In the Liminal Space of Muâheze, Tenkîd and Criticism: The Foundational Texts of Literary Criticism in Turkish Literature

Abstract

The necessity of recognizing Nâmık Kemâl’s Tahrîb-i Harâbât and Ta‘kîb as the first original works of late Ottoman-Turkish literary criticism has been emphasized by major figures such as Mizancı Murat and Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar and has gradually become a point of consensus among modern Turkish literary scholars. Despite their divergence from the tezkire tradition by shifting their focus to literary texts and being regarded as the foundation of modern criticism, the fact that these works have not been examined as critical texts in their own right produces a paradoxical space of silence in which critical thought has been delayed in interrogating its own foundations. Both texts present themselves as muâheze while also demonstrating a fluidity between criticism and the early Ottoman-Turkish literary conventions of tenkîd and muâheze. In response to Harâbât, Kemâl at times approaches criticism as the identification of a work’s deficiencies and the regulation of its flaws, occasionally shifting toward muâheze by targeting the author rather than the text itself. At the same time, by adopting the role of a nâkkad (a critic who discerns genuine poetry from false poetry), he embodies the etymological essence of tenkîd. However, the aspects of judgment, reasoning, and ruling inherent in the concept of muhâkeme, which he used as an equivalent for criticism before adopting muâheze, continue to influence his criticism. This study, while considering the historical evolution of the concept of criticism, discusses the early forms of criticism in the late Ottoman-Turkish literary sphere and the issues of naming and conceptualizing it through the first original critical texts.