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

PAUL DUMONT
Département d’études turques, Université 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
482 Paul Dumont

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 Réunies’ 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 Réunies’.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 ‘Mélès’, 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 ‘Orkhanié’ 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’Amitié’ 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).
484 Paul Dumont

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 ‘Orkhanié’
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 Habnâme, 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.
486 Paul Dumont

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 café, organizing in it, during the
winter season, public balls, something like the ‘Chaumière’ 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
Habnâme, 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 discounte-
nances 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
488 Paul Dumont

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.
490 Paul Dumont

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 Progrès 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 Kâzim
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-maçons 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-maçons et Bektachis: analogies
rituelistiques et philosophiques, Table ronde sur l’Ordre des Bektachis
(Strasbourg).
3. Jean Bossu (1969) Les débuts de la franc-maçonnerie en Turquie,
Juvénal, 30 May 1969.
4. See for instance P. Dumont (1983) La Turquie dans les archives du
Grand Orient de France: les loges maçonniques d’obédience française à
Istanbul du milieu du XIXe siècle à la veille de la Première Guerre
Mondiale. In: Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont and Paul Dumont (eds)
Economie et Société dans l’Empire Ottoman (fin du XVIIIe siècle-début
du XXe siècle) (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 débuts de la franc-maçonnerie en Turquie,
Juvénal, 30 May 1969.
8. P. Dumont (1992–1994) La franc-maçonnerie dans l’Empire ottoman. La
loge grecque Prométhée à Jannina, Revue de la Méditerranée et du
monde méditerranéen, LXVI, 106.
9. Reşat Atabek (1984) 1861–1880 Yılları Arasında İstanbul ve İzmir
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-maçonnerie d’obédience française à
Salonique au début du XXe siècle, 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-maçonnerie d’obédience française à
Salonique au début du XXe siècle, Turcica, XVI, 71–72.
15. Le Monde maçonnique (1863).
492 Paul Dumont

16. P. Dumont (1983) La Turquie dans les archives du Grand Orient de

France: les loges maçonniques d’obédience française à Istanbul du
milieu du XIXe siècle à la veille de la Première Guerre Mondiale. In:
Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont and Paul Dumont (eds) Economie et
Société dans l’Empire Ottoman (fin du XVIIIe siècle-début du XXe
siècle) (Paris: CNRS), pp. 179–181.
17. Constantin Svolopoulos (1980) L’initiation de Murad V à la
franc-maçonnerie par C. Scalieri. Aux origines du mouvement libéral en
Turquie, Balkan Studies, V, pp. 441–447.
18. K. S. Sel, Türk Masonluk Tarihine Ait Üç Etüd (Istanbul: Mimar Sinan
Yay), pp. 47–61.
19. Reşat Atabek (1984) 1861–1880 Yılları Arasında İstanbul ve İzmir
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-maçons 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 éclairé. Mécanismes
de pensée et réception des idées occidentales dans le mysticisme turc
sous le deuxième régime constitutionnel ottoman (1908–1923) (Paris:
Maisonneuve), pp. 132–133.
24. Archives of the Grand Orient de France (Bibliothèque Nationale –
Paris, FM2 866), Union d’Orient, letter of April 1863.
25. P. Dumont (2000) Osmanlıcılık, Ulusçu 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
(Bibliothèque Nationale – Paris Rés. FM2 157) hint at a connection
between the brethren of the lodge Ser and the Armenian national
movement).
27. Reşat Atabek (1984) 1861–1880 Yılları Arasında İstanbul ve İzmir
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, Ulusçu Akımlar ve Masonluk (Istanbul:
Yapı ve Kredi), p. 40.
31. Ilhami Soysal (1978) Türkiye ve Dünyada Masonluk ve Masonlar
(Istanbul, Der Yay), pp. 222–223.
32. Ilhami Soysal (1978) Türkiye ve Dünyada Masonluk ve Masonlar
(Istanbul, Der Yay), pp. 376–401.
33. See for instance, on this theme, a pamphlet published in 1977 by M.
Ertuğrul Düzdağ, Türkiye 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 à l’internationalisme
anatolien (Istanbul, Isis, 1977) and Ottomanism, national mouvements (in
Turkish, Istanbul, Yapı ve Kredi Yay., 2000).