European Review, Vol. 13, No. 3, 481`493 (2005) © Academia Europaea,
Printed in the United Kingdom
Freemasonry in Turkey: a by-product
of Western penetration

P A U L DUMONT

De´partement d’e´tudes turques, Universite´ Marc Bloch, 67000
Strasbourg,
France. E-mail: pdumont@umb.u-strasbg.fr

Towards the middle of the nineteenth century, various European Masonic
obediences set up lodges throughout the Ottoman empire, many in
Istanbul, while another important centre was Smyrna. Freemasons were
also active in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Cyprus and Macedonia. Lodges
were established in the main political, economic and cultural centres
of the Empire. There was a strong parallelism between the Ottoman
Masonic geography and that of European colonial expansion. It is easy
to delineate the social and ethnic structure of lodges, but we know
less about what was going on behind the walls of Masonic temples. For
sure, Ottoman Freemasons, like their brethren in other parts of the
world, when not busy with `table works’ or ceremonies, dedicated
themselves to philanthropic activities. A considerable part of the
annual income of the lodges was used to finance various charitable
works (assistance to orphans, to brethren in distress ¦) and to
fund educational institutions. The lodges were also places for the
discussion and exchange of ideas about current themes: socialism,
feminism, venereal diseases, progress of science, etc. Some mingled
with politics, displaying a highly nationalistic discourse. The
politicization of Ottoman/Turkish freemasonry climaxed during the
years of the Young Turk revolution (1908`1914), when an autochthonous
obedience was created. One of the goals of the new organization,
coldly received by most European freemasonries, was to rid the Ottoman
Empire of foreign penetration. After the proclamation of the Turkish
Republic in 1923, this national freemasonry continued to flourish,
except for 13 years between 1935 and 1948 when Masonic activity was
banned.

A document preserved in the public library of Arles mentions the
existence in Istanbul, at the very beginning of the eighteenth
century, of a section of an Order called `Ordre de la Grappe’, an
association organized in the South of France and seemingly dedicated
to the celebration of good food and good wine. But the Istanbul
section of the `Ordre de la Grappe’ was not merely an association of
jolly companions. It pursued also esoteric objectives and
consequently, seems to have been one of the earliest organizations of
a Masonic character in the Ottoman Empire.1,2

Later, other groups are heard of from time to time; however, as far as
can be deduced from the scarce sources at our disposal, the groups in
question were isolated endeavours and did not live long. For instance,
the lodge created in Smyrna under the name of `Nations
Re´unies’ affiliated to the Great Lodge of Marseilles remained
active only for a few months and in 1819 was forced to request a new
foundation act, which was of no use and its members had to interrupt
their work again some time later.3

It is only towards the middle of the nineteenth century, some 15 years
after the proclamation of the 1839 Reform Edict, that freemasonry
began to be really successful in the Ottoman Empire.4 Under the reigns
of sultans Abdulmedjid (1839`1861), Abdulaziz (1861`1876) and
Abdulhamid (1876`1909), various European Masonic organizations created
dozens of lodges throughout the country.

This was related to the new receptiveness of western influence,
including economic penetration and political influence, receptiveness
to ideas prevailing in Europe, and to individuals coming from the
West. Thousands of European adventurers flocked to the Ottoman
eldorado from the 1850s onwards, without whom Ottoman freemasonry
would have developed on a much smaller scale.

Another factor is the wide range of guarantees granted to Ottoman
subjects as well as to foreigners in following the Imperial edict of
1856. From then on, Ottomans and, in particular, `non-Muslim subjects’
of the sultan, felt themselves much less dominated by an arbitrary
power and could make plans, such as the creation of philanthropic
associations, without fear of legal proceedings and punishment. Up to
a point, Ottoman freemasonry of the 1850s and 1860s can also be
considered as a by-product of the Crimean war. Indeed, British and
French soldiers that came to fight in the East seem to have largely
contributed to the introduction of Masonic lodges in this part of the
world.

The Masonic network
Many of the lodges were situated in Istanbul. Towards the end of the
1860s, there were about 15 lodges in the Imperial capital, all
connected to various European obediences. Four were dependent on the
Great Lodge of England, four others on the Grand Orient de France, at
least five on the Grande Oriente of Italy,5 one on the German Great
Lodge of Hamburg, one on the Great Lodge of Ireland, and one or two on
the Meghali Anatoli of Greece.6

Freemasonry in Turkey 483
Another important Masonic centre was the city of Smyrna. At the time
of the French revolution, this important commercial city had witnessed
the creation of a lodge bearing the significant name of `Nations
Re´unies’.7 Under the reign of sultan Abdulaziz, it sheltered
at least six lodges: the `Stella Ionia’, set up in 1864 and attached
to the Italian Grande Oriente; the `Me´le`s’, which had been
founded in 1868 under the aegis of the Grand Orient de France;8 one
`Great Provincial Lodge’ created in 1865 and connected to British
freemasonry;9 and three more Italian lodges, the `Fenice’, the
`Orkhanie´’ and the `Armenak’, set up respectively in 1867,
1668 and 1872.10

A third important seat of Masonic activity was Egypt. The construction
of the Suez Canal and other major economic projects had driven several
thousand Europeans to settle in this country. As a result, one could
find at least six workshops of the Grande Loge de France in
Alexandria, Ismailia, Port-Said and Cairo, already in the 1860, not
counting lodges linked to other European obediences. A new growth of
Masonic fever occurred in this part of the Ottoman lands at the end of
the 1880s, when Egypt came under British administration.11

Three centres of lesser importance were Cyprus, where several lodges
were set up in the years that followed the British occupation of the
island, the Syrian-Lebanese centre, especially Beirut, where the
French backed the foundation of various Masonic workshops as from the
middle of the 1860s, and the Macedonian centre in Salonika. Here, a
lodge called `l’Amitie´’ existed for some time in the years of
the Napoleonic expansion (before 1804); in addition, the Italian
Grande Oriente set up in 1864 the workshop `Macedonia’ which evolved
into, many years later, the `Macedonia Risorta’, famous for its role
in the preparation of the Young Turk Revolution. By the beginning of
the twentieth century, Salonika, together with cities of lesser
importance such as Cavalla and Janina, listed more than ten lodges
linked to the Italian Grande Oriente, the French Grand Orient and
Grande Loge, the Greek Meghali Anatoli, the Spanish Grande Oriente,
the Rumanian Loja Nationala and the Droit Humain, an international
order created by Maria Deraismes and open to both genders.12

Quite logically, lodges were established in the main political and
economic centres of the Empire. These cities had close links with
Europe, not only commercially but also culturally. We can note a
strong parallelism between these Masonic activities in the Empire and
European imperialism and that lodges were most numerous in regions
most open to Western penetration (Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Cyprus), or
in places characterized by their political instability (Macedonia).

Ethnic and social structure of lodges

The existing enrolment lists allows us to distinguish four types of
Masonic workshops from the point of view of their membership:

(a) Lodges only for (with very few exceptions) Europeans. For example,
the `Etoile du Bosphore’, a French lodge set up in Istanbul in 1858.

Nearly all the brethren it comprised were French artisans who had
recently settled in the Ottoman capital, attracted there by a market
widely open to Western artefacts and ways of life.

(b) `National’ lodges, comprising members belonging to a single
ethnic/religious component of the Ottoman population. Three of the
`Italian’ lodges of Smyrna represent good examples of this variety:
the `Fenice’ was reserved for Greeks; the brethren of the
`Orkhanie´’ were all Turks; and the `Armenak’ was, as its name
indicated, exclusively Armenian.13

(c) Mixed lodges, characterized by a varied spectrum of Ottoman
non-Muslims, occasionally alongside a couple of European brethren and
a few Turks. An example was the `Veritas’ of Salonika, founded in
1904. This workshop aimed first at a Jewish audience, but, by 1908, it
comprised also four Greeks, two Armenians and five Muslims, all of
them belonging probably to the deunmeh community (Jewish converts to
Islam).14

(d) Mixed lodges comprising a large proportion of Muslim Turks, as
well as Egyptians and Persians. In the 1860s, at least three lodges in
Istanbul systematically recruited Muslim brethren. The Bulwer Lodge,
set up by Henry Bulwer, ambassador of Great Britain, included `
together with the usual non-Muslim brethren, Muslim `dervishes’ and
high officials of the Ottoman state.15 In the same way, the `Union
d’Orient’ in 1869, under the leadership of Louis Amiable, a brilliant
representative of French freemasonry, had a membership of 143
brethren, 53 of whom were high ranking Muslims.16 The Greek banker
Cleanthi Scalieri’s lodge `I Proodos’ (Progress) included nearly 20
important names of the Ottoman elite, the most renowned being Mustafa
Fazil, a member of the Egyptian khedivial family, the Imperial Prince
Murad, and the prolific writer Namik Kemal.17

The recruitment of Muslims seems to have been problematic. Most
Muslims were highly hostile to freemasonry. Such was the case of Ethem
Pertev Pasha (1824`1871), who served for some time as Governor of
Kastamonu and left Freemasonry in Turkey 485 behind him a
HabnaË?me, one of the numerous anti-Masonic pamphlets. It
offered a good compendium of anti-Masonic thought, maintained that
Islam and freemasonry were incompatible and that the sole target of
Freemasons was to convert Muslims to Christianity.18

The difficulty that Freemasons experienced in working among Muslims
was underlined by Hyde Clarke, who was, in the 1860s, Worshipful
Master of the Great Provincial Lodge of Turkey. In a speech delivered
in December 1865 to the brethren of Smyrna, he stressed bluntly:

Here it must never be forgotten that we are regarded by the mob, of
high and low, with hatred, and by the charitable and intelligent with
suspicion
(¦). Our learned Bro. Brown, in a recent correspondence, justly
remarked that Masonry is not received as yet with favour among
Musulmans in this country and the more ignorant consider it quite
atheistic in its principles
(¦) Nothing can be worse founded, and nothing more unjust that the
prejudices of ignorant Musulmans, because as the more learned and the
more pious know, there is a very intimate association in principle,
and a close resemblance in practice between Masons and the more
spiritualistic and devout Musulmans.19

Whatever their ethnic/religious cocktail, most of the lodges looked
very much alike in their social profile. Usually, the tune was set by
a rather large group of traders and bankers who formed the basic core
of the membership.

Practically all
the lodges also comprised a varied set of professionals: doctors,
pharmacists, lawyers, journalists, writers and so on. European
brethren were often craftsmen, army officers and diplomats. Diplomats
generally played a major role in the foundation of lodges; thus, Lord
Rading and Lord Henry Bulwer, both of them British ambassadors to the
Sublime Porte, are considered originators of the Masonic trend in the
Ottoman Empire and the Turkish anti-Masonic circles still present them
as mainly responsible for Ottoman decay.20 Similarly, the ambassador
Caracciola di Bella contributed towards the creation of the `Italia’,
probably the first Italian workshop in Istanbul.21,22

The social texture displayed in lodges comprising Muslims, is highly
impressive. This `faith’ not only managed to attract a large number of
Muslim clerics and `dervishes’, but also recruited among top level
officers and members of the civilian ruling class. For instance, the
Grand vizier Mustafa Reshid Pasha, one of the main initiators of the
Ottoman reform movement, had been initiated into freemasonry by Lord
Rading. He is the forerunner of a long line of Ottoman high officials,
army pashas and statesmen who flirted with freemasonry, regardless of
popular prejudices against this practice. Practically all the leading
figures of the Committee Union and Progress during the years of the
Young Turk revolution (1908`1914) indulged in freemasonry.

What is going on behind the door of the workshop?
First of all, there is no doubt that quite a number of Ottoman lodges
attached great importance to what French Freemasons used to call
`travaux de table’ (table works), i.e. to lavish banquets, with a lot
of drinking, convened in the trail of Masonic ceremonies. The
pre-Masonic `Order of the Grape’ seems to have been devoted to a
celebration of wine, as emerged from the action brought against it
before the cadi of Istanbul, during which the `prior’ of the Order
considered it necessary to declare that `Wine is a primary attribute
of Muslim bliss’.23 Similarly, in the 1860s, the members of the
British lodges of Istanbul, were inclined towards eating and drinking;
A. Schinas, a high-ranking Freemason of the Ottoman capital, mentions
in one of his letters this tendency to hedonism, doing nothing to hide
his disapproval (1863):
Some years ago, an industrialist opened here a cafe´,
organizing in it, during the winter season, public balls, something
like the `Chaumie`re’ of former days in Paris, or even worse. He also
set up there a lodge, which I refrained from visiting though I was
invited several times. (¦) Later on, the British residing in
Constantinople founded in a restaurant-confectioners a lodge called
the `Oriental’; in accordance with their custom, before and after
workshop meetings, a lot of gin and cognac was drunk ¦’24

One can easily imagine that, in Istanbul, where the possibilities of
entertainment were scarce, while the spirit of conviviality was highly
developed, this kind of `table works’ contributed to the success of
freemasonry.

It is probable that these banquets reminded a certain number of Muslim
Freemasons of the symbolic meal that followed the ceremonies of some
heterodox religious groups, in particular those of the Bektashis or,
their popular variant, the Alevis. Indeed, such ceremonies often
involved consumption of alcoholic beverages, one of the virtues of
which was to facilitate the contemplation of God.

Other lodges preferred to devote their sittings to activities of a
spiritual character, and specifically to ceremonies of
initiation. With regard to Muslim recruits, one of the problems that
could arise at these ceremonies was the part that was reserved for
Christian symbolism (for instance on the Bible and the Gospel).

One of the major charges brought against freemasonry by Ethem Pertev
Pasha in HabnaË?me, was that it was another face of Christian
crusades; however, several

workshops, aiming at a Muslim clientele, introduced into their
initiation procedure the oath on the Koran, together with one on the
Torah and the Gospel.

Some of them also found it useful to translate into Turkish the
Masonic rituals. It became commonplace in Ottoman masonry to stress
the similarities between the Masonic rite and the modus operandi of
various Muslim religious orders, especially that of Bektashis; a
number of the persons presented as `dervishes’ in the membership

Freemasonry in Turkey 487
boards of the lodges were either Bektashis or Zealots inclined to
heterodox practices.

Like Freemasonries in other parts of the world, Ottoman Freemasonry,
when not busy with `table works’ or ceremonies, dedicated itself to
philanthropic activities. A considerable part of the annual income of
the lodges was used to finance various charitable works (assistance to
orphans, to brethren in distress, etc) and to fund educational
institutions, and, when required in the case of fire, earthquake, or
famine, lodges went to the rescue. It often happened that they
bestowed their charity through institutions that externally did not
present Masonic features, such as for instance a society named `l’Amie
du Travail’ (Friend of Workers), set up under the reign of sultan
Abdulaziz by the Greek Freemasons of Istanbul, with the help of the
French Grand Orient.25

The lodges were also places for discussion and exchange of ideas,
probably on contemporary questions such as socialism, feminism,
venereal diseases and the progress of science. Workshops like the
`Italia’ or the `Germania’, expressed enthusiasm for Italy and
Germany, two newborn states endowed with intense colonial
ambitions. The members of the lodge `Ser’ (a word meaning `love’ in
Armenian), were Armenians and so involved in local politics that the
lodge had to close down in 1894 when the Ottoman government decided to
suppress Armenian activism.26

However, this nationalistic trend coexisted, in most of the workshops,
with a typically Masonic discourse exalting the fraternal cohabitation
of religions and nations. As early as 1865, Hyde Clarke gives the
pitch:
¦Masonry will here help to unite the various nations, races and
sects on a common basis of divine worship, charity, virtue and above
all brotherly love carrying out here a great work as it does in
India. We must not, as masons, be under the suspicion of having any
connections with politics or be offensive to any man’s religious
convictions, nay, we must be careful of offending the social
prejudices of those whom we live among.

We offer no man a new religion, nor do we interfere with his own. The
only progress we are concerned in is the progress not of our own
brothers only but of all mankind in true religion, in virtue and in
learning. Masonry discountenances anarchy, atheism, irreligion and
ignorance. Masonry strengthens family ties, improves social relations,
promotes patriotism at home and the fraternity of nations, peace,
charity and good will.27

When they were not busy with plans of national emancipation, Ottoman
Freemasons, whatever their creed or ethnic affiliation, spread dreams
of universal brotherhood.

Contrary to Hyde Clark, however, not all of them viewed `divine
worship’ as an intangible pillar of Masonic ideal. By the end of the
1860s, most of the lodges connected to the Grand Orient de France
expressed positivist and anti-theist orientations.

Freemasonry and politics
In his speech, Hyde Clarke put the stress on what was, at the time, a
Masonic commonplace: `We must not, as masons, be under the suspicion
of having any connections with politics’. But in practice, things were
quite different. Most of the lodges established in the Ottoman Empire
expressed political aims, and especially defending the interests of
European powers. Thus, `l’Etoile du Bosphore’ and `l’Union d’Orient’
were forceful advocates of the French policy and finance, doing at the
same time their best to push forward `French ideas’; Italian, British
and German workshops acted in the same way. Feelings of Masonic
brotherhood did not prevent lodges from fiercely competing with each
other in recruiting high-ranking Ottoman officials. By the time of the
Tanzimat reforms, the British had managed to enrol the grand vizier
Mustafa Reshid Pasha.

A few decades later, the French went one better by recruiting, Prince
Murad, a member of the imperial family destined to be the next sultan.

Under the reigns of Abdulaziz and Abdulhamid, the relationship between
Freemasonry and politics only rarely applied outside the lodges. It
was only after the Young Turk Revolution (1908) that Ottoman
Freemasons started to feel self-confident enough to display publicly
their political opinions; thus, in the days which followed the
overthrow of the Hamidian regime, the inhabitants of Salonica had the
possibility to see, much to their surprise, Freemasons of all creeds
marching side by side through the streets of the city under unfurled
flags. The Worshipful Master of the `Macedonia Risorta’ seized this
opportunity to indicate, in a harangue addressed to the population,
that freemasonry, and more specifically his own lodge, had played a
crucial role in the organization of the revolution.

There was an ever-growing interest in the problems the Young Turk
regime had to cope with. As early as October 1908, the `Veritas’ lodge
of Salonica issued a condemnation of the Bulgarian declaration of
independence and the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina by the Austrian
Empire. The conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Italy in 1911, the
Balkan Wars in 1912`1913, the Ottoman declaration of war in 1914,
inspired all sorts of Masonic initiatives, public lectures, fund
raising for the army, appeals directed to governments or to
international freemasonry. Especially during the war with Italy, the
lodges with an Italian connection such as the `Macedonia Risorta’
could not but feel very uneasy, timidly approaching the central
administration of their obedience in Rome, the so called `Palazzo
Guistiniani’, in order to obtain its mediation between the
belligerents.28

A few years later, when the allied forces occupied Istanbul at the end
of World War I, local Freemasons were to get even more mixed up in
politics.

After having Freemasonry in Turkey 489 supported, over several
decades, the ideal of Ottoman brotherhood, Greeks, Armenians and Jews
suddenly changed their plans and started to participate in the
disintegration of Turkey. The Greeks were hoping to extend the newly
established Greek Kingdom, Armenians dreamed of a Great Armenia, and
Jews were involved in Zionism.29

The Young Turks create a national freemasonry

A number of the Young Turks were Freemasons, notably Ahmed Rıza
Bey, Mehmet Talat, Nazim Bey, Djemal Bey, Midhat Shukru, Huseyin Hilmi
Pasha, and none tried to hide their ties with the Masonic creed. One
of the consequences of the Young Turk revolution was that, from the
summer of 1908 onwards, there was an unprecedented rush to join the
lodges. The `Macedonia Risorta’ was the principal beneficiary of this
sudden enthusiasm of the Ottoman elites for freemasonry.

The revolutionary events of the summer of 1908 paved the way for the
creation of a great number of lodges that were attached to various
European obediences.

Soon, however, the Young Turks began to organize their own workshops.

One of their objectives was to oppose by this means the proliferation
of foreign workshops that were liable to bring about, in a short time,
a real Masonic colonization of the Ottoman Empire. Freemasons, they
were, but they were also Turks and considered that one of their major
goals should be to free the Ottoman Empire from all aspects of foreign
penetration.

In Great Britain, the Grand Lodge of Scotland refused at the beginning
to recognize the new Turkish organization; in France, the Grand Orient
and the Grande Loge only decided to establish relations with the
Ottoman Grand Orient towards the middle of 1910, a year after it had
been created; similarly, the Italian Grande Oriente expressed `great
reservations’. It was not only the Ottoman Grand Orient that was
viewed with distrust, but also the new regime. In principle,
traditional Freemasons had reasons to rejoice that things had turned
out as they did in Turkey. Nurtured in Masonic ideas, the
revolutionaries of 1908 had put an end to Hamidian absolutism,
re-established the constitution of 1876, and, in conformity with their
promises, had laid the foundations for a vast programme of
reforms. For Freemasons, and especially for those of French obedience,
these were reasons to rejoice. However, after the first months of
euphoria that followed the events of July 1908, the evolution of the
regime was disquieting.

The Young Turks had proved unable to effect a lasting reconciliation
between the various ethnic and confessional components of the Ottoman
Empire; extremely liberal at the beginning, the new rulers had turned
increasingly toward authoritarianism. Liberties that had been
generously granted in 1908 were gradually suppressed in view of the
need to maintain order.

The Young Turks had set up the Ottoman Grand Orient and the Supreme
Council of Turkey in several stages throughout the Spring and Summer
of 1909, and counted among their members the principal politicians of
the country; it was whispered that the successor of Abdulhamid, the
sultan Mehmed V Reshad, had joined. By the summer of 1909, the lodges
began to proliferate, with more than 20 workshops organized in various
cities of the Ottoman Empire. Wanting to end the development of lodges
of foreign obediences, the leaders of the Ottoman Grand Orient had
drawn up a concordat which gave them the monopoly on creating new
lodges throughout the Turkish territory.

The birth of the Ottoman Grand Orient had negative consequences for
many foreign lodges, such as the French `Renaissance’. In 1908, the
year of its creation, this lodge had hoped to draw under the banner of
the Grand Orient de France `all the Turkish youth’,30 but was soon
forced to realize that the new national elites turned their eyes
elsewhere, indeed to better confine the activities of this lodge, the
Turkish obedience had organized in August 1909 a lodge working in
French.

Called `Les vrais amis du Progre`s et de l’Union’ (True Friends of
Progress and Union), it proved to be very detrimental to French
Masonic interests.

The only possibility offered to foreign lodges striving to survive was
to join the Turkish Masonic organization; thus, the `Constitution’, a
Spanish lodge which had managed to recruit key figures such as the
sheikh-ul-islam Musa KaË?zim Efendi, the minister of Finance
Mehmet Cavit Bey and the philosopher Riza Tevfik, was won over to the
Ottoman Grand Orient in 1909; and the Italian `Bizanzio Risorta’
decided in February 1910 to part from the Grande Oriente of the
Palazzo Giustiniani and join the Turkish obedience.31

The Ottoman defeat in October 1918 caused the end of the Ottoman Grand
Orient. This did not arouse much grief, chiefly because European
obediences suspected some of its members of having been involved, in
one way or another, in wartime massacres. But the history of
freemasonry is full of ups and downs.

In 1923, when Mustafa Kemal proclaimed the Republic, the Turkish
Masonic network had already been partially restored. Most of the
members of the new governmental personnel were Freemasons. In the
decades that followed, except between 1935 and 1948 when Masonic
activity was banned, Turkish freemasonry flourished, recruiting the
republican elite, politicians (including scores of ministers and at
least two Presidents of the Republic), high ranking officers of the
army, academics, numerous representatives of the professional classes,
bankers, engineers, etc.32 From the 1960s, in particular, nationalist
and islamic political organizations attacked freemasonry, presenting
it as a tool in the hands of Zionists.33 However, much of the secret
influence attributed to Turkish masons seems to have existed only in
the imagination of the polemists; indeed, it was only for a very short
while during the Young Turk decade that freemasonry succeeded

Freemasonry in Turkey 491
in becoming a kind of `church’ of the new regime. And contrary to what
is often asserted, the Ottoman Grand Orient, in the course of those
years, did not serve as a tool in the hands of Western powers, nor did
it serve the interests of non-Muslim minorities within the Ottoman
Empire.

References and Notes
1. Thierry Zarcone (1986) Francs-mac¸ons et Bektachis: analogies
rituelistiques et philosophiques, Table ronde sur l’Ordre des Bektachis
(Strasbourg). Unpublished version of the paper presented at the
conference.

2. Thierry Zarcone (1986) Francs-mac¸ons et Bektachis: analogies
rituelistiques et philosophiques, Table ronde sur l’Ordre des Bektachis
(Strasbourg).

3. Jean Bossu (1969) Les de´buts de la franc-mac¸onnerie en Turquie,
Juve´nal, 30 May 1969.

4. See for instance P. Dumont (1983) La Turquie dans les archives du
Grand Orient de France: les loges mac¸onniques d’obe´dience franc¸aise
a` Istanbul du milieu du XIXe sie`cle a` la veille de la Premie`re Guerre
Mondiale. In: Jean-Louis Bacque´-Grammont and Paul Dumont (eds)
Economie et Socie´te´ dans l’Empire Ottoman (fin du XVIIIe
sie`cle-de´butdu XXe sie`cle) (Paris: CNRS), pp. 171`202.

5. Concerning these Italian lodges, see Angelo Iacovella (1997) Il
Triangolo e la Mezzaluna (Istanbul: Istituto Italiano di Cultura di
Istanbul).

6. See Ioannis Loukas (1991) Istoria this Ellinikis Masonias kai Elliniki
Istoria (Athens: Ekdoseis Papazisi).

7. Jean Bossu (1969) Les de´buts de la franc-mac¸onnerie en Turquie,
Juve´nal, 30 May 1969.

8. P. Dumont (1992`1994) La franc-mac¸onnerie dans l’Empire ottoman. La
loge grecque Prome´the´e a` Jannina, Revue de la Me´diterrane´e et du
monde me´diterrane´en, LXVI, 106.

9. Res¸at Atabek (1984) 1861`1880 Yılları Arasında I˒stanbul ve I˒zmir
Vadisinde Masonik Faaliyet, Mimar Sinan, no. 53, pp. 4`14.

10. Angelo Iacovella (1997) Il Triangolo e la Mezzaluna (Istanbul:
Istituto
Italiano di Cultura di Istanbul), p. 43.

11. On Egyptian lodges, see Jacob Landau (1965) Prolegomena to a study of
secret societies in modern Egypt, Middle Eastern Studies, 1, pp. 135`186
and from the same author `Farmasuniyya’, Encyclopedia of Islam.

12. See P. Dumont (1984) La franc-mac¸onnerie d’obe´dience franc¸aise a`
Salonique au de´but du XXe sie`cle, Turcica, XVI, 65`94.

13. Angelo Iacovella (1997) Il Triangolo e la Mezzaluna (Istanbul:
Istituto Italiano di Cultura di Istanbul), p. 37.

14. P. Dumont (1984) La franc-mac¸onnerie d’obe´dience franc¸aise a`
Salonique au de´but du XXe sie`cle, Turcica, XVI, 71`72.

15. Le Monde mac¸onnique (1863).

16. P. Dumont (1983) La Turquie dans les archives du Grand Orient de
France: les loges mac¸onniques d’obe´dience franc¸aise a` Istanbul du
milieu du XIXe sie`cle a` la veille de la Premie`re Guerre Mondiale. In:
Jean-Louis Bacque´-Grammont and Paul Dumont (eds) Economie et
Socie´te´ dans l’Empire Ottoman (fin du XVIIIe sie`cle-de´but du XXe
sie`cle) (Paris: CNRS), pp. 179`181.

17. Constantin Svolopoulos (1980) L’initiation de Murad V a` la
franc-mac¸onnerie par C. Scalieri. Aux origines du mouvement libe´ral en
Turquie, Balkan Studies, V, pp. 441`447.

18. K. S. Sel, Tu¨rk Masonluk Tarihine Ait U¨ c¸ Etu¨d (Istanbul: Mimar
Sinan Yay), pp. 47`61.

19. Res¸at Atabek (1984) 1861`1880 Yılları Arasında I˒stanbul ve I˒zmir
Vadisinde Masonik Faaliyet, Mimar Sinan, no. 53, pp. 4`14.

20. Several Turkish internet sites mention both names, displaying a
particularly violent animosity towards Lord Rading.

21. Thierry Zarcone (1994) Mystiques, philosophes et francs-mac¸ons en
Islam (Paris: Maisonneuve), p. 212.

22. Angelo Iacovella (1997) Il Triangolo e la Mezzaluna (Istanbul:
Istituto Italiano di Cultura di Istanbul), p. 22.

23. Thierry Zarcone (1993) Rıza Tevfik ou le soufisme e´claire´.

Me´ca nismesde pense´e et re´ception des ide´es occidentales dans le mysticisme turc
sous le deuxie`me re´gime constitutionnel ottoman (1908`1923) (Paris:
Maisonneuve), pp. 132`133.

24. Archives of the Grand Orient de France (Bibliothe`que Nationale `
Paris, FM2 866), Union d’Orient, letter of April 1863.

25. P. Dumont (2000) Osmanlıcılık, Ulusc¸u Akımlar ve Masonluk
(Istanbul: Yapı ve Kredi), p. 170.

26. The information available on this point is ambiguous. However, the
documents preserved in the archives of the Grand Orient de France
(Bibliothe`que Nationale ` Paris Re´s. FM2 157) hint at a connection
between the brethren of the lodge Ser and the Armenian national
movement).

27. Res¸at Atabek (1984) 1861`1880 Yılları Arasında I˒stanbul ve I˒zmir
Vadisinde Masonik Faaliyet, Mimar Sinan, no. 53, pp. 4`14.

28. Angelo Iacovella (1997) Il Triangolo e la Mezzaluna (Istanbul:
Istituto Italiano di Cultura di Istanbul), pp. 65`77.

29. P. Dumont (1985`1986) French Free Masonry and the Turkish struggle
for independence (1919`1923), International Journal of Turkish Studies,
3(3), 1`16.

30. P. Dumont (2000) Osmanlıcılık, Ulusc¸u Akımlar ve Masonluk
(Istanbul:
Yapı ve Kredi), p. 40.

31. Ilhami Soysal (1978) Tu¨rkiye ve Du¨nyada Masonluk ve Masonlar
(Istanbul, Der Yay), pp. 222`223.

32. Ilhami Soysal (1978) Tu¨rkiye ve Du¨nyada Masonluk ve Masonlar
(Istanbul, Der Yay), pp. 376`401.

33. See for instance, on this theme, a pamphlet published in 1977 by M.

ErtugË`rul Du¨zdagË`, Tu¨rkiye Masonlarının Gizli Tarihi (Istanbul: Cihad
Yay).

Freemasonry in Turkey 493
About the Author
Paul Dumont is Professor of Turkish language, literature and history
at the Marc Bloch University of Strasbourg. Most of his work deals
with the intellectual and social history of Modern Turkey, including
minorities, travel literature, and freemasonry. Currently, he is
engaged in a study of Islamic trends in present-day Turkey. Recent
publications include Du socialisme ottoman a` l’internationalisme
anatolien (Istanbul, Isis, 1977) and Ottomanism, national mouvements
(in Turkish, Istanbul, Yapı ve Kredi Yay., 2000).

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress