This work aims to study the politics and applications of modern schooling agendas in the provinces of the Ottoman Empire from the late Tanzimat era (1869) until the Young Turk Revolution (1908). The main thesis of this study is that late Ottoman education cannot be understood just in terms of a unilateral enforcement of official policies upon a mass, submissive population, where decisions related to schooling were locally accepted as being dictated from the capital. The author shows that there was a process of local adaptation, negotiation, agreement and opposition, which shaped the actual educational policies of the Sublime Porte. Purely educational issues like curriculum, instructors, educational taxes, as well as highly political questions such as the activities of missionary schools or the intervention of foreign consulates in educational matters, became contested terrain characterized by Evered as a “center–periphery struggle”. Even under such conditions the empire was able to develop a wide-rangeing school network with the aim of raising loyal Ottomans. The outcome, however, was contrary to the expectations of the central authority. Many of the graduates joined Young Turk movements opposing the autocratic regime of Abdülhamid II, which eventually led to the Young Turk Revolution.
The study consists of eight chapters and four appendixes. Chapter 1 (“No Ottoman child left behind: on governmentality and education”) provides a general view on the conditions and politics of educational modernization prior to 1869 as well as the main motives for educational modernization.
Chapter 2 (“Fact-finding missions, schools, and public relations in the governance of Ottoman Albania”) discusses educational reforms in Albania by taking into account government motivations for reformist schemes in the region and precautions taken for their application. By doing this the issue of governmentality is explored by considering the reactions which arose among Albanian communities and the compromises reached.
The next chapter, titled “A geopolitics of statistics, reform, and education in Ottoman Macedonia and the Balkans”, elaborates on the Sublime Porte strategy of using demographic data for securing its hegemony over the Balkans and Macedonia in particular.
The following chapter (“Reforming Ottoman Syria: missionary rivals, their travelling Ulema, and the Damascus Medical School”) concentrates on the growing significance of Syria for the Hamidian regime, which was attributable to the sultan's emphasis on the title of caliph and the strategic location of the region between Anatolia and the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Here the emphasis is on the contest between government educational ventures and missionary activities, and steps towards diminishing local educational influences of the Syrian ulema in favour of government schools.
Chapter 5 (“Aleppo's ‘unfit’ teacher: gender politics and resistance to rival empires”) continues the topic of missionary activities considered in the previous chapter, and discusses government endeavours to control and restrict foreign schools.
Evered continues with a short chapter dealing with Ottoman educational policies in present-day Iraq (“Educational politics in the Iraqi Provinces of Baghdad, Basra, and Mosul”). Here she discusses the frontier character of this region owing to its proximity to the Shiite Persian Empire as well as the growing British interest in the Persian Gulf. The focus is on government educational measures to curb the expansion of Shiism.
The final chapter (“Confronting Italian educational and imperial ambitions in Tripoli”) examines Italian policies of building up an imperialist presence in Tripoli and Cyrenaica (both located in present-day Libya), and Ottoman attempts to prevent the expansion of Italian schools in the region.
Evered's book is a notable contribution to the expanding historiography of the Hamidian era. Chapters 4, 5 and 7 provide new information on the Ottoman struggle with great powers in educational issues for peripheral regions such as Syria, Iraq and Libya. The English translation of the Regulation of Public Education of 1869 in Appendix 1 will be, without doubt, a useful source for future researchers on world educational history. Also, the proposed educational budget of 1892 for individual provinces, as shown in Appendix 2, is an important source for understanding Hamidian educational policies in the provinces.
This study does, however, display some weaknesses. First, it lacks innovative approaches at the conceptual level. There are no radically different views from what we already know about Hamidian educational policies. The ideas expressed mostly offer confirmation of what historians of Hamidian education have already asserted in recent years. Another weakness relates to the sloppines concerning sources and references. It is surprising that the author has used the fake diaries of Abdülhamid II, fabricated by İsmet Bozdağ, as a respectable primary source. While mentioning sources, it should be also said that the book contains long paragraphs with specific information, but the reader cannot check the origins of the information because of the lack of source citations.
There are factual errors relating to historical information. While discussing the Albanians, the author generalizes that “Albanian communities were previously subject to minimal or no taxation” (p. 38). This statement is true for certain regions such as Mirdita or Kosovo, but not valid for other regions. Another generalization relates to the League of Prizren. According to Evered “The Prizren League had an Islamic character” (p. 48), which is certainly untrue. It was a secular organization in which Muslim and Christian Albanians acted together. The author, when referring to the Greek Church, does not use its official and correct name, “The Ecumenical Patriarchate”, but insists on using the term “Patriarchate in Istanbul” (p. 54). The author implies that the Islamist policy of the Hamidian regime towards the Albanians began as late as the early 20th century, again a very controversial remark (pp. 66–7). In the glossary 100 para are said to equal 1 kuruş, which is in fact 40 para (p. 276). These are just a few examples.
