Middle Eastern Studies

ISSN: 0026-3206 (Print) 1743-7881 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fmes20

The Istanbul Earthquake of 1894 and Science in

the Late Ottoman Empire

Amit Bein

To cite this article: Amit Bein (2008) The Istanbul Earthquake of 1894 and Science in the Late
Ottoman Empire, Middle Eastern Studies, 44:6, 909-924, DOI: 10.1080/00263200802426021

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00263200802426021

Published online: 03 Nov 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 450

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fmes20
Middle Eastern Studies,
Vol. 44, No. 6, 909–924, November 2008

The Istanbul Earthquake of 1894 and

Science in the Late Ottoman Empire
AMIT BEIN

A devastating earthquake hit Istanbul and its environs shortly after noon on 10 July
1894. Although seismic disturbances were quite frequent in the long history of the
Ottoman capital, the imperial city had not witnessed such violent tremors in more
than a century. Hundreds of people died and thousands more were injured as a result
of the complete or partial collapse of private dwellings, mosques, churches,
synagogues and other public buildings. As may be expected, many people in the
Ottoman lands sought an explanation to the calamity that befell the inhabitants of
the capital and neighbouring regions. Some could draw on long-standing interpretive
traditions that were primarily either theological in nature or based on classical
naturalist theories. However, the Ottoman intelligentsia rejected such explanations
out of hand. Intellectuals took the opportunity of the general interest in the natural
disaster in the capital to disseminate new theories of earthquakes based on modern
scientific knowledge and methodologies. Of course, in the 1890s and until the
formulation of the theory of plate tectonics in the late 1960s, the suggested ‘scientific’
theories were inaccurate. Nevertheless, Ottoman intellectuals preached the accepted
explanations of the time as part of a larger project of dissemination of scientific
knowledge and positivist perceptions, believing these to be essential requirements for
the modernization of the Ottoman Empire.1 Making sense of the earthquake, based
on scientific explanations of its causes, helped galvanize science’s authority in the late
Ottoman Empire and reshape perceptions of natural phenomena.
The earthquake of July 1894 hit the seat of the Ottoman government during a
period of rapid socio-cultural change and shortly before the empire faced one of its
worst crises in the late nineteenth century. The autocratic sultan Abdülhamid II
(r. 1876–1909) led a programme of modernization that would help ensure the
survival of the Ottoman Empire and its acceptance as a ‘civilized country’ by the
leading European powers. A major component of his policies involved the rapid
expansion of a new western-style education system.2 The state-led modernization
programme helped bring about rapid socio-cultural changes in the Ottoman
intelligentsia and bureaucratic elite but also created or exacerbated internal tensions
in the state. By the mid-1890s, the sultan was facing increasing opposition among the
educated classes and the bureaucracy. Indeed, less than a year after the earthquake
in Istanbul, senior officials were close to carrying out a coup d’état against his
government.3 Worse still were the tensions between the government and Armenian
revolutionary organizations, primarily in central and eastern Anatolia. Years of

ISSN 0026-3206 Print/1743-7881 Online/08/060909-16 ª 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/00263200802426021
910 A. Bein

low-level conflict escalated in late 1894, only weeks after the earthquake, into a series
of Armenian armed rebellions and a counterinsurgency that involved large-scale
massacres of Armenian civilians. The bloodshed continued at intervals for almost
two years. Yet, despite the volatile political circumstances, the Ottoman government
during this period invested funds and efforts in establishing a European-style
seismological service in the wake of the earthquake of 1894.
The Ottoman response to the earthquake mirrored the similar embrace of science’s
authority and adoption of scientific methods and tools in many other contemporary
societies. The process of the expansion and globalization of scientific knowledge
expanded beyond the boundaries of Europe and its colonies. Science and technology
were widely perceived to be the measure of civilization and modernity. The Ottoman
intelligentsia and political elite were therefore invested in helping the Ottoman Empire
meet standards that were set in Europe and North America but also achieved quite
successfully in Japan. They seized upon the earthquake of 1894 to disseminate
knowledge of modern earth sciences and implement new methods of scientific study of
seismic events in the Ottoman lands. Their efforts were quite successful in transforming
public perceptions of the workings of natural phenomena in general and the proximate
causes of earthquakes in particular. The change was facilitated by the existence of a
long-established tradition of naturalist explanation of natural phenomena. By the early
twentieth century many Ottoman intellectuals enthusiastically adopted science’s
authority not only in relation to natural events such as earthquakes but as a
comprehensive quasi-religious ideology.4 The intelligentsia and political elite that came
to dominate the Ottoman Empire after the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 and
maintained its prominence during the early decades of the Turkish Republic was
imbued with such attitudes. However, recent studies in Turkey suggest that their efforts
to ‘convert’ the population at large to their creed had only limited results. New
scientific discoveries led to modifications in the popular perceptions of natural
phenomena, but not to the affirmation of science’s unchallenged authority.

The centuries preceding the coming of Islam witnessed the development of various
types of theories of earthquake in the Near East and North Africa. The most common
explanations may be divided into two kinds: theological and naturalist. Theological
explanations often involved mechanical descriptions of the causation of earthquakes
by divine beings. Naturalist theories offered by Greek sages and their Hellenistic and
Roman successors were based exclusively on the workings of natural forces. The
Islamic societies that formed in the Near East and North Africa after the seventh
century, including the Ottoman Empire, partly inherited and partly developed both
types of explanation. Both theological and classical naturalist theories of earthquakes
were upheld in one way or another until the nineteenth century.
The belief that earthquakes were either acts of divine retribution against sinful
mortals or warnings not to succumb to temptation was well established by Late
Antiquity. Both Christians and Jews supported this view with citations from their
holy scriptures. In some cases, they identified specific sins as prompting God’s
decision to shake the earth. For example, some Rabbis in Palestine argued that
earthquakes occur on account of male homosexual intercourse. Rabbis and
Christian clergymen thus warned their respective flocks that in order to prevent
 The Istanbul Earthquake of 1894 911

earthquakes and other natural disasters they should atone for their sins. Some sages
also sought to explain how God actually brings about earthquakes. He was not
necessarily assumed to simply will them. For instance, Rabbinic literature includes
several explanations of earthquakes as the result of such actions as God clapping His
hands or squeezing His feet under His Throne of Glory.5
Islamic societies in the Near East and North Africa inherited or invented similar
theological rationalizations of earthquakes. Seismic disturbances were often
associated with divine messages, warnings or punishment. In the Islamic apocalyptic
literature earthquakes were also linked to the processes leading to Judgement Day.6
The Qur’an, and even more so the Hadith literature, contain many such references,
including various cosmological explanations of why and how God makes the ground
tremble.
The Egyptian polymath Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (d. 1505) gathered the most
important early traditions and included them in a book he devoted to the history of
earthquakes in the Islamic lands. According to one explanation, all the mountains in
the world are connected through subterranean branches to the Mountain of Qaf, a
massive ridge God placed at the edge of the world. When God wants to shake a
certain place He orders the Mountain of Qaf, or an angel standing by it, to pull the
ramification connected to the vicinity of that locality. The action results in the
desired earthquake. Another explanation was based on a cosmological depiction of
the earth as being supported by a two-horned and three-legged bull that in turn
stands on the back of a giant fish. The description brings to mind the biblical
Behemoth and Leviathan, and indeed some Islamic sources mention that the name of
the bull and the fish are Bahamut and Luwaytha, although it is not certain which is
which.7 Be that as it may, some traditions associated earthquakes with the movement
of the fish, others with the bull tossing the earth from one horn to the other. Either
way, human sins were described as the reason for the disturbance.8
Such mechanical explanations with theological-cosmological underpinnings
reached every corner of the medieval Islamic world, from Morocco in the west to
India in the east. Moreover, at some point before the modern period, the explanation
of earthquakes as the result of the movement of a bull that supports the earth was also
incorporated into Jewish and Armenian lore in the Middle East and North Africa.9
However, some early Muslim scholars advocated naturalist scientific theories of
earthquakes that were devoid of any such theological or mythical aspect. Their
explanations were based on ideas formulated by classical sages, and in particular by
Aristotle. The Greek philosopher suggested a theory that ascribed the cause of
earthquakes to subterranean winds and gases that are created by heated moisture.
He reasoned that the earth shakes as a result of their upward pressures towards the
surface. Aristotle’s ideas became the basis for the most influential and widespread
scientific theory of earthquakes in the Islamic lands and some parts of Christian
Europe. The Greek philosopher’s theory, along with many of his other writings, was
translated into Arabic, Hebrew, and Latin during the Middle Ages. It was embraced
by great medieval Muslim luminaries such as Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd
(Averroes) and became well known throughout the Islamic lands, including the
regions conquered by the Ottomans from the fourteenth century to the sixteenth.10
The naturalist explanation of earthquakes began facing increasing criticism from
influential religious and literary figures after the eleventh century. The critics rejected
912 A. Bein

the Aristotelian theory because it appeared to accord no role to God, to be devoid of

any religious or moral aspect, and to lack any acknowledgement in the Qu’ran or
Hadith literature. It was no secret that naturalist theories, including those relating to
the causes of earthquakes, were based on the ideas of pre-Islamic Greek and
Hellenistic thinkers. The harshest and most devastating attack against those
advocating the Aristotelian theory of earthquakes was launched by al-Suyuti in the
late fifteenth century. He emphasized that there was no shred of proof to support the
explanation of earthquakes as the result of pressures created by subterranean vapours
and gases. He insisted that the Muslims trust only the various theological-
cosmological explanations available in the Hadith literature. This view was endorsed
by other scholars as well. Another Egyptian scholar, a century later, argued that those
who accept the naturalist theories must be insane. He reiterated the explanations
available in the Hadith literature and reminded his readers that earthquakes are either
punishment for sins such as fornication and sodomy or a stern reminder that they
need to repent of their sins. Such theological reasoning remained dominant in the
Islamic lands, and in many parts of Christian Europe, until the nineteenth century.11
Ottoman authors often included in their compilations references to both
theological-cosmological explanations and naturalist theories, with a clear pre-
ference for the former. In the late sixteenth century, for example, the prominent
intellectual Mustafa Âli (d. 1599) rejected the Aristotelian theory out of hand. He
reiterated the view that God caused earthquakes in response to human sins, either by
ordering an angel to pull subterranean ramifications connected to every locality in
the world or by prompting the movement of the giant fish that supports the earth.
The main point in his account was not to determine which of the two explanations is
correct. More important was the emphasis on God’s control over natural
phenomena and the direct link between human behaviour and events in nature. In
the seventeenth century, Solakzâde Mehmed Çelebi (d. 1657) described in similar
vein how an Ottoman sultan told his viziers and military commanders that their sins
had caused a severe earthquake in Istanbul in 1509. The tremors and destruction
were so severe at the time that the appellation ‘little apocalypse’ (kıyâmet-i su gra)
was attached to this earthquake.12
The tendency to explain earthquakes in theological terms continued through the
late eighteenth century throughout the Ottoman lands, including the Arab pro-
vinces.13 Earthquakes were seen primarily as linked to human moral conduct but at
the same time they were also perceived by some as indicating approaching calamities.
Mustafa Naima (d. 1716), the seventeenth century court historian, related in the wake
of an earthquake in 1648 that according to the books of astrology a daytime
earthquake in June indicates bloodshed in the Ottoman lands and the death of the
sultan. Two and a half centuries later, the chief court astrologer interpreted another
earthquake in the capital, in 1790, to signify positive developments for the Ottomans.
He inferred from the natural event that the ‘kings of the infidels’ would soon be
engaged in internal wars, and one of their rulers would die, which would facilitate the
conquest of some regions by the sultan and Muslim victories on land and sea.14
Although the naturalist theory of earthquakes was never completely abandoned
by Ottoman commentators it did not undergo any development after early Islamic
times. This is very evident, for example, in an encyclopaedic compilation written by
_
Erzurumi Ismail Hakkı (d. 1780) in the eighteenth century. He included in it the
 The Istanbul Earthquake of 1894 913

familiar Aristotelian naturalist theory of earthquakes after duly citing the

theological-cosmological traditions. In Europe of the time intellectuals were
investing efforts in devising new theories of earthquakes in the wake of the
devastating earthquake that hit Lisbon in 1755. However, although the eighteenth
century witnessed a substantial expansion in the intellectual and material ties
between Western Europe and the Ottoman lands, neither Erzurumi Ismail _ Hakkı’s
book nor any other contemporary Ottoman compilation displayed a parallel interest
in suggesting new explanations for natural phenomena such as earthquakes. Until
the early nineteenth century they helped maintain in circulation the traditional
Islamic explanations, mostly the theological-cosmological descriptions and to a
lesser extent the Aristotelian theory. Whether they all believed in the mythic
depictions drawn from the Hadith literature is debatable. There is slight evidence
that at least some commentators included explanations involving the movement of
giant creatures that support the earth for fear of retribution from conservative
religious circles.15 Be that as it may, the conventional explanations were maintained
intact for centuries. Ottoman authors began proposing new theories of earthquakes
only in the nineteenth century, following shortly on the heels of rapid developments
in geology and earth sciences in Europe.
Ottoman intellectuals brushed aside traditional conceptions of natural phenomena
and enthusiastically embraced new European theories from the mid-nineteenth century
onwards. The dualistic approach involving the citation of both theological and
Aristotelian explanations abruptly disappeared from new compilations. Instead,
scientific theories, often devoid of any allusion to divine or supernatural powers,
became the norm in publications about the earth sciences in general and earthquakes in
particular. This was no coincidence. By the second half of the nineteenth century,
materialist convictions and reasoning and positivist concepts became dominant among
the Ottoman intelligentsia in the empire’s major urban centres.
A new intellectual movement that emphasized the universality and undisputed
authority of science took advantage of the rapid expansion of print media to
disseminate such ideas far and wide in the Ottoman lands. The most enthusiastic
advocates of science’s authority were the graduates of new schools patterned on
European models. They perceived and described themselves as enlightened and
progressive, primarily thanks to their avowed mastery of modern science. For many
of them, the belief in the authority and redeeming qualities of scientific knowledge
became an ideology in itself, and at times almost a cult. The educational and cultural
policies of Sultan Abdülhamid II (r. 1876–1909) helped further increase the
dominance of the new intelligentsia, despite the ruler’s grave concern with their
aspirations for a greater say in ruling the empire. Meanwhile, even as the prestige
and authority of modern science was on the rise, traditional knowledge was
increasingly challenged and abandoned. In contrast to some non-European societies
that fell under direct colonial control, the new Ottoman urban intelligentsia of the
nineteenth century adopted European scientific ideas with almost no reservation,
independent contribution, or hybridization.16
The first step towards the establishment of the complete dominance of naturalist
explanations based on new European theories of earthquakes was taken in the 1830s.
The change fitted well with the programme of European-inspired reforms begun by
sultan Mahmud II (r. 1808–39) and further expanded by his successors.
914 A. Bein

_
Hoca Ishak Efendi pioneered the new trend in his Encyclopaedia of Exact Sciences
(Mecmua-i Ulum-i Riyaziye). This multi-volume compilation was based primarily on
French scientific literature of the time, which included new theories about the causes
of earthquakes. The explanation known as the volcanic theory had been one of the
most popular in European books since the second half of the eighteenth century.
According to this theory, earthquakes were caused by the pressures of magma that
could not find an escape route through the crust of the earth and onto its surface.17
_
Hoca Ishak Efendi introduced this theory to Ottoman readers for the first time.18 It
would become a standard explanation in the decades that followed. Meanwhile, he
avoided in his compilation any reference to the traditional theological-cosmological
explanations of earthquakes. The emerging new elite he helped train in new
European-style schools in the Ottoman capital embraced this new emphasis on novel
European naturalist explanations of natural phenomena.
In 1850 virtually every prominent Ottoman bureaucrat endorsed the publication
of a geology book which was based on French sources. Among the recommendations
included in its first pages were notes from influential future Grand Viziers and
ministers such as Âli Pasha, Fuad Pasha, Yusuf Kâmil Pasha, and Ahmed Cevdet
Efendi (later Pasha). The book presented the view that the core of the earth was
made of magma. The heat of the fiery substance created steam and gases under the
surface of the earth, and their expansion and consequent pressure caused the
occasional trembling of the ground.19
The volcanic theory and the alternative gas-pressure explanation became widely
accepted among the Ottoman intelligentsia by the 1860s. Ahmed Cevdet Pasha
reported that when Bursa was hit by a severe earthquake in 1855, and fires consumed
much of the city, many observers from afar attributed the smoke to ‘the birth of a
new volcano’. He added that some locals testified that the tremors were preceded by
the appearance of saltpetre steam. Cevdet Pasha, one of the greatest legal scholars of
the time and a former prominent official in the religious establishment, included in
his report no mention of the traditional Hadith-based explanations.20 This omission
reflected the complete discrediting of traditional theological and cosmological
perceptions among the Ottoman elite in the second half of the nineteenth century.
The adoption and dissemination of new scientific thought and knowledge became
the order of the day and the old explanations appeared not to be worth even a
mention.
The rapid expansion of the new media of journalism from the late 1850s
contributed to the popularization of novel scientific theories developed primarily in
Europe. Some intellectuals believed that the new genre in the Ottoman lands was
particularly suitable to reach larger audiences. They took it upon themselves to use
newspapers and journals to popularize scientific knowledge and fight what they saw
as superstition and outdated views. To that end a group of prominent bureaucrats
and intellectuals founded the Ottoman Scientific Society (Cemiyet-i Ilmiye-i _
Osmaniye) in the early 1860s. This learned society did not include modern scientists,
but it invested in the translation and publication of scientific articles from the French
press in its journal, Mecmua-ı Fünun (Magazine of the Sciences). The journal’s
contributors were particularly enthusiastic about new discoveries in geology. They
emphasized the importance of understanding the structure of the earth and the
process of formation and deformation of the landscape. In their mind, anyone
 The Istanbul Earthquake of 1894 915

‘who is devoid of such [scientific] knowledge ought to feel ashamed’, because every
educated person should be aware of the new geological theories.21
The theory of volcanic earthquakes continued to be popular in publications about
geology through the 1880s, at times with some variations in detail. For instance, an
article from the early 1870s claimed that the tidal forces of the sun and moon cause
occasional ebb and flow in the magma under the earth’s crust similarly to their
control of the regime of the tides in the oceans. Following a theory current in late
nineteenth century Europe, the author therefore argued that certain constellations of
the sun and moon cause volcanic eruptions and earthquakes.22
Although scientists and theorists failed to offer adequate explanations of the causes
of earthquakes they did make important strides in the field of seismology in the late
nineteenth century. Better seismometers, or seismographs, were able to record more
accurately the effect, strength, and duration of tremors. Fieldwork in areas of recent
earthquakes in various regions of the world, including Japan and North America,
offered new insights into various characteristics of earthquakes. For example, fault
lines and the direction of the tremor (vertical, horizontal, or fluctuating) became
important topics for reflection and study. Scientists assumed that every earthquake
was caused by an event at a certain point (focus) underneath the earth’s crust. The
calculation of that exact spot was supposed to explain the strength and characteristics
of the tremors. The area on the surface directly above that point was termed the
epicentre, which was where the impact of the shockwaves was the greatest. These and
other important concepts developed in the late nineteenth century and still in use
today were introduced to Ottoman readers in geology books and journal articles. The
assumption in all of these sources was that there was no one unified theory that could
explain the occurrence of every earthquake.23
By the 1890s, the emerging consensus among the increasingly international
community of scientists was that all earthquakes may be classified into three types:
volcanic, tectonic (or dislocation), and rock-fall (or collapse). Volcanic earthquakes
were explained as the result of magma pressures that could not find a path of escape
to the surface. Tectonic earthquakes were reported to be the result of long-term
geological processes such as mountain formation. Some scholars argued that the
most important cause of subterranean instability that led to tectonic earthquakes
was a slow but steady process of the shrinkage of the planet earth. Many theorists
also believed that giant caves existed under the surface of the earth. Rock-fall
earthquakes were believed to be the result of the collapse of land into such
subterranean hollow spaces. Some scientists believed that weather conditions,
seasons, and time of day influenced the occurrence of the three types of earthquakes.
Some performed experiments to prove their theories while others gathered and
published statistical data to buttress their various arguments. Some even claimed
that they could predict earthquakes in advance by scientific methods.24 The new
theories were presented to Ottoman readers in school textbooks and journal articles
in the years immediately preceding the earthquake of 1894.25
The globalization of scientific knowledge in the late nineteenth century affected the
Ottoman intelligentsia but in most cases with very little independent local
contribution. Often, the most enthusiastic Ottoman proponents of science’s
authority had only basic education in natural and exact sciences. They primarily
transmitted information they read in European journals to Turkish readers, with
916 A. Bein

very little contribution of their own. Therefore, when it came to earthquakes, articles
and book chapters on the subject contained much information about recent and
historical earthquakes in Europe and the Americas. There was almost complete
disregard of the long history of seismic disturbances in the Ottoman lands and
neighbouring Islamic countries because the European sources were usually silent on
the subject. Ottoman authors of scientific articles and books before 1894 usually did
not bother researching the available historical evidence contained in manuscripts in
local libraries. The earthquake of July 1894 helped remedy this negligence. The
severe tremors in the capital of the empire prompted a new emphasis on the local
ramifications of earthquakes. The destruction caused by the shockwaves also helped
create a new stimulus for the dissemination of scientific knowledge to the populace
and for the establishment of a seismological service in the Ottoman Empire.
The most devastating earthquake in more than a century hit the Marmara region
and the Ottoman capital shortly after noon on 10 July 1894. The effects of the tremor
were felt over a radius of more than 400 kilometres, with aftershocks following both
on the same day and again twice in the following week. Damage was extensive
throughout the capital, but particularly in the historic city, where most of the
population and centres of government were concentrated. Many minarets, church
towers, synagogues, government offices and private dwellings crumbled or were
severely damaged. A significant portion of the Grand Bazaar collapsed. Water
systems were disrupted and all but one telegraph line, to Russia, were damaged.26
The Reuter’s news agency reported from the scene that ‘there is scarcely a street in
the city which does not show signs of the destructive effects of the earthquake’. The
Ottoman government later estimated that more than 10,000 buildings were damaged
by the seismic disturbances. Official figures put the number of dead and injured in the
hundreds, but contemporaries and later historians agreed that the true number was
most likely in the thousands.27
The severity of the tremor and the extensive destruction it caused created fear and
panic in many parts of the city. Hundreds of thousands of people rushed out of
buildings in search of open spaces. Many even jumped out of windows. It was
whispered by some that the sultan himself jumped into the garden from a ground-
floor room in his palace. The major squares, public parks, and even cemeteries soon
filled up with people from every walk of life. Concerned with the expected
aftershocks, residents of Istanbul preferred to live for the time being in tents and
other makeshift shelters erected in open spaces throughout the city. Spirits were low.
New neighbours shared rumours about devastation throughout the city, fuelled by
reports in the foreign press about thousands of bodies still trapped under the rubble.
While the local newspapers faced the constraints of strict government censorship, the
foreign press was only marginally inhibited by such limitations on free speech.28
A popular topic for discussion was the causes of the seismic disturbances, in light
of recent scientific theories of earthquakes. The New York Times, for instance,
reported that ‘probably there was a terrible convulsion in the interior’. The French
daily, La Croix, in contrast, reported that the earthquake in Istanbul appears to
vindicate the theory that volcanic activity causes changes on the face of the earth.
Citing the French scientist Albert Auguste de Lapparent (1839–1908), the Catholic
newspaper explained that the earthquake might have been a sign of a future
complete collapse of the Balkan Peninsula into the sea. Meanwhile, other journals
 The Istanbul Earthquake of 1894 917

reported that the real cause of the earthquake had been the birth of a new volcano
under the Sea of Marmara.29
The reaction of the majority of the population was much less ‘scientific’ and much
more informed by traditional perceptions about the causes of earthquakes. Halidé
Edib (Adıvar), in later years a leading proponent of westernization and women’s
rights, described in her memoirs the reaction in her family to the devastating
earthquakes. She remembered seeing throngs of people running in the streets ‘while a
muffled groan rose at times: ‘‘Allah, Allah’’’. She recalled how she became deeply
frightened because as a ten-year-old child she associated the earthquake with the
coming of al-Dajjal. In Islamic eschatology he is described as a false messiah, more
or less akin to the Antichrist, who will come just before Judgement Day. Beyond the
apocalyptic association, Halidé Edib testified that for a few months she and other
members of her family became much more devout in their religious practices.30
A similar reflexive search for theological explanations and religious comfort was
evident among all other religious communities in the highly diversified capital of the
multi-ethnic and multi-religious empire. The Ottoman press carried reports about
Armenian crowds praying and offering sacrifices, and the Catholic French daily
La Croix reported that their correspondent in Istanbul ‘saw Greek women, barely
dressed, walking down the street holding crucifixes or images of the Virgin while
beseeching the heavens and crying aloud’. Clearly, at their moment of crisis many
people were not prone to seek scientific explanations but rather preferred to seek
counsel in religion.31 Most likely, most of the residents of Istanbul and its environs
were not even aware of the new theories of earthquakes before July 1894.
Reports in the contemporary press suggest that the traditional theological-
cosmological theories were still upheld by at least some people in the Middle East. In
Palestine, a Hebrew newspaper reported that ‘some of the Arabs’ subscribed to this
view.32 Similarly, a self-styled progressive reader in Egypt complained in a long letter
to the leading local journal of popular science that one of his acquaintances,
reportedly a man of some standing (dhu mansib), also subscribed to the view that the
dreadful earthquake in Istanbul happened because ‘the bull tosses the earth from one
of its horns to the other’. The reader claimed that he had never heard such an
explanation, and reported that he explained to his acquaintance that the earth is no
different from all other planets and that heated materials under its surface cause
earthquakes in specific places. The acquaintance was not convinced and the two
continued arguing for quite a while without agreement, with each mocking the other
for the unreasonable explanation he offered.33
Scientifically-minded intellectuals in the Ottoman lands and neighbouring
countries hastened to take the opportunity to, in their mind, enlighten their
countrymen. The reports about the earthquake in the capital of the empire created a
new opportunity to reach larger audiences with scientific explanations about the
making of Earth in general and the causes of seismic disturbances in particular. The
events in Istanbul made the subject much more concrete in the life of many readers.
At least for a while, the causes of earthquakes became an issue of discussion and
dispute beyond the limited circles of the new intelligentsia. In Egypt, the journal
Hilal published a long tract about the structure of the earth and the causes of seismic
disturbances in reply to requests from readers. The editor explained that the article
was written using language that could be understood by everyone. The explanations
918 A. Bein

included only naturalist theories, with a particular emphasis on the volcanic theory
of earthquakes. Likewise in Istanbul, discussions about the structure of the earth and
the causes of earthquakes made it into the dailies and the popular press. The journal
Malumat, for instance, reiterated descriptions of the earth as having a core of
magma, and endorsed the volcanic theory of earthquakes.34 Such articles helped new
theories of earthquakes reach larger audiences than ever before.
The most informed explanations were offered by Halil Edhem (Eldem) Bey (1861–
1938) in a series of articles in the daily Sabah. Here was an author that in contrast to
most previous Ottoman commentators actually specialized in the study of earth
sciences. His father, a senior bureaucrat who had served for a short period as Grand
Vizier, had held several ambassadorial positions in Europe during his distinguished
career. Halil Edhem accompanied him to Berlin, where he attended a Realschule.
After his graduation he spent almost a decade as a student of natural sciences in
leading academic institutions in Switzerland and Austro-Hungary. He completed his
academic studies at the University of Bern, before returning to his native Istanbul in
1885. Two years later, at the age of 26, he was appointed to teach geology and
mineralogy in several of the most prestigious schools in the capital. In 1891 he
published the then most authoritative textbook of geology in the Turkish language.
A second edition published in the 1890s with some revisions remained for many
years the standard text for geology courses in the late Ottoman Empire and early
Turkish Republic.35
Halil Edhem took it upon himself to educate the general public about the scientific
causes of earthquakes in a series of articles published in the daily press in the
immediate aftermath of the earthquake of 1894. The pieces were later collected and
republished in book format. He explained that there was an urgent need to clarify
facts and relieve the public anxiety resulting from the dissemination of many false
theories and foolish explanations in the wake of the earthquake. He therefore
explained to his readers very plainly the classification of earthquakes into three
types: volcanic, tectonic, and rock-fall. He explained that the earthquake of 1894 was
definitely not of the volcanic type and that reports about the birth of volcanoes or
undersea eruptions were false. The tremors in Istanbul, he opined resolutely, were
either the result of tectonic activity or land collapse. He explained that only further
studies could determine the exact cause, and called on his readers to simply accept
the occasional occurrence of earthquakes as a natural phenomenon that happens
daily in different locales as a result of explainable natural causes. He implored them
to keep their composure and follow the new discoveries and theories of respectable
scientists, while ignoring the alarmist predictions of charlatans.36
The widespread interest and new publications helped the spread of scientific
theories of earthquakes beyond the confines of the Ottoman urban intelligentsia.
There is evidence that by the early twentieth century the new theories were endorsed
even by conservative circles in the provinces. A book entitled Protection against
Earthquakes, published in 1903 by Resul Mesti (1824–?), a retired educator and
religious scholar from Mosul, in present-day Iraq, offers an illuminating example of
the trend. The author explained that the book assessed recent scientific theories and
offered methods to limit the disastrous consequences of earthquakes. He agreed that
some earthquakes were the result of volcanic activity but insisted that the ancients’
explanation based on the pressures of subterranean vapours and gases should not be
 The Istanbul Earthquake of 1894 919

dismissed out of hand. He even suggested a method, complete with illustrations, for
building a steel structure that would relieve much of the pressure and thus tame the
effects of earthquakes.37
However, Resul Mesti’s book also illustrates how religious circles sought to frame
new scientific theories in accordance with their theological perceptions. He began
with an approving reference to the Quranic verses in chapter 99, ‘The Earthquake’
(surat al-Zalzala). In the following pages, he repeatedly emphasized that the Creator
(Halik-i Cihan) determined the original geological formation of the earth and that
He controls the powers of nature. The argument presented was that nature operates
independently in accordance with rules set by God during the creation, but that He
can also occasionally will calamities such as earthquakes in order to either warn and
punish sinning mortals or unleash the disasters that will precede Judgment Day.38
Similar attitudes were adopted by devout Christian circles in Europe and North
America. For example, the evangelical Christian Herald explained in the wake of an
earthquake in Greece in early 1894 that ‘We are too apt to forget that in discovering
a natural cause we are only finding the means God uses for accomplishing His
purposes and that all nature and its laws are but an expression of His will’.39
Scientific books and articles published in the Ottoman lands after 1894 remained
free of such theological references. Their authors did not assign any role to God or
any other supernatural power. They simply did not take up the subject and thus
avoided direct confrontation with religious circles. Textbooks taught in Ottoman
schools on the eve of the First World War included the standard scientific theory of
the time about the three types of earthquakes. In contrast to books published to the
early 1890s, they also contained a discussion of the seismicity of the Ottoman lands,
including references to the devastating earthquake of 1894.40 The dominance of
naturalistic theories reflected the increasing authority assigned to science in the late
Ottoman period, and mirrored the ascendancy of secular and anti-religious attitudes
within the new Ottoman intelligentsia. By the early twentieth century only a few
voices, increasingly excluded from the intellectual elite, continued to describe natural
phenomena in theological terms.
The Ottoman government’s reaction to the earthquake corresponded with its
project of introducing modern science and scientific methods and instruments into
the Ottoman Empire. The first order of action was to maintain the work of the state
administration and ensure public order, and to relieve the suffering of the victims.41
Soon afterwards, the Sultan and the senior officials of the state initiated a scientific
inquiry into the causes of the earthquake and endorsed plans to establish a
seismographic service in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman government actively
encouraged scientists from observatories in Europe to investigate the causes of the
earthquake and its consequences. In the late nineteenth century, many European
astronomical observatories added a seismological division that monitored and
studied earthquakes. The Ottoman Empire had had a modern observatory since
1868, but it did not include a seismological division prior to the earthquake of 1894.
The Ottoman government therefore extended a special invitation to Demetrius
Eginitis, the director of the Greek National Observatory, to come to Istanbul to
investigate the causes of the earthquake. After collecting data and eyewitness
accounts, the Greek scholar submitted his final report on 15 August, a little more
than four weeks after the earthquake. He concluded that the tremors in Istanbul
920 A. Bein

were not the result of volcanic activity, despite reliable testimonies about the release
of gases and hot vapours from the ground. He opined that the seismic disturbance
was tectonic in nature, and resulted from a geological crack 34 kilometres under the
surface of the earth. He therefore concluded that reports about the birth of an
undersea volcano or the possibility of the drowning of the Princes Islands in the sea
were unfounded. This reassuring report was later republished in a French scientific
journal. A Russian scientific delegation, which arrived in Istanbul independently,
reached similar conclusions.42
The Ottoman government subsequently decided that being part of the ‘civilized’
world, as stated in an official memo, required the establishment of a seismological
service. The problem was that there appeared to be no qualified personnel or
appropriate equipment in the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman ambassadors in
Europe were therefore instructed to report about seismological instruments in their
respective countries, while a committee was formed in Istanbul to devise the new
service. After weeks of deliberation, the sultan authorized two important decisions.
First, substantial funds were assigned for the establishment of an independent
seismological section under the auspices of the imperial observatory, and for the
purchase of Italian seismometers to be placed in it. Second, the Italian Giovanni
Agamennone (1858–1949), one of the brightest and most promising seismologists in
Europe, was hired to serve as the first director of the new seismological service in
Istanbul.43
The new seismographic institution established in the neighbourhood of Maçka
helped the further integration of the Ottoman Empire into the increasingly
globalized scientific community. Agamennone stayed in Istanbul for two years
before returning to Italy and rapidly becoming its leading seismologist. During his
time in Istanbul he collected and published data about earthquakes throughout the
Ottoman lands. He also helped train Ottoman officials to succeed him in his post. In
the previous decades, the Ottoman intelligentsia had embraced new discoveries in the
science of geology and new explanations of the causes of earthquakes. However,
their interest remained primarily theoretical. Very few Ottomans developed expertise
in the field, and those who did were primarily from the Christian communities.
Indeed, the director of the observatory and the experts that helped him arrange the
establishment of the new seismological service after 1894 were mostly Ottoman
Christians. This situation began changing by the late 1890s. The appointment of the
French-trained Salih Zeki Bey as the new director of the observatory in 1896 was one
manifestation of the increasing dominance of Muslim-Turkish scientists in the state’s
service. He led the observatory for more than a decade, during which he also
participated in several international scientific congresses in the major capitals of
Europe.44 The establishment of this seismological service after the earthquake of
1894 reflected the Ottoman determination to be considered part of the civilized
world, measured to a large degree by the employment of technology and the
adoption of scientific knowledge and attitudes.
The earthquake of 1894 shook Istanbul during a period of significant socio-
cultural transformations and political tensions in the Ottoman lands. The Ottoman
intelligentsia and government viewed the adoption of scientific knowledge and
methods as an essential prerequisite for the survival of the empire in a dangerous
world of threatening nations. The Ottoman Empire was facing political uncertainties
 The Istanbul Earthquake of 1894 921

and a difficult situation in the 1890s. The opposition to the sultan, the crisis
stemming from the Armenian insurrection and retaliatory massacres (1894–96), and
the war with Greece (1897) topped the government’s agenda. Nevertheless, even as
these crises were unfolding, the authorities still found it expedient to invest time,
effort, and financial resources in a modern seismological service, and Ottoman
intellectuals were busily preaching the gospel of science and spreading scientific
theories about geology and earthquakes.
The project of the dissemination of new scientific theories and knowledge had a
dramatic effect on perceptions of natural phenomena in general and of the causes of
earthquakes in particular. Old paradigms lost sway and were replaced by new ones.
The theological-cosmological type of explanations that had dominated Islamic
literature for almost a millennium disappeared completely by the early twentieth
century. New scientific theories took their place and established the dominance of
naturalist explanations. The change was directly linked to the Ottoman intelligen-
tsia’s embrace of European influences, but was at least initially helped by the
existence of a long tradition of classical naturalist explanations of earthquakes and
other natural phenomena. The same classical naturalist explanations served as the
basis for many new European theories and were therefore quite easily intelligible to
intellectuals in the Ottoman lands.
Like many of their counterparts elsewhere in the world, many late Ottoman
intellectuals were convinced that the spread of education would eradicate unscientific
traditional knowledge and modes of thought. Long-established traditions, such as
the theological-cosmological explanation of earthquakes, were now seen by the
intelligentsia as backward and mythological in nature. Conservative-minded
Ottomans and religious scholars did not publicly contest the new theories. Instead,
they argued that God was the author of the newly discovered laws of nature and that
he could transcend them. Late Ottoman intellectuals, many of whom were either
agnostic or downright anti-religious, usually did not directly challenge such views.
The prevailing assumption within the late Ottoman intelligentsia was that the
increasing authority of science in the near future would be accompanied by a
corresponding decline in religiosity in general and by the discrediting of theological
explanations of natural phenomena in particular.
The study of geology in the twentieth century did indeed witness important
advances that eventually led to the theory of plate tectonics in the late 1960s.
However, the impressive scientific progress in this and other fields was not
accompanied by a corresponding increase in the authority of science in most societies
around the globe. Many late Ottoman intellectuals would have found it hard to
believe that a century after them a great number of people all around the world, even
in the most industrialized countries, still associate natural disasters with acts of God.
The earthquake that visited Istanbul and its environs in August 1999 revealed that
only a minority of the population perceived the calamity as simply a natural
phenomenon. This was the most destructive earthquake in the Marmara region since
1894 and it left behind thousands of casualties. A recent study, entitled Natural
Disasters and Religion, shows that a significant majority of respondents viewed God
as the initiator of the violent seismic disturbance (76 per cent), while only a minority
assigned the causes be natural (12 per cent). More than a third of the respondents
believed the earthquake to have been a punishment or a warning from God, and
922 A. Bein

almost half reported that in the first moments of the tremors they associated the
calamity with Judgement Day. Only a minority mirrored the view of many late
Ottoman intellectuals, identifying such perceptions as superstitious and backward.45
The attitudes prevailing in the wake of the earthquake of 1894 reflected the
confidence of intellectuals in the Ottoman Empire and elsewhere that the world was
becoming ever more disenchanted; the realities of the early twenty-first century, in
Turkey and many other countries, including the United States, reveal that many
people are still inclined to invoke God rather than science to make sense of natural
disasters.

Notes
1. M.Ş. Hanio glu, The Young Turks in Opposition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), pp.18–23.
2. B. Fortna, Imperial Classroom (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); S. Deringil, The Well-
Protected Domains (London: I.B. Tauris, 1998), pp.93–111.
3. Hanio glu, The Young Turks in Opposition, pp.59–60.
4. See B. Burçak, ‘Science, A Remedy for All Ills, Healing the ‘‘Sick Man of Europe’’: A Case for
Ottoman Scientism’ (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Princeton University, 2005).
5. M.L. Satlow, ‘‘‘They Abused Him like a Woman’’: Homoeroticism, Gender Blurring, and the Rabbis
in Late Antiquity’, Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol.V (1994), p.20; J.Z. de Boer and D.T.
Sanders, Earthquakes in Human History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005), pp.2, 67;
M. Fishbane, The Exegetical Imagination (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), pp.25–6.
6. K. Hirschler, ‘Earthquakes’, in Josef W. Meri (ed.), Medieval Islamic Civilization (New York:
Routledge, 2006), Vol.1, pp.219–20; D. Cook, Studies in Muslim Apocalyptic (Princeton, NJ: Darwin
Press, 2002), p.46.
7. See, for example, A.b.R. el-Kostantini, Risale-i Zelzele, 1132H [1726], Süleymaniye Library (Istanbul),
Hacı Mahmud Efendi Collection, Mss. no. 1902, fols.10–12.
8. J.al-D. al-Suyuti, Kashf al-Salsala ‘an Wasf al-Zalzala, ed. M.K.al-D.‘I. al-Din (Beirut: ‘Alam al-
Kutub, 1987), pp.133–5; Hirschler, ‘Earthquakes’, p.220.
9. D. Noy (ed.), Moroccan Jewish Folktales (New York: Herzl Press, 1966), p.133; M.H. Ananikian,
‘Armenian’, in J.A. MacCulloch (ed.), The Mythology of All Races, Vol.7 (New York: Cooper Square
Publishers, 1964), p.93.
10. P. Lettinck, Aristotle’s Meteorology and its Reception in the Arab World (Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp.209–
_
23; C. Izgi, _
Osmanlı Medreselerinde Ilim _ Yayıncılık, 1997), Vol.2, p.132.
(Istanbul: Iz
11. al-Suyuti, Kashf al-Salsala ‘an Wasf al-Zalzala, pp.135–6; M.A. Tahir, ‘Traité de la fortification des

demeures contre l’horreur des séismes d’Abu’l-Hasan ‘Ali ibn al-Gazzar’, Annales Islamologiques,
Vol.XII (1975), pp.143–6; M. Van De Wetering, ‘Moralizing in Puritan Natural Science:
Mysteriousness in Earthquake Sermons’, Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol.XLIII (1982), pp.417–
38; A.N. Gilbert and M. Barkun, ‘Disaster and Sexuality’, The Journal of Sex Research, Vol.XVII
(1981), pp.292–3.
12. M. Âli, Kühn’ül-Ahbar (Istanbul: Takvimhane-i Âmire, 1277H [1861]), Vol.1, pp.79–80; Solakzâde
Tarihi (Istanbul: Mahmud Bey Matbaası, 1298H [1881]), pp.321–3.
13. el-Kostantini, Risale-i Zelzele, fols.3–18; M.A. Tahir, ‘Nusus Tarihiya li-Mu’arihin Dimashqiyin ‘an
Zalazil al-Qarn al-Thani ‘Ashar’, Bulletin d’Etudes Orientales, Vol.XXVII (1974), pp.55–108; Izgi, _
_
Osmanlı Medreselerinde Ilim, Vol.2, p.133.
_
14. Quoted in O. Sakin, Tarihsel Kaynaklara Göre Istanbul Depremleri (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2002), pp.141,
144–5.
_
15. E. Ihsano glu, ‘The Introduction of Western Science to the Ottoman World: A Case Study of Modern
Astronomy (1660–1860)’, in Science, Technology and Learning in the Ottoman Empire (Burlington, VT:
Ashgate, 2004), Vol.II, pp.22–8; de Boer and Sanders, Earthquakes in Human History, pp.88–107.
16. Ş.M. Hanio glu, ‘Blueprint for a Future Society’, in E. Özdalga (ed.), Late Ottoman Society: The
Intellectual Legacy (New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2005), pp.28–33; G. Prakash, Another Reason:
Science and the Imagination of Modern India (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999),
 The Istanbul Earthquake of 1894 923

_
pp.49–57; E. Ihsano glu, ‘Ottoman Science: The Last Episode in Islamic Scientific Tradition and the
Beginning of European Scientific Tradition’, in Science, Technology and Learning, pp.43–4.
17. For information about the development of earthquake theories in Europe see the website of HEAT
(Historical Earthquake Theories) http://www.univie.ac.at/Wissenschaftstheorie/heat/ (Retrieved on 2
August 2007).
18. _
E. Ihsano glu, ‘Başhoca Ishak Efendi: Pioneer of Modern Science in Turkey’, in Science, Technology
and Learning, pp.158–62.
19. R.M.A. Fethi, Ilm-i_ Tabakat’ül-Arz (Istanbul: Dar’ül-Tibaat’ül-Âmire, 1269H [1853]), pp.13–23.
20. C. Paşa, Tezâkir, Vols.1–12 (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1953), pp.34–5.
21. _
E. Ihsano glu, ‘Genesis of Learned Societies and Professional Associations in Ottoman Turkey’, in Science,
Technology and Learning, p. 173; quotation from Burçak, ‘Science, A Remedy for All Ills’, pp.88–91.
22. _
D.A. Bey, Ilm’ül-Arz ve’l-Meadin (Istanbul: Mekteb-i Tıbbiye, 1293 [1876]), pp.234–7; quotation from
Burçak, ‘Science, A Remedy for All Ills’, p.96; cf. ‘Earthquakes and Lunar Action’, Chicago Daily
Tribune, 24 July 1894, p.6.
23. M.E. Lacoine, ‘Nouvelle méthode pour déterminer la profondeur du centre d’action dans un tremblement
de terre tectonique’, Bulletin de la socie´té scientifique industrielle de Marseille, Vol.XXII (1894), pp.287–
92; A. Heilprin, The Earth and Its Story (New York: Silver, Burdett and Company, 1898), pp.132–6.
24. C. Davison, The Founders of Seismology (New York: Arno Press, 1978 [1927]), p.121; C. Davison, ‘On
the Annual and Semi-Annual Seismic Periods’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, Vol.CLXXXIV (1893), pp.1107–69; H.N. Hutchinson, ‘On the Cause of Earthquakes’,
Knowledge (August 1892), pp.145–8; K.A. Von Zittel, History of Geology and Paleontology (London:
Walter Scott, 1901), p.283.
25. See, for instance, the series of four articles published in the journal Mirsad in March–April 1891,
beginning with ‘Hareket-i Arz ve Esbab-ı Zuhuru Hakkında Meşahir Erbab-ı Fünundan Ba‘zılarının
Ekvalı’, Mirsad (Istanbul), 14 March 1307 (26 March 1891), pp.4–6.
26. C.F. Finkel and N.N. Ambraseys, ‘The Marmara Sea Earthquake of 10 July 1894’, Anatolia Moderna,
Vol.VII (1997), pp.50–54.
27. ‘The Earthquake at Constantinople’, Times (London), 12 July 1894, p.5; M. Genç and M. Mazak,
_
Istanbul Depremleri: Foto graf ve Belgelerle 1894 Depremi (Istanbul: I _ gdaş, 2000), pp.140–43; F. Ürekli,
_
Istanbul’da _
1894 Depremi (Istanbul: Iletişim, 1999), p.114.
28. M.Ö. Alkan, ‘Hatıralarda Deprem’, Cogito, Vol.XX (1999), pp.27–8; ‘Les tremblements de terre a
Constantinople’, Temps (Paris), 18 July 1894, pp.1–2 ; ‘Dernières nouvelles’, La Croix (Paris), 18 July
1894, p.3; ‘Sultan’s City Rocks: Many Lives are Reported Lost’, Chicago Herald, 11 July 1894, p.7; ‘al-
Zalazil fi al-Asitana’, al-Hilal (Cairo), 1 August 1894, pp.730–31.
29. ‘More Deaths by Earthquake’, New York Times, 12 July 1894, p.5; ‘Le mot de la science’, La Croix, 17
July 1894, p.3; Prime Minister’s Ottoman Archives (henceforth BOA)-Y.A.HUS 311/75.
30. H.E. Adivar, House with Wisteria: Memoirs of Halidé Edib (Charlottesville, VA: Leopolis Press, 2002),
pp.131–3; S.H. Longrigg, ‘al-Dadjdjal’, Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., Vol.II (Leiden: Brill, 1965),
pp.76–7.
31. _
1894 Yılında Istanbul’da Meydana Gelen Büyük Depreme ait Anonim Bir Günlük, Prepared by Sıddık
Çalik (Istanbul: Üsküdar Belediye Başkanlıgı, 2003), p.77; ‘Tremblement de terre de Constantinople’,
La Croix (Paris), 21 July 1894, p.1; A. Öztürkmen, ‘From Constantinople to Istanbul: Two Sources on
the Historical Folklore of a City’, Asian Folklore Studies, Vol.LXI (2002), p.281.
32. B.T. Zalman, ‘Mikhtavim mi-Yafo’, Habazeleth, 3 August 1894, p.349.
33. ‘Asbab al-Zalazil’, al-Hilal, 15 August 1894, p.750.
34. ‘al-Zalazil wa-Asbabiha’, al-Hilal, 1 August 1894, pp.713–17; H. Kâzım, ‘Hararet-i Merkeziye ve
Tezelzülât-ı Arziye’, Malumat, 28 July 1310 (9 August 1894), pp.188–90.
35. BOA-DH.SAID.d 166/183; Halil Edhem, Ilm-i _ Maadin ve Tabakat’ül-Arz (Istanbul: Mihran
Matbaası, 1307 [1891]), pp.226–9; K. Erguvanlı, ‘Halil Eldem ve Jeoloji’, in Halil Edhem: Hâtıra
Kitabı (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1948), Vol.2, pp.27–9.
36. H. Edhem, Hareket-i Arza dair Birkaç Söz (Istanbul: Mihran Matbaası, 1312H [1894]), pp.3–6, 17–32.
37. R. Mesti, Siper-i Zelzele (Istanbul: Ahter Matbaası, 1319 [1903]), pp.4–31; BOA-DH.SAID.d 76/79.
38. Mesti, Siper-i Zelzele, pp.6, 14–15, 42.
39. ‘The Devastation in Greece’, The Christian Herald, 4 July 1894, p.423.
40. _
H. Remzi, Ilm-i Arz (Istanbul: Matbaa-i Âmire, 1332H [1914]), pp.61–5; E.-M. Kemal, Yeni Ilm-i _ Arz
(Istanbul: Artin Asadoryan Matbaası, 1330 [1914]), pp.84–90.
924 A. Bein

_
41. Ürekli, Istanbul’da 1894 Depremi, pp.99–100
42. D. Eginitis, ‘Le rabblement de terre de Constantinople du 10 juillet 1894’, Annales de Ge´ographie
(Paris), Vol.4 (1895), pp.151–65; ‘Nature and Science’, The Youth’s Companion, 24 September 1896,
p.487.
_
43. BOA-I.HUS 33/1312.B-133; BOA-Y.PRK.BŞK 37/13; BOA-I.HUS _ 26/1312.M-067.
44. C. Davison, ‘The Constantinople Earthquake of July 10, 1894’, Natural Science, Vol.8 (1896), p.27;
_
BOA-I.HUS _
26/1312.M-067; BOA-I.MF 19/Ş/1313; BOA-Y.A.RES 107/14.
45. T. Küçükcan and A. Köse, Do _
gal Âfetler ve Din (Ankara: ISAM, 2006), pp.91–116.