Review_Historein_Exertzoglou_Greek Orthodox Music.docx

Merih Erol, Greek Orthodox Music in Ottoman Istanbul. Nation and Community in the Era of Reform, Indiana University Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 2015, 264 p. Haris Exertzoglou This book by Merih Erol is a welcome addition to the field of Greek-Ottoman studies in the nineteenth century because it offers a sustained analysis of the much neglected theme of “Greek-Orthodox” music in the troubled and complicated late Ottoman period. The book is based on extensive research which the authoress conducted through many years. It brings together a large array of primary and secondary sources both in Greek and Turkish and it is also theoretical informed. Merihl Erol is offering from the start the broader historical context of her discussion emphasizing particular issues like the emergence of a Greek- Orthodox middle class in Istanbul and elsewhere. Indeed the term Greek-Orthodox requires some kind of qualification because it is far from self- evident: this terms was invented in order to describe a particular moment of transformation which affected the Orthodox populations of the Ottoman Empire leading to the emergence of different and competitive national groups out of the common body of Orthodox Christianity. This complicated process involved the radical transformation of social and local identities and in most cases, particularly the Greek case, accommodated both religious and nationalist sentiments. However, as the reader is often reminded, the making of national communities in the Ottoman Empire did not affect every Christian Orthodox in the same way: in fact the “Greek-Orthodox community” was far less coherent than the official discourse Greek discourse cared to admit. Social and cultural differentiation within this community was part of this complicated transformation particularly in the urban areas and big cities, like Istanbul, where the bulk of the Greek Orthodox were immigrants from the provinces. Within this context of various transformative dynamics Merih Erol proceeds to discuss the topic of the book, the Grek-Orthodox music in Istanbul. The book is not simply a historical thesis since it combines historical analysis with musicological interests. This is hardly unexpected since the book is about music but what makes the book more of a history treatise than a treatise in musicology is that music here is considered a cultural practice defined as much by performative as by discursive acts. Nevertheless, non-expert readers certainly feel the musicological touch of the book. The book is divided in ten parts. The introduction, six chapters, a concluding part and a section with footnotes and bibliography. Merih Erol explains in the introduction the structure of the book which is based on the doctoral dissertation submitted to Bogazici University. Chapter one discusses in some detail the socio-historical context of Istanbul in the nineteenth century and the emergence of a Greek-Orthodox middle class which provided the main audience for the disputes about music and musical choices that took place in that period. The emergence of cultural and scientific associations, including musical associations, proved a major cultural institution in Ottoman Istanbul strongly related with this social background. Chapter two, presents the process of the reformation of the Orthodox liturgical music and the main issues involved, like the controversy over monophonic or polyphonic music in Orthodox Churches. The chapter presents also the professional trajectory of the cantors of the Orthodox Churches who played a key role in these disputes and the establishment of musical associations. The third Chapter draws attention to the disputes over liturgical music in Istanbul. These disputes were not simply about technical issues but were already framed within competing discourses about the different influences of the Orthodox liturgical music: Arabic-ottoman, Jewish- oriental and western music as well as the influences of ancient Greek and Byzantine music were all rated and evaluated accordingly. At first sight these disputes were simply about music but in a deeper level they were part of other disputes over the nature and orientation of the Greek national identity. The narrative about the formation of the Orthodox liturgical music and its relation to these different influences confirmed or disputed the dominant Greek narrative of the historical continuity of the Greek nation and its roots to antiquity. The following chapter is kind of follow up to chapter three and focuses on more specialized musical issues. This strain of discourses centered on questions regarding the use and benefit of music in contemporary times as well as the musical form which was in accordance with these times or not. Within this specific discursive field the notion of tradition was reworked and defended against opposite claims emphasizing the need for change. Chapter five forwards the discussion to a broader perspective focusing on the ways issues over liturgical music were linked to other discourses on popular music and culture as well as the rising interest on popular culture and music among educated middle class Greek Orthodox in Istanbul. The incentive to study popular culture was associated with the need to frame the Greek national identity in antiquity by proving that certain contemporary popular practices were of ancient origin. Popular music attracted the interest of people who believed that its origins could be traced in Byzantine times. The final chapter is somehow out of line with the main topic of the book and probably foreshadows the new the research orientation of Merih Erol. This chapter focuses on the regime of surveillance which the absolutist regime of Abdul Hamid imposed in almost every area of the ottoman society, including music and musical performances. This regime targeted every one and not Orthodox –Greeks, or non- Muslim, exclusively with the purpose of thwarting all kinds of opposition and affected also music and music performances, including concerts and other similar events. In the last part of the book Merih Erol summarizes the arguments of the book and offers some concluding remarks. The thrust of the book is the relation of music, liturgical or otherwise, with the major transformation of the Greek Orthodox urban groups under the influence of western economic, political and cultural influences, most certainly the influence of nationalism. How it is possible to believe that music would not be influenced by such changes, Erol asks. And how necessary it is, she adds, to rethink music as an active realm of cultural practices and discourses that affected these transformations and participated in molding individual and collective identities. The book addresses these issues by pointing to the complicated and dynamic disputes over music that affected the processes of identity making, being in fact a constitutive part in this process. Central in these disputes were the concepts of “tradition and “change” which seemed to have worked as major reference points to an ongoing discussion and which were usually, though not always, metonyms of an indigenous and continuous tradition on one hand and western European influences on the other. Tradition was actually invented in the process of redefining the form of Orthodox liturgical music against other musical influences, some of them of Eastern origin, others of western. Of particular importance was the idea of “purification” and by extension of the “autonomy” of Greek music from other influences, oriental and western, in search of a continuous national musical tradition. As Erol believes, musical issues like the use of monophony or polyphone in Orthodox liturgy, the use of western notation in reading and writing music, the differentiated oriental influences in Orthodox liturgical music etc were not simply about music. Such disputes reveal that the process of Greek identity making was antagonistic not only with “Oriental” but also with western European influences, particularly those deemed “dangerous” for national existence. Despite the widespread belief among Ottoman Greeks of the strong links between the Greek and European cultures and the “civilizing mission” of Greek letters in the “East” a growing gap between the two was also evident. Merih Erol also discusses the close relation between aesthetics and social identities suggesting that preferences over music and musical forms, and aesthetic choices in general, point to markers of social differentiation according to which the rising non-Muslim middle classes separated themselves practically and symbolically from lower classes. Before, I conclude this review a word of caution is needed. The ways that musical issues affected the process of identity making among Greek Orthodox middle classes probably overstates the case of Greek nationalism in the Ottoman Empire, as an irredentist project. The reader must not be misled. As Merih Erol aptly states, ethnic and separatist violence only escalated in the first decades of the twentieth century blowing away the delicate political balance between the Ottoman state and the dominant lay and ecclesiastical groups of the non-Muslims, the Orthodox Greeks in particular. Until then, the process of Greek identity making in the Ottoman Empire involved different institutions, the musical associations included, and mobilized different social groups, most particularly the middle classes but was not necessarily associated with the kind of irredentism championed by the Greek state.