Istanbul
debate over Dönme identity was thus among three men who had inti-
mate knowledge of the Karakaş, the group most reluctant to give up its
customs. Whether Gövsa was a Dönme or not, Dönme disliked him for
publishing the first Turkish-language monograph explaining Dönme his-
tory and religion to the public.^67
Gövsa argues that “the traces that Shabbatai Tzevi left behind are more
important than the movement during his lifetime” since the memory of
the messianic figure, “if only among a small group, is still kept fully alive”
( 3 ). He notes how Rüştü had “revealed some of the secrets of the group
to which he belongs,” and that the first analysis of Shabbatai Tzevi and
the Dönme in Turkish had appeared in Vatan, “which is published by this
group” ( 4 ). But he criticizes Yalman’s series for “trying to convince every-
one that the characteristics and customs of the group that Rüştü insists
are still alive and continuing are actually superstitions that have become a
thing of the past” ( 5 ).
According to Gövsa, only fifteen years before, in 1924 , when Yalman’s
series of articles appeared, Dönme children had begun their prayers with
the Judeo-Spanish words “In the blessed name of Shabbatai Tzevi, who
governs half the world... .” As evidence that their religion was alive and
developing, and that there was still a coherent community of Dönme,
Gövsa claimed that Karakaş prayers were also changing, as were their ti-
tles for their religious leaders. He notes the use of new titles in quoting a
1937 death announcement in Cumhuriyet (Republic) of a Salonikan (i.e.,
Dönme) man who resided in Şişli and was buried in his family’s tomb
in Üsküdar, shorthand for the main Dönme cemetery ( 77 ). Moreover,
because Dönme cannot eat lamb before the “Month of the Lamb,” the
school cook refused to cook lamb before that time ( 96 ).^68 Gövsa notes
that although there are Dönme who have begun to mix with the general
population and intermarry, “nevertheless, even if only for a small group, it
cannot be denied that the memory of Shabbatai Tzevi is still kept energet-
ically alive.” Gövsa then defends freedom of religion in Turkey, and says
“there are intelligent and valuable members of Shabbatai’s group who play
an important role in the nation’s economic and intellectual life, including
some who are my friends,” ( 6 ) most likely referring to Yalman.
Rather than arguing along the lines of race like Rüştü, Gövsa places
Dönme religion at the center of his analysis. Basing himself also on the
recently published monograph by Galanté, Gövsa notes that internal rea-
sons had compelled the Dönme to maintain their distinctness. Unlike Yal-