasha, would have a
dominant influence in the CUP government, while many brethren-
cum-Young Turks would be instated in high positions of the new Otto-
man government.32 In 1909 the Young Turks involved in freemasonry,
among them Talaat Pasha, set up the Ottoman Grand Orient or Maşrık-ı
Azam-ı Osmani and the Supreme Council of Turkey. The foreign lodges
were pressured to pledge their allegiance to the Ottoman Grand Ori-
ent, rather than a foreign one. The Ottoman Grand Orient eventually
was able to acquire a monopoly on practicing freemasonry in the Otto-
man Empire. In any case, Dumont argues the foreign lodges from then
onwards were hardly able to recruit members of the Ottoman elite and
thus acquire influence, into their ranks.33 A total of approximately 65
lodges was registered under the Ottoman Grand Orient.34
As Dumont indicates, the membership of the freemasons’ lodg-
es until those years had comprised partly or entirely of Europeans and Image 30: Talaat Pasha.
160 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 161

non-Muslim Ottomans. It comes as no surprise then that the gatherings hamit II. A prominent figure in this movement was the Ottoman Greek
of these lodges would concentrate around the Pera and Galata quarters. Cleanthi Scalieri from Istanbul/Constantinople. Closer to the Young
Hanıoğlu, however, argues that most of the lodges until the 1890s oper- Turk Revolution in 1908 and the reinstation of the constitution, the
ated largely clandestinely and the exact locations that were used by the fault lines between the agendas of the Young Turks and other freema-
lodges are not always available.35 A Brother named Suha Umur from the sons who did not fully adhere to their increasingly ethno-nationalist
current Turkish Grand Lodge, however, discusses a number of the earli- ideology became clearer. The freemasons realized that a neo-Byzantine
est known locations in one of the journals of the Lodge. He argues that state would not be feasible in the contemporary political climate which
before and after the foundation of the Ottoman Grand Orient – which gradually became under the increasing and polarizing influence of Turk-
he interestingly (and anachronistically) translates from Ottoman Turk- ish nationalism. As Uğur Üngör indicates, the Young Turk dictatorship
ish to modern Turkish as Turkey’s Grand Lodge (Türkiye Bü. Lo.sı), es- would become particularly apparent after their coup d’état in 1913. The
tablishing a direct continuity between the Ottoman and Turkish history Young Turks opted for the model of the nation state as the ideal model
of freemasonry – most of the Lodges indeed met in Pera. He states that to ban foreign interference. In the context of freemasonry in the Otto-
four lodges which pledged obedience to the Grand Orient de France and man Empire this move was clearly echoed by the Young Turks’ efforts to
one lodge of the Grande Oriente d’Italia had together rented a house on monopolize freemasonry through instating the Ottoman Grand Orient.
Ağahamamı Sokak 12 which they used for three years. This was allegedly Hanıoğlu argues that it became clear that the freemasons were only
the place where the later Murat V received his 2nd and 3rd degree diplo- partners with the Young Turks on the same bandwagon aiming to bring
mas.36 After 1874, Umur claims that these lodges moved to the Çiçek So- down Abdülhamit II, and that comparable partnerships had been es-
kak, the present-day Kameriye Sokak.37 Most of the lodges which were tablished with Armenian, Bulgarian and Albanian national committees.
associated with the foreign Grand Lodges would, however, meet in a lo- The domination of freemasonry by the Young Turks through Talaat Pa-
cale above the Hacopulos Passage adjacent to the Grand Rue de Pera.38 sha’s inauguration as the first Grand Master to function in the Ottoman
Before the Ottoman Grand Orient was founded, the first meetings took masonic monopoly, combined with the despotic and suppressive nature
place in the Tokatlıyan Hotel in 1908. Here it was decided that an Otto- of the CUP government nonetheless led to increasing bad propaganda
man obedience (again Umur speaks of a ‘Turkish obedience’) should be for freemasonry. Dumont points out that the success of the Young Turk
founded and the first Supreme Council was chosen. The actual founda- Revolution in 1908 also led to a rush towards the ranks of the masonic
tion of the Grand Lodge then took place above the Hacopulos Passage. lodges, apparently perceived as a shortcut towards power and influence
Meetings of the new Grand Lodge then took place in Koloğlu Sokak, in in the new political status quo.40
the building adjacent to the present-day Taksim Primary School’s build- The ties between freemasonry and the Young Turks did not re-
ing.39 main unnoticed beyond the borders of the Ottoman Empire, though it
Following the formation of the Ottoman Grand Orient and the did lead to painful and even ludicrous misinterpretations of the politi-
CUP government Zarcone suggests that freemasonry became an instru- cal reality. The renowned British historian of Iraqi Jewish descent Elie
ment of the Young Turks, rather than the other way around. Hanıoğlu Kedourie notes that it resulted in the British ambassador’s speculation
provides an interesting reflection to this perspective from the period of a Judeo-masonic conspiracy. The ambassador Gerard Lowther, led by
preceding 1908. He argues that while the Young Turks gradually resort- his dragoman, discusses – aided by countless anti-Semitic metaphors
ed to nationalism, originally several prominent freemasons had backed – how the Young Turk may turn out to be an old Jew, and refers to the
the idea of a revived ‘Byzantine state’, uniting Greeks and Turks under Committee of Union and Progress as ‘the Jewish Committee of Union
an enlightened sultan. When Murat V was forced to abdicate, the free- and Progress’.41 As Kedourie indicates, one of the most important sourc-
masons saw it fit to support the Young Turk’s struggle against Abdül- es of intelligence on the Ottoman Empire and its politics for the British
162 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 163

Foreign Office, notes Talaat Pasha ‘to be of Gipsy descent’ and Javid, the founded the Turkish Republic. The CUP and later the Republican Peo-
Minister of Finance as ‘a Crypto-Jew’. The ambassador notes further- ple’s Party of Mustafa Kemal were effective in pushing away the dark
more that ‘Talaat Bey has been spreading the net of the freemason Com- pages of their history.45 This helped freemasonry to recover quickly and
mittee over the Empire (…) The invisible government of Turkey is thus Dumont notes that in fact most bureaucrats and officials were masons.
the Grand Orient with Talaat Bey as Grand Master’.42 As pointed out be-
fore, Hanıoğlu indicates that the opposite was in fact true; a situation
where freemasonry in the Ottoman Empire became dominated by the FROM OTTOMAN TO TURKISH FREEMASONRY
Young Turk movement. Nonetheless, Lowther recommended that the
Ottoman Grand Orient would not be recognized by the most important From 1925 onwards the former Ottoman Grand Orient becomes known
Grand Lodges in the United Kingdom. He writes in 1910: ‘It has been as the Türkiye Maşrık-ı Azamı Heyet-I Umumiyesi (Supreme Council
said above that the Grand Lodge of Scotland refused to recognise the of Turkey) and was linked to the Hür ve Kabul Edilmiş Büyük Mason
new ‘Grand Orient Ottoman’, whose Masonry it pronounced ‘spurious’; Locası (Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons). According to Ziya
but I learn that efforts are being made to indirectly get round this dif- Umur, one of the more prolific writers in the post-1950s Grand Lodge,
ficulty by inducing the Grand Lodge of England to recognise the new the freemasons resided in this building for 15 years. This would mean
Turkish creation. In view of the curious developments in Egyptian Ma- that the freemasons continued to gather in the period after 1918. In 1925
sonry, it would seem desirable that the Grand Lodge of England should a new gathering place was found at Telgraf Sokak, though this build-
follow the example of its Scotch sister and refuse its imprimatur to an ing was not to the satisfaction of the Grand Lodge and it was decided
institution so coloured by politics.’43 they would move once more. This time though, the Grand Lodge would
By the time of the Young Turk Revolution and the coup d’état of the buy a building instead of renting one. For the amount of 60.000 Turk-
Young Turks in 1913, the power of the Young Turk triumvirate far ex- ish Lira a building across the former American Hospital was bought on
ceeded that of freemasonry at any given time in its existence in the Ot- Sıraselviler Caddesi. Half a year later the decision was reversed due to
toman realm. If anything it can be considered to have functioned as a the considerable costs of the building. Instead a building on the Polonya
useful vessel for the Young Turks. Dumont therefore rightfully con- Sokak (later Nur-i Ziya Sokak) would be bought. This building, which
cludes that the presumed secret influence of Turkish masons was more is mentioned as number 25 (nowadays number 13) by Umur is indeed
a figment of the imagination of politically opposed circles than of reality. shown as number 25 in the maps of Goad. The occupation of the build-
The role of freemasonry as an ideological or spiritual inspiration for the ing on the map from 1905, however, appears to have been the Italian
Young Turks, moreover, he argues was if anything short-lived. Nonethe- Consulate General. In a later year, 1924, the building also shows up in
less, the involvement of Talaat Pasha in what by now has been widely the chronicles of the German School. Apparently the school, which was
acknowledged by historians as the Armenian Genocide, as well as other closed after World War I, had been reopened in 1924 and had taken resi-
crimes committed by the CUP, would reflect badly on the image of free- dency in a rental house, which was in fact Polonya Sokak 25. The Ger-
masonry in Turkey abroad. When the Ottoman Empire suffered its de- man School would, after the return and restoration of its properties in
feat at the end of World War I, the Ottoman Grand Orient was closed. As Galata, return to its original building in 1925.46 At the time the street was
Paul Dumont indicates, this was met with little interest among masons known as the Polonya Sokak (Poland Sokak), yet after an apparent in-
abroad, since the European obediences had justified suspicions that tervention of freemasons the municipality decided to change its name.
some of the brethren connected to the CUP were in some way connect- The chosen name was no coincidence. As explained before, the name
ed to the massacres committed during the war years.44 It would, how- that was used from the early 1930s onwards, the Nuri- Ziya Sokak, refers
ever, recover relatively quickly when the exponents of the CUP regime to two crucial terms in freemasonry.47 The name-change thus may have
164 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 165

been the result of sympathy of the municipality to the Grand Lodge or

the involvement of members of the Grand Lodge in the municipality.
The freemasons would not be able to enjoy this building for a
long time. Atatürk and his Cumhuriyet Halk Fırkası (Republican Peo-
ple’s Party – CHF, later CHP) had decided to experiment with a multi-
party parliamentary system. Zürcher points out that after Atatürk had
become aware of discontent with his party, he welcomed the foundation
of an opposition party that would be loyal to his leadership. The mem-
bers of the party, which was formally established in 1930, all came from
the Kemalist CHF elite, encouraged by Atatürk himself and their pro-
gram strongly resembled that of the CHF. The opposition party, named
Serbest Cumhuriyet Fırkası (Free Republican Party – SCF), was moder-
ately successful during local elections nonetheless. This surprised the
ruling CHF and in combination with the SCF’s accusations of mass elec-
toral fraud and corruption on the side of the CHF and a violent uprising
of a group of dervishes in Menemen, close to İzmir, shocked the regime
to such an extent that they decided to initiate mass arrests and instate
martial law. Atatürk and his government decided to bring Turkey’s cul-
tural and intellectual life under their direct control. The independent
organisations from the years of the Committee of Union and Progress,
prior to the foundation of the Turkish Republic years, were banned.
The Türk Ocakları (Turkish Hearth movement), an organisation aim-
ing to spread nationalist, secularist and positivist ideas through pub-
lic education and with a member base of 30.000 divided over 267 na-
tional branches, was banned and replaced by the Halk Evleri (People’s
Houses) and Halk Odaları (People’s Rooms). Zürcher argues that these
institutions would basically perform the same function as the Türk
Ocakları, though under tight control of the CHF’s provincial branches.48
The Türk Kadınlar Birliği (Turkish Women’s Union), founded in 1924
by women of the national resistance movement, was disbanded in 1935
as well. Pressed to do so by the CHF, the official reason was that it had
accomplished its goal for equal rights for women by allowing them to
vote. Next were the freemasons’ lodges, which were closed in the same
year. In the period between 1935 and 1948 freemasonry was banned in
Turkey, though framed rather euphemistically in freemason’s literature
Image 31: Invitation of the Freemasons in Ottoman Turkish, 1928.
as the ‘uyku dönemi’ (sleeping term). The building on Nur-i Ziya Sokak
25 subsequently became used as a Halk Evi as well.49
166 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 167

It is significant here to remark that the freemasons still had a

considerable network within the Turkish state around the time the de-
cision was made to centralize all cultural life in the Halk Evleri. From
the accounts of Ziya Umur, it becomes clear that this may have provided
the brethren of Nur-i Ziya Sokak with a minor advantage in compari-
son to other associations that were banned in 1935. Ziya Umur narrates
the memory of a brother named İbrahim Hoyi. Hoyi remembered that
the district governor Daniş Yurdakul was a brother as well. Yurdakul
informed his fellow brethren when he received the order from Anka-
ra to have the doors of the Grand Lodge’s building locked. His alleged
words to his brethren then were: ‘I can not lock those doors with my
own hands. Take your measures and bring the key to me’. Umur states
that because of this the Grand Lodge was able to donate 12.000 Liras
from its safe to the Himaye-i Etfale (an Association for the Protection
of Children founded by the freemasons), have its documents secured by
some of the brethren and hand the key to Yurdakul. Umur closes the an-
ecdote by stating ‘let us affirm our affection to the memory of our Broth-
er Daniş Yurdakul’.50 Though the political influence of freemasons after
the Young Turk Revolution is a matter of speculation and imagination,
this example shows that the fraternity was able to protect its own inter-
ests through its connections.
Umur describes the measures that were taken by the CHF re-
gime as ‘normal according to the mentality of the time (…) all kinds of
social activities in Turkey were executed through the People’s Houses
by the Republican People’s Party.51 Although the latter statement may
hold essentially true, the implications of this process were that the Par-
ty aimed for and succeeded in acquiring a full domination of the social,
cultural and intellectual life in Turkey, in line with the increasing totali-
tarianism of the Kemalist regime, erasing any kind of free and indepen-
dent civil society and replacing it by what Zürcher defines as a Kemalist
Image 32: Kadıköy Halkevi, 1939.
‘noblesse oblige’.52 Umur furthermore points out that documents from
the Beyoğlu cadaster indicate that despite of the fact that the CHF was
using the building as a People’s House, the Party could not claim own-
ership. Therefore, the building was transferred to the state’s treasury.
This in fact resembles the situation that both the Teutonia club would
risk in the 1970s as well as what would be a point of enduring struggle
for the English High School for Girls until its end. In the end the Grand
168 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 169

Lodge was only able to get the building back through a lawsuit against Selim Ağaoğlu, titled Masonluk Tarihimizde 1965 Olayları: Yarım asır
the state in 1953. The situation of the Grand Lodge’s building in Izmir at sonra bir retroperspektif denemesi (The 1965 Events in our freemason-
the beginning of the 1950s was essentially the same. The Ankara build- ry’s History: a retrospective study after half a century), the 2nd print
ing on the other hand was successfully registered with mediation of the from 2016. The book by Ekemen contains a collection of sources gath-
Ankara Municipality to the property of the ‘Türk Yükseltme Cemiyeti’ ered regarding the events of 1965, whereas Sanver and Ağaoğlu’s book is
(Turkish Society for Elevation) the name of the Grand Lodge at the time as the title suggests more an analytical retrospective. The authors stress
of freemasonry’s reentrance to Turkish community life.53 that the events which are linked to the year 1965 should in fact be con-
Former Grand Master Remzi Sanver and brother Yavuz Selim sidered in the perspective of the longer period between 1950 and 1971.57
Ağaoğlu explain that since the Grand Lodge and the Supreme Council After the forced closure of the Grand Lodge, and the continua-
were two different organizations, and that at least nine masons were tion of the Supreme Council, the Grand Lodge was allowed to contin-
recognized in the 33rd degree, the Supreme Council in fact may consid- ue its work in 1948. Sanver and Ağaoğlu indicate that the relationship
ered to have been active during the sleeping term. Sanver and Ağaoğlu between the Supreme Council and the Grand Lodge reach back to the
note that after the freemasons became active again officially, a part of founding years of both institutions. They indicate, however, that follow-
their archives, that had been stored for safekeeping in a building of the ing the reopening of the Grand Lodge, the Supreme Council put a lot of
Association for the Protection of Animals, was burned. A second part pressure on the Grand Lodge, to which various high-ranking brethren
was burned again in the 1960s and another part was sold to junk dealers, protested.58 At the same time animosity against freemasonry in Turkey
through which a part of the archives made its way to a newspaper.54 started to increase, with MPs from the new DP majority government
On 5 February 1948 seven members of the Supreme Council reg- under Menderes petitioning to have the Grand Lodge closed, due to its
istered the Turkish freemasonry Association anew in the Turkish club ‘foreign ties’.59 Increasing discord within freemasonry in Turkey about
registry. The Grand Lodge would resume its activities in Izmir and An- how to accommodate foreigners accustomed to different rites, as well as
kara soon after. 14 lodges in Turkey would start functioning, seven in the sharpening tensions in the hierarchy between the Supreme Council
Istanbul of which three had been patented by the Supreme Council as and the Grand Lodge created the roots for a rift. An independent Turk-
early as 1939.55 Ziya Umur describes the lawsuit that followed was one ish Grand Lodge was founded and an attempt was made to normalize
executed at a masterful level and that the Grand Lodge owes gratitude relations between the Supreme Council and the Grand Lodge. Ağaoğlu
to its lawyers-brethren. The buildings in Istanbul were returned in and Sanver explain that the situation was further complicated by the
1953, but due to the ill-treatment of the buildings and the necessity of amount of different official masonic organizations that existed in the
repairs the buildings finally became ready for use again in 1959-1960. In fifties.60
1952 a building on Meşrutiyet Caddesi 111 had been bought, which was The discord escalated in 1964 when Süleyman Demirel, promi-
used by the Supreme Council until 1965.56 After that the building would nent member of the Adalet Partisi (Justice Party) and a Brother of an
be left to ‘the other side’, referring to the Freemasons that would adhere Ankara-based lodge, was questioned – ‘accused’ – during a party meet-
to the continental tradition after the schism of 1965. ing by a party member regarding him being a freemason. Süleyman
1965 is a year that features prominently in the collective mem- Demirel flatly denied and stated: ‘I swear to God, I am not a Mason. I am
ory of Turkish freemasonry and inspired at least two books produced a child from a family where one does not sit for breakfast in the morning
by brethren of the Grand Lodge. The first one dates from 1978 and is before having read the Quran’.61 Adding further oil to the fire was the
written by Grand Master Nefiz Ekemen, titled Arşivlerimiz içinde 1965 fact that the Grand Secretary, a Brother from the Lodge where Demirel
olayları (The events of 1965 in our archives). The second one is rather was inaugurated, decided unilaterally to provide Demirel with a docu-
recent and prepared by former Grand Master Remzi Sanver and Yavuz ment stating that he indeed was not a mason. The fact that a prominent
170 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 171

public figure would deny being a freemason, implicitly acknowledging

the criminalization of freemasonry (as well as – through his statement
explicating that he was rather a man of God – that the Grand Lodge was
a Godless organization) caused significant anger among freemasons.
The unilateral acts of the Grand Secretary caused animosity
against the Grand Secretary among the Supreme Council. When the
Grand Secretary ran for the position of Grand Master and was elected,
the Supreme Council tried to annul the result of the elections and have
a Grand Master sympathetic to the Supreme Council elected. The re-
lations between the Grand Lodge and Supreme Council were subse-
quently cut off and a group of freemasons separated from the Grand
Lodge, founding its own Grand Lodge, nowadays known as the Grand
Lodge of Free Masons, which attached itself to the French Grand Ori-
ent. The building where the Supreme Council resided at Meşrutiyet
Caddesi 111 was given to this new Grand Lodge while the Grand Lodge
of Free and Accepted Masons stayed in the buildings at Nur-i Ziya So-
kak. The Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons was reconsecrated
by the Grand Lodge of Scotland in 1965 and acknowledged by the Grand
Lodges of England and Ireland in 1970.62 Beyoğlu from then onwards
would have two Grand Lodges within its borders. Suha Umur explains
that the ‘clandestine’ lodges that would start working under the auspic-
es of the Supreme Council were declared irregular by the Grand Lodge
of Free and Accepted Masons, which forbade its members to attend the
meetings of the irregular Grand Lodge.63 The masons connected to the
Supreme Council reorganized the organization and registered it as the
‘Fikir ve Kültür Derneği’ (Association for Ideas and Culture), renting a
new office around the Sıraselviler Caddesi.
Meanwhile, in 1967 the Grand Lodge would start expanding its
real estate portfolio on the street, starting with number 21, where the
room of the Grand Master, the Grand Secretary and the meeting room
for the Senior Wardens was.64 Umur expressed the hope to also acquire
an empty plot on number 23, which would help using the buildings of
the Grand Lodge in a more ‘rational’ fashion. He expresses not being
able to acquire the property at number 27 as a huge loss. In 1975 the
plot of number 19, with an old, dilapidated house on it was bought. At
the time of Umur’s writing it housed the offices of the Grand Secretary Image 33: Street sign at Nur-i Ziya Sokak, 2018.
and the Grand Lodge’s research lodge Mimar Sinan.65 The house was
172 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 173

demolished and a new building was constructed by the Grand Lodge. measured by its width, but by the men living alongside it’.70 Within that
A plaque remembering Franz Liszt’s stay there on the invitation of the context he considers Nur-i Ziya Sokak – ‘our street’ – as one of the most
Commendinger family had already been attached to the old building. important ones. ‘The freemasons have given new meaning to this street
Umur refers to a letter by Çelik Gülersoy, at the time of Umur’s writ- and will continue to do so’, he argues, closing by stating that the street is
ing head of the Turing Automobile Club, in which Gülersoy stated that now as the freemason’s Nur-i Ziya Sokak, rather than the Polonya Sokak
the owners at the time, an Italian Levantine family, had objected against or the street of the French embassy.
the plaque. Their argument was that the building with a plaque would In an interview I asked former Grand Master Remzi Sanver to
be ranked as a historical building and thus would decrease its market comment on some of the reasons for the Grand Lodge to stay in Beyoğlu.
value. In the end, however, Umur recounts that the owners could not At first he seemed unsure about the ties of the Grand Lodge with its en-
object any more following the pompous ceremony of Reşit Safvet Atabi- virons, particularly in the context of Beyoğlu as a gathering of different
nen, head of Turing at the time, and the plaque was attached to the door. communities:
The plaque would mysteriously disappear after a few months, but the
new building of the freemasons would have one again up until this day.66 ‘I understand when you look from the point of view of a social
It is worth noting that following the first military coup in Tur- scientist you can interpret freemasonry as a club or as an NGO
key in 1960, the freemasons realized they might find themselves in a or whatever, however this is not how freemasonry defines itself.
hazardous situation. It was subsequently decided to move the centre of For freemasonry being a club is not something… it’s not a com-
activity away from Ankara and to Istanbul. In a meeting from 26 June pliment I would say. It really sees itself as an ancient, esoteric
1960 it was decided that in order to be able to work in peace and not tradition which is about individuals working on themselves.
be affected by any kind of influence to move the Grand Lodge’s centre. It’s an internal transformation, with the tradition of symbols.
The constitution of the Grand Lodge would therefore be amended from In that sense, it’s not really an institution open to interacting
the ‘centre of Republican Government’ to ‘Istanbul’. The authors of the with its environment. Now, in more recent times, masonic or-
suggested amendment state that Istanbul holds a large community of ganizations – including the Grand Lodge of Turkey – they have
brethren, is known to the world for it, while the move would be in line slightly more interaction with their environment. But particu-
with the established and old tradition of freemasonry in Turkey.67 larly when you look at the fifties, sixties and seventies, really…
From the perspective of ownership of place, Umur makes an interesting Of course the Grand Lodge’s building is there, but it’s simply
statement in his conclusion. He argues that the street is their street. The physical. It should be somewhere and it’s there, but it’s not re-
street has been given to the freemasons as a ‘safety deposit box of his- ally an institution which was interacting with its surroundings.
tory’ (tarihin […] bir emaneti gibi) and the Grand Lodge has the duty to (…) The choice of Beyoğlu is not pure coincidence. But after that
protect it.68 He explicitly mentions the street as ‘our street’ and pushes it has not really been an institution which was interacting with
for efforts to acquire more buildings on the street. This appears to ema- its environment. Even still, I can’t say that we really have par-
nate from an effort to be able to use the buildings that were already in ticular ties with the Beyoğlu environment. (…) If you ask me to-
the Grand Lodge’s possession in ‘a more rational way’, but also as a con- day, for example, during my Grandmastership, which is not that
scious effort to claim greater ownership of the street. Umur wrote his long ago, it was between 2010 and 2013: ‘Did you have any par-
article in the 1980s and he seems clearly inspired by Said Duhani’s work ticular relationship with Beyoğlu?’ Well, of course the mayor of
as he explicitly refers to one of his books, in which Duhani according Beyoğ lu is a friend, we have relations with him. Being a big in-
to Umur portrayed Beyoğlu as the most cosmopolitan city centre in the stitution there.’71
world.69 He writes: ‘in those days (…) the importance of a street was not
174 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 175

Mr Sanver’s hesitance to consider the significance of the area to the Mr Sanver’s explanation regarding the whereabouts of the Grand Lodge
Grand Lodge and consider the brethren’s processes of place-making in Istanbul points to three important issues. Firstly, from his narrative
seems to stem primarily from the understanding of freemasonry as a it becomes clear that the wider political climate in twentieth- and twen-
unique sort of institution, entirely different from other communal in- ty-first-century Turkey, as well as more specifically attitudes towards
stitutions in the area. When he elaborated about the significance of the freemasonry, ensured that freemasons remained in Beyoğlu, long after
area for the Grand Lodge and whether or not the Grand Lodge would be their roots had been settled there in the twilight of the Ottoman Empire.
able to easily leave its premises in a way that happened in the case of the The socio-cultural diversity of the district ensured that freemasonry
Büyük Kulüp he, however, nuanced his position: could probably operate more easily than it would in an area with a more
homogeneous social composition. Secondly, apart from considerations
‘Yes, what is understood as investment in a capitalistic sense, of access and economic concerns, what Mr Sanver defines as ‘sentimen-
is not the same for the Grand Lodge. Their things are much tal reasons’ hint at a claiming of belonging to place, relating those same
more, I would say, sentimental. (…) It’s true that we continue places to ritual and tradition, quite similar to the opinions expressed by
to invest in Beyoğlu. For example I had this experience as the Ziya Umur in his writings. Thirdly, Mr Sanver’s statements implicate
Grand Master, when we were discussing with the brethren how what is often overlooked in considerations of Beyoğlu’s alleged cosmo-
we should develop a strategy of buildings for the forthcoming politanism, namely that there is an enduring ‘cosmopolitan quality’ or,
10, 20, 50 years. I am speaking about the real future. You re- more specifically, an enduring perception of the persistence of diver-
ally see this very sentimental reaction, which I deeply respect sity in Beyoğlu. The representation of Beyoğlu as a place of alterity and
and even appreciate. (…) people say we should stay – because marginality that belongs to all and none (as well as its past and pres-
there were options; you can sell those buildings and go to Lev- ent as a place of actually-existing diversity) means that it has also been
ent business district [an up-scale business district to the north an appealing location for groups which preferred a certain degree of
of Beyoğlu, that was founded as a residential area from the late anonimity. This is one of the reasons that made it easier for freemasons
1940s onwards] and whatever. The general opinion is: no, peo- to gather and remain in the area where all kinds of communities and
ple are happy to be there. Look, even the street is called Nur-i classes could move around with relative freedom. It does not seem to be
Ziya. In an institution of tradition like freemasonry being in a the case that these groups felt necessarily feeling safe or connected, but
modern building is not really the meritor. Being in a building the fact that so many groups laid claim to this space with their physical
where your predecessors were initiated as well, in the same presence resulted in an area defined by a diverse socio-cultural make-
temples, this gives a feeling of attachment. (…) You can’t say up. In a district to which nobody could lay definitive claim, freemasonry
never, but I don’t think it will be an easy decision ever if it’s tak- could operate as it had in the past.
en to move from Beyoğlu to Levent or anywhere. (…) Of course
I can also say that it’s more comfortable for freemasonry to be
in a cosmopolitan neighbourhood. Because the perception of
freemasonry is not always very positive, least to say. Instead of
being in more homogeneous neighbourhoods, being in hetero-
geneous neighbourhoods where diversity is more a principal
characteristic... freemasonry would feel more comfortable in
such neighbourhoods. I think Beyoğlu is a very good example
of such a place.’72
176 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 177

ENDNOTES Koloğlu, Cumhuriyet Döneminde Masonlar (İstanbul: Pozitif, 2003).

19 Soysal, Türkiye ve Dünyada Masonluk. Interestingly, İlhami Soysal has included
1 The Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, ‘Notes for Visitors’, [Link] an idiosyncratic collection of copies from his source material, ranging from the regis-
[Link]/web/ en_index.html, accessed 29 December 2018. tration form of former president Süleyman Demirel’s contested registry in the Grand
2 Jan Snoek, ‘Researching Freemasonry: Where Are We?’, Journal for Research into Lodge’s member lists, to mourning cards for deceased Grand Masters and invitations
Freemasonry and Fraternalism, Vol. 1:2 (2010) 233-234. in Turkish, Greek and French for lodge meetings.
3 Snoek, ‘Researching Freemasonry’, 228. 20 Remzi Sanver and Yavuz Selim Ağaoğlu, 1965 Olayları: Yarım Asır Sonra bir Ret-
4 Frank Huisman, Joris Vandendriessche and Kaat Wils, ‘Introduction: Blurring roperspektif Denemesi (2nd ed.: İstanbul: Hür ve Kabul Edilmiş Masonlar [etc.], 2016)
Boundaries: Towards a Medical History of the Twentieth Century’, BMGN – Low 141.
Countries Historical Review, Vol. 132:1 (2017) 3-5. 21 Paul Dumont, ‘La Turquie dans les archives du Grand Orient de France: les loges
5 Pierre-Yves Beaurepaire, ‘Researching Freemasonry in the Twenty-first Century: maçonniques d’obédience française a Istanbul du milieu du XIXe siècle a la veille de
Opportunities and Challenges’, Journal for Research into Freemasonry and Fraternal- la première guerre mondiale’, Loges maconiqques a Istanbul, in: Jean-Louis Bacqué-
ism, Vol. 1:2 (2010) 249-250. Grammont (ed.), Économie et sociétés dans l’empire ottoman: ( fin du XVIIIe - début du
6 John Hamill, The Craft: a History of English freemasonry (Wellingborough: Cruci- XXe siècle); actes du colloque de Strasbourg (1er - 5 juillet 1980) (Paris: Ed. du CNRS,
ble, 1986). Hamill argues that much of the evidence brought up to back the existing 1983) 173.
theory on the origins of Freemasonry was speculative and preconceived, i.e. working 22 Selim Deringil, ‘‘There Is No Compulsion in Religion’: On Conversion and Apostasy
backwards from the theory towards the evidence, resulting in speculation and over- in the Late Ottoman Empire: 1839–1856’, Comparative Studies in Society and History,
interpretation. Vol. 42:3 (2000) 556.
7 Henrik Bogdan and Jan Snoek, ‘Introduction’, in: Jan Snoek and Henrik Bogdan 23 Erik-Jan Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History (new ed.: London: I.B. Tauris, 2004)
(eds), Handbook of Freemasonry (Leiden: Brill, 2014) 1. Bogdan and Snoek mention a 50-70.
few examples which have obvious roots in Christian history and the Bible. 24 Deringil, ‘‘There is no Compulsion in Religion’’, 556.
8 Bogdan and Snoek, ‘Introduction’, 2. 25 Dumont, ‘Freemasonry in Turkey’, 482-483.
9 Snoek, ‘Researching Freemasonry: Where Are We?’, 233-234. 26 Ibidem, 484.
10 Jan Snoek and Henrik Bogdan, ‘The History of Freemasonry: An Overview’, in: Jan 27 Ibidem.
Snoek and Henrik Bogdan (eds), Handbook of Freemasonry (Leiden: Brill, 2014) 24. 28 Dumont, ‘Freemasonry in Turkey’, 485; Şükrü Hanıoğlu, The Young Turks in Op-
11 Thierry Zarcone, ‘Freemasonry and Islam’, in: Jan Snoek and Henrik Bogdan (eds), position (New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) 33-40.
Handbook of Freemasonry (Leiden: Brill, 2014) 233. 29 Hanıoğlu, The Young Turks in Opposition, 35.
12 Snoek and Bogdan, The History of Freemasonry: An Overview’, 25. 30 Hanıoğlu, ‘Notes on the Young Turks and the Freemasons’, 186-197.
13 Zarcone, ‘Freemasonry and Islam’, 234. 31 Zarcone, ‘fFeemasonry and Islam’, 238-239.
14 Ibidem. 32 Ibidem.
15 Snoek and Bogdan, The History of Freemasonry: An Overview’, 25-26. 33 Dumont, ‘Freemasonry in Turkey’, 490.
16 Şükrü Hanıoğlu, ‘Notes on the Young Turks and the Freemasons, 1875-1908’, Mid- 34 Fikret Çeltikçi, Hür Masonluk Tarihinden Notlar (İstanbul: Yenilik Basımevi, 1982)
dle Eastern Studies, Vol. 25:2 (1989) 188. More recently, Emanuela Locci has published, 302-306.
among other things, on Freemasonry in Egypt, Tunisia, Malta and the connections be- 35 Hanıoğlu, The Young Turks in Opposition, 37.
tween Italian and Ottoman Freemasonry: Emanuela Locci, Il cammino di Hiram. La 36 Suha Umur, ‘İstanbul’da Masonların Toplantı Yerleri’, Şakul Gibi: Masonlar İçin
massoneria dall’Europa all’Impero Ottomano (Foggia: Bastogi Editrice Italiana, 2013). Dergi, Vol. 1:1 (1988) 14. There are three degrees in the Scottish Rite of freemason-
See also Ozan Arslan, Çınar Özen, ‘The Rebirth of the Ottoman Committee of Union ry: entered apprentice, fellowcraft and master mason (respectively Çırak, Kalfa and
and Progress in Macedonia through the Italian freemasonry’, Oriente Moderno, Vol. Üstat Mason in Turkish). Cumhuriyet Arşivleri, 010-09-95-293-2-102 ‘Anayasası İhlal
24:1 (2005) 93-115. Davası: Muzaffer Kurbanoğlu’nun makamından alınan Mason Derneği’nin toplantı ve
17 See for instance: Paul Dumont, ‘Freemasonry in Turkey: A by-product of Western davetiyeleri’.
penetration’, European Review, Vol. 13:3 (2005) 481–493; Thierry Zarcone, Secret et 37 Umur, ‘İstanbul’da Masonların Toplantı Yerleri’, 14. Umur argues that it was loca-
Sociétés secrètes en Islam (Paris: Archè, 2002). ted somewhere in between the Kalyoncu Kulluğu Caddesi and the Armenian Üç Ho-
18 İlhami Soysal, Türkiye ve Dünyada Masonluk (İstanbul: Der Yayınları, 1978); Cel- ran Sokak. A street is indeed shown as Çiçek Sokak in Charles Edouard Goad’s insu-
il Layiktez, Türkiye’de Masonluk Tarihi (İstanbul: Yenilik Basımevi, 1999); Orhan rance maps from 1905 and lies between the Kalyoncu Kulluğu Caddesi (Rue Kaliondji
178 Building Beyoğlu Free and Accepted Masons 179

Koulouk, the part of which is nowadays the Kamer Hatun Caddesi) and the Nevizade 68 Umur, ‘Nur-u Ziya Sokağı’, 16.
Sokak (which on Goad’s maps is written as Rue Ermeni Kilissé). 69 Umur refers to Duhani’s Vielles Gens Vieilles Demeures: Topograhie sociale de
38 Umur, ‘İstanbul’da Masonların Toplantı Yerleri’, 14. Beyoğlu au XIXième siècle (Istanbul: Touring et Automobile Club de Turquie, 1947),
39 Ibidem. which was translated to Turkish in the early eighties: Said N. Duhani, Ahmet. Par-
40 Hanıoğlu, The Young Turks in Opposition, 41; Dumont, ‘freemasonry in Turkey’, man, and Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu, Eski insanlar eski evler : XIX. yüzyilda
489. Beyoglu’nun sosyal topografisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu, 1984).
41 Elie Kedourie, ‘Young Turks, freemasons and Jews’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 7:1 70 Umur, ‘Nur-u Ziya Sokağı’, 16.
(1971) 89-104. 71 Remzi Sanver, interview by the author, 16 January 2017, Bilgi University Santral
42 Kedourie, ‘Young Turks, Feemasons and Jews’, 92-98. Kampüsü, Eyüp, İstanbul.
43 Ibidem, 103. 72 Remzi Sanver, interview by the author, 16 January 2017, Bilgi University Santral
44 Dumont, ‘Feemasonry in Turkey’, 490. Kampüsü, Eyüp, İstanbul.
45 Dumont, ‘Freemasonry in Turkey’, 488-491’; Uğur Üngör, The Making of Modern
Turkey (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 83-85.
46 Ziya Umur, ‘Nur-u Ziya Sokağı’, in: Ziya Umur, Masonluk Hakkında Konuşmalar
(1951-1989) (İstanbul: Mimar Sinan Yayınları, 1992) 4-16.
47 Tunç Sanad, ‘Nur-u Ziya Sokağı’, Tesviye, Vol. 11:57 (2003) 16-17.
48 Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History, 177-181.
49 Umur, ‘Nur-u Ziya Sokağı’, 7.
50 Ibidem, 6-7.
51 Ibidem.
52 Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History, 181.
53 Umur, ‘Nur-u Ziya Sokağı’, 7-9.
54 Sanver and Ağaoğlu, 1965 Olayları, 139-141. It is not unthinkable that journalists
like İlhami Soysal also acquired some of his source material through this channel.
55 Çeltikçi, Hür Masonluk Tarihinden Notlar, 334-335. The Lodges in Istanbul are:
İdeal, Kültür, Ülkü, Kardeşlik, Hürriyet, Sevgi and Atlas. İdeal, Kültür and Ülkü were
patented in 1939, the others in 1948.
56 Umur, ‘Nur-u Ziya Sokağı’, 8-9; Yaşar Aysev, ‘Geçmişten Geleceğe Türk Masonluğu’,
Yakacık Muhterem Locası 1998-2001 Çalışmaları, Vol. 3 (2001) 154-155.
57 Nefiz Ekemen, Arşivlerimiz içinde 1965 olayları (İstanbul: Yenilik Basımevi, 1978);
Remzi Sanver and Yavuz Selim Ağaoğlu, 1965 Olayları: Yarım Asır Sonra bir Retroper-
spektif Denemesi (2nd ed.: İstanbul: Hür ve Kabul Edilmiş Masonlar [etc.], 2016) 9-12.
58 Sanver and Ağaoğlu, 1965 Olayları, 156.
59 Ibidem, 159.
60 Ibidem, 176-277.
61 Ibidem, 256.
62 Çeltikçi, Hür Masonluk Tarihinden Notlar, 418-423.
63 Umur, ‘İstanbul’da Masonların Toplantı Yerleri’, 14.
64 Umur, ‘Nur-u Ziya Sokağı’, 9. Senior Warden - Büyük Görevli.
65 Grand Lodges may hold a research lodge following the Quator Coronati, which ded-
icates itself to ‘scientific’ research, rather than speculative Masonic research. Snoek,
‘Researching Freemasonry’, 231-232.
66 Umur, Nur-U Ziya Sokağı’, 10-12.
67 Çeltikçi, Hür Masonluk Tarihinden Notlar, 412-417.