Polemics Debate of Old-New Kemal Ahmet's Case Against the Accusation That He Had Turned Bourgeois Against Leftist Pretenders Against the Accusation that He was a Nationalist In the article "A Little Light, Please 5" of a week later, Peyami Safa was claiming that Nâzım Hikmet was a man who lived "in entire bourgeois hedonism," "delighting in rare steaks, lobsters, and cakes." He was describing the poet as the Bolshevik doll, 'the Bolshevik bigot,' 'the imitation of the false communist,' 'hungering for fame, the capitalist fame,' the 'Bolshevik snob,' the 'Bolshevik cheat': "There is nothing in his life that might persuade us of his sincerity except for two prison sojourns. But then, in the course of the Turkish revolution, many intellectuals, both sincere and insincere in their ideas, have served time in prison. "In the framework of revolutionary discipline, serving time has become rather a spontaneous necessity befalling many than an act of heroism. "But unlike Nâzım, none of the many have sought to utilising this bitter experience. Utilising it particularly for fame and as something to brag about. "While Nâzım Hikmet is now indulging his bourgeois hedonism, numerous communists are in prison. I felt more pain and respect than anyone else for what Nâzım suffered for his ideas than for the obstinacy he has shown in not letting go of an idea he no longer believes in. [...] "I shall not deny that he has suffered. Nor shall I underestimate the degree of his suffering. But it is the duty of those who know the psychology of conceit, to try to wake up the credulous who might fall in the uncouth trap laid by this clever man who wants us to take the discomfort he had been through in a dark room for genius." ("Hafta," 5 August 1935) In "A Little Light, Please 6" that appeared in "Hafta" on 12 August 1935, beyond Nâzım Hikmet, Peyami Safa faced head-on all communist intellectuals: "Are you interested in passing yourself off as a communist intellectual, a communist philosopher, a communist sage? Commit to memory some forty-fifty sentences, and amplify them when need be. "Take the following sentence, for example on the morality: 'Morality is the consequence of class interest. Everything is for the sake of class; proletarian ethics knows no other basis. The good is everything that expedites class victory; the bad is everything that leads to its defeat.' "The following sentence on art: " 'As it does everywhere else, class struggle will figure in art, too. There can be no neutral art and literature in class-society. Art and literature are the weapons of the working class.' [...] "Learning by heart a few other such sayings [...], it will become quite possible for you to pass yourself off as a communist intellectual. [...] "I shall not undertake a complete critique in the framework of single polemics that concerns trivial person who is the issue here. "I only sought to shed candle-light on the falseness of frivolous idealists bred in our climate by an article of faith extremely conducive to demagogy and snobbery. [...] "I believe that in the next issue, though belatedly, we shall be able to rescue this topic from the undeserved importance it has acquired." In the final article entitled "A Little Light, Please 7," which appeared in "Hafta" on 19 August 1935, Peyami Safa was offering a summary of the discussion, restating his positions, and claiming the following: "As if bent on kindly proving me in the right, Nâzım Hikmet attempted to reply to all of the above in words that attested to his meagre ore and small calibre. [...] "Whenever he failed to devise evidence for his futile claims, he ever cast the same bland words into the dry mould of versy wordiness, and went up and down the street in Babıâli, reading his writings to everyone he came across. [...] "I repeat: when I entered these polemics, I was not aware of the degree of worthlessness and emptiness of the mind of defended against those who insisted on the imbecility of his mind and writings. had I known it, I would not have felt a necessity to shake him thus off." The poem Nâzım Hikmet had written on 11-20 July 1935, entitled "Satirical Essays on a Provocateur" had begun to circulate on tongues. In the initial issue of "Aydabir," launched on 1 September 1935, editors Yusuf Ziya Ortaç and Orhan Seyfi Orhon published the poem which readers had been eagerly awaiting. But somehow, a 17-line segment of the poem ending with the lines, "Mason localarına üç defa başvurup/mason localarından üç defa kovulmayı" had been omitted from the publication. While Yusuf Ziya Ortaç was apologising, Nâzım Hikmet was thanking him as this error had given him the idea to collect his satires in a book titled "Portraits." In the same issue of "Aydabir," Peyami Safa too had published an essay. Entitled "The Painted Sentence," this essay was about painted writings which had not a single novel idea in them: "You will not encounter a single thought among the througs of metaphor in these essays. This author will for example, be talking about a non-existent man and become engaged in a ruthless criticism of him. He will try to compare him to a rotten egg, an unripe quince, a ship whose sail's blown out, a boat whose frame's rotten - let's see, what else? - a stork whose stomach bursts because it has swallowed lightening, and some such other thing, and some such other things. The thought that underlines all that paint can be but expressed in one expletive." Peyami Safa has most likely been informed that "Bir Provokatör Üstüne Hiciv Denemeleri" would be published in that issue. Yusuf Ziya Ortaç and Orhan Seyfi Orhon had not published Nâzım Hikmet's poem because in the polemics they were on his side. They had aimed at attracting readers. Like everyone else, Peyami Safa too, was aware of this. He had not deemed strange the attitude of the magazine's owners. ^ Top | Next >