Abstract
As we take up the lecture for the year 2019, it's worth recalling the main topics and questions covered in the previous year. First of all, questions of method, since one of the primary aims of teaching this chair is to lay bare research, as and while it is being done, from questioning to sources, from sources to documentary criticism and from documentary criticism to the conclusions we can try to draw from this information. That's why we'll be sticking with last year's method, a kind of narrative with two times or two speeds, alternating between, on the one hand, generalities to frame and give context to the events and phenomena evoked and, on the other, close-ups and/or digressions to delve deeper into particular aspects by sharing the details of the documentation concerned. As a reminder, last year's " case studies " provided an opportunity to question points of method and knowledge that were a little too easily accepted or insufficiently questioned. " The color of Franchet d'Espèrey's white horse " belonged to the first category, suggesting that certain " certainties " were not to be trusted, but also that the errors and distortions that could creep in were in themselves indicative of phenomena that often merited analysis. In a more critical context, Halet Efendi's letter, the plagiarism of Şanizade or Mahmud Raif Efendi's map of America are all examples which, even if they are based on very specific, even unique documentation, nonetheless call into question many aspects of the way Ottomans saw, perceived and used Western knowledge, notions, techniques or values.
