From Issue Editor

Abstract

Conceptual history is an effective method—and, in some cases, the only key—for understanding periods marked by major social, cultural, and political transformations. To trace a transformation, one must follow the history of the concepts that bore witness to it and recorded its progression. The second half of the nineteenth century was such a period in the Ottoman cultural sphere, characterized by its multilingual and multiethnic components, during which a dramatic transformation took place. This period parallels what Reinhart Koselleck, in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe (Conceptual History), calls the Sattelzeit—a threshold period in which classical concepts undergo semantic ruptures and reconfigurations. Witnessing a transition in the development of modern ideas regarding language, communication, and aesthetics.^[1] On the one hand, certain traditional concepts were repurposed to adapt to the changing conditions of modernity; on the other hand, some terms fell out of circulation or experienced semantic shifts that reoriented them into new discursive frameworks. While some of these were quickly integrated as new entries into the lexicon, others—especially older, established terms—gradually lost their earlier cultural and political connotations and began to acquire new meanings. By the early twentieth century, the conceptual codes of cultural and political discourse in the Ottoman Empire—whether conservative and traditional or emerging from modern paradigms—had largely become compatible with modern epistemology.

This dossier in this issue of Nesir: Journal of Literary Studies, titled “A Conceptual Perspective on Late Ottoman Literature,” took shape following a workshop held at the University of Bologna on February 29–March 1, 2024. The event was organized within the framework of the ERC-funded project “Empires of Reform: Enlightenment, Nationalist Precursors, and Non-Western Literary Modernities.” The dossier aims to explore the interaction between the emerging literary modernity in the nineteenth century and the Ottoman-Turkish literature and criticism through the lens of conceptual history. The underlying premise of this methodological approach is not only that history finds expression in certain key concepts, but also that these concepts—through their internal contradictions and their interaction with prior meanings—can reveal, both synchronically and diachronically, critical aspects of literary modernity and its conceptual networks.^[2]

The nineteenth century marks a period of decisive transformation in Ottoman-Turkish literature, both in terms of form and conceptual structure. A radical shift occurred from traditional forms to Western-oriented and innovative literary expressions and narrative structures. This epistemological drift initiated by modernity led to the reconceptualization of earlier aesthetic and cultural norms. Here, I prefer the term “drift” over “epistemological rupture” or “break,” as the notion of rupture tends to disregard not only the processual and evolutionary dimensions of transformation but also its historical embeddedness, often evoking colonial histories instead. Beginning as early as the eighteenth-century reform movements, and gaining traction with the emergence of early print capitalism and a modest public sphere in the 1860s, the cultural field of the Ottoman Empire—like other premodern cultures—found itself drawn from deeply rooted aesthetic codes and practices into a modern aesthetic paradigm. It would be misguided, however, to understand the premodern or early modern literary and cultural sphere as a static or fixed system. The classical period in the Ottoman Empire was marked by a vibrant productivity, shaped not only by adherence to traditional norms but also by the creative transgression of those very norms, and it contained within itself profound internal contradictions. Unlike the Western tradition, where the transition to a modern poetics unfolded gradually over a prolonged period, the Ottoman context experienced this transformation within a matter of decades.

The core concepts and categories of modern aesthetics—such as originality, artistic genius, and creative imagination—were, of course, not entirely new ideas. Yet, as this new epistemological regime gained traction in the late nineteenth century, it warranted a reconfiguration of the literary field. The aesthetic valorization of original, personal style and its historical entanglement with the emergence of literary property radically altered traditional conceptions of the author and authorship. Ironically, reform and reorganization (tanzimat) brought with them not only a sense of progress but also feelings of belatedness, insufficiency, and even failure. In this light, the Tanzimat era may be read not solely as a moment of renewal, but equally as a period of anxiety and perceived inadequacy. What has often been mischaracterized as “Westernization” also entailed, in many instances, the hasty and contradictory adoption of modern forms under the shadow of imperial cultural and political decline. It was, in fact, a part of survival strategy.

The aim of this dossier is to explore how certain key concepts—traced both synchronically and diachronically—can help us follow the process of epistemological displacement that marked the nineteenth century. The articles included in this dossier examine central literary and cultural concepts that defined the final decades of the Ottoman Empire, offering a conceptual lens through which to analyze the transitions leading to literary modernity. Each study is structured around a key concept with culturally specific resonances and provides an in-depth analysis of its impact on the literary field within a historical framework. The topics addressed include the transformation of critical practices such as muâheze (censure) and tenkîd (critique); the concept of originality (şahsiyet) as a hallmark of modernity in both national and aesthetic terms; and the diachronic tracking of conceptual shifts in the writings of one of the period’s major authors. Together, these three articles shed light on various dimensions of the conceptual restructuring of aesthetic, literary, and cultural terminology, offering an entry point into understanding the late Ottoman literary landscape through the lens of conceptual history.

The first article in the dossier, titled “Fuad Köprülü’s Evolution: From Cosmopolitan Thought to National Historiography (1909–1913)” by Fatih Altuğ, examines the intellectual evolution of Fuad Köprülü—an influential figure in the conceptual formation of late Ottoman literary modernity. Altuğ traces the conceptual transformations of evolution, a central idea in Köprülü’s writings between 1909 and 1913, and investigates how this term underwent epistemological shifts in response to the political changes of the period. Initially influenced by European thinkers such as Darwin, Spencer, and Taine, Köprülü conceptualized evolution as both a product and a driver of social transformation, and as a pluralistic principle of aesthetic and intellectual development. However, the changing political climate after the Balkan Wars, and the emergence of a new nationalist intellectual milieu formed around Ziya Gökalp, prompted a significant redefinition of this concept. In this new framework, evolution became entangled with ideas of individual creativity, cultural vitality, and national will. This new understanding, influenced by Bergson’s creative evolution, mutationist theories, and Gökalp’s sociology of culture, found methodological expression in Köprülü’s 1913 essay “Method in the History of Turkish Literature,” where he laid the foundations for a nationalized literary historiography. In line with the broader framework of this dossier, Altuğ’s article illustrates how a European-derived conceptual framework was transformed into a foundational epistemology for Ottoman-Turkish literary studies. It exemplifies why tracing the historical trajectory of concepts is essential for understanding the construction of literary modernity.

Hazal Bozyer’s article, “Not Ambition, but Culture: The Transformation of the Concept of Personality from the Late Ottoman to the Early Republican Era,” examines the historical and conceptual transformation of the notion of şahsiyet (personality/individuality) across the period spanning from the late Ottoman era to the early years of the Turkish Republic. Employing the method of conceptual history, the study explores how this transformation intersected with the rise of literary modernity. Covering the period from the 1860s to the 1930s, the article traces how concepts such as identity, autonomy, individuality, and nationhood were shaped and transmitted into the public sphere—particularly through literary production and periodicals. In an era when the distinction between journalist and author had not yet fully crystallized, şahsiyet emerged as a key concept that articulated both individual creativity and collective identity formation. Bozyer’s article provides a multilayered conceptual mapping of şahsiyet and şahsiyetçilik, analyzing them not only as expressions of individual character but also in their aesthetic, social, and political dimensions. By focusing on how the term was redefined both discursively and ideologically during the Tanzimat, the Second Constitutional Era, and the early Republican period, the article shows how şahsiyet gradually shifted—particularly after 1900—towards a notion of national character under the influence of nationalist thought. This conceptual shift intertwined with evolving literary values such as originality, authority, and representation. In doing so, the study makes a significant contribution to the dossier’s overarching aim of tracing the historical trajectories of concepts both synchronically and diachronically.

The final article of the dossier, titled “In the Liminal Space of Muâheze, Tenkîd and Criticism: The Foundational Texts of Literary Criticism in Turkish Literature,” by Atiye Gülfer Gündoğdu, offers a conceptual history–oriented reading of two foundational texts of modern Ottoman literary criticism: Namık Kemal’s Tahrîb-i Harâbât and Ta‘kîb. Although these texts are widely recognized as seminal contributions to the emergence of literary criticism in modern Turkish literature—forming a lineage from Mizancı Murat to Ahmet Hamdi Tanpınar—Gündoğdu argues that the conceptual content of criticism itself has not been sufficiently interrogated in these works. Her article addresses this gap by examining the semantic and discursive fluidities among the terms muâheze (reproach), tenkîd (critique), and eleştiri (criticism) within their historical and rhetorical contexts. Gündoğdu shows that the critiques Namık Kemal directed toward Harâbât exhibit a hybrid form of criticism: one that oscillates between muâheze, targeting the author personally, and tenkîd, which seeks to distinguish authentic poetry from the inauthentic. In these texts, criticism emerges not only as an aesthetic judgment but also as a moral and political one. The term muhâkeme (judgment) employed by Kemal—implying both reasoning and adjudication—brings to light early modern dimensions of critical thought in the Ottoman context. In this way, the article aligns with the dossier’s overall aim of tracing the historical transformations of key cultural and aesthetic concepts in the construction of literary modernity. It explores how the notion of criticism was named, framed, and rearticulated in Ottoman-Turkish discourse through both linguistic and epistemological shifts.

In the “Research Articles (Outside the Dossier)” section of this issue, the article titled “Folk Literature Verses in Turkish Books Written for Foreigners during the Ottoman Period” by Osman Ataş and Sevim Önder examines examples of folk verse included in textbooks designed to teach Turkish to foreigners between 1600 and 1923. Focusing on works by European authors who, in response to the lack of Turkish-language resources and the general neglect of oral tradition materials, turned to anthologizing such content, the study investigates the functions, frequencies, and variants of folk genres such as türkü and mani in language instruction. Drawing on a corpus of 140 works, the article aims both to reveal the instruments of cultural transmission and to lay the groundwork for future research in the field.

Zeynep Oktay’s article, “The Mesnevi Form and the Emergence of Turkish Literature in Anatolia: Vernacularization, Performance, and Collective Emotion,” investigates the role of the mesnevi verse form in the emergence of Turkish as a literary language in Anatolia and the Balkans. Focusing on oral transmission, ritual, and collective affect, Oktay argues that the mesnevi functioned both as an Islamic narrative form and as a vehicle for localized cultural production. By exploring the relationship between Persian literary tradition and the performative dimensions of folk storytelling, the study highlights the multilayered structure of the mesnevi as both a textual and social form.

The final article in this section, “The Dark Language of “Young Pen”: Evil in Ömer Seyfettin’s Short Stories,” by Veysel Öztürk, explores representations of evil in Seyfettin’s fiction. In the context of his atrocity stories written during the Balkan Wars, evil appears as a rhetorical tool of nationalist discourse. However, in certain narratives, the blurring of the voices of narrator and perpetrator renders evil visible beyond ideological frames—as a deeply human and psychological experience. Öztürk argues that evil, in these stories, is not merely a theme, but also a structural and expressive element of narrative itself.

In the “Research Note” section, Ahmed Nuri focuses on the correspondence between Halide Edib (Adıvar) and Hjalmar Lindquist, who translated her novel Ateşten Gömlek (The Shirt of Flame) into Swedish under the title Eldskjortan in 1928.

This issue of Nesir also features two book reviews. Kaan Kurt evaluates Kadir Dede’s study Edebiyatın Ulusu, Ulusun Edebiyatı: Erken Cumhuriyet Dönemi’nde Ulus İnşası ve Roman (The Nation of Literature, the Literature of the Nation: Nation-Building and the Novel in the Early Republican Period, 2021), while Büşra Şengül reviews Trauma and Narrative (Travma ve Anlatı, 2024), edited by Deniz Gündoğan İbrişim.

In the “Documents” section, Gizem Görgülüer and Songül Yağcıoğlu present and analyze two newly identified poems attributed to the poet Gevherî, offering both transcriptions and interpretative commentary.

Finally, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the advisory board members, section editors, contributors, and reviewers who have supported the preparation of this issue. I am grateful as well to the contributors to the dossier who, due to time constraints, were unable to complete the publication process. I am also pleased to announce that the ninth issue of Nesir, to be published in October 2025, will be devoted to the theme “Mimesis in Philosophy and Literature: Representation, Truth, and Meaning.” Nesir welcomes original and high-quality submissions on this topic until August 1, 2025.

[1] Reinhart Koselleck, “Introduction and Prefaces to the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe,” trans. Michaela Richter, Contributions to the History of Concepts 6, no. 1 (June 1, 2011): 9; Reinhart Koselleck, The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002).

^[2] For studies on conceptual history in the Ottoman context, see Einar Wigen, “Ottoman Concepts of Empire,” Contributions to the History of Concepts 8, no. 1 (2013): 44–66; and Alp Eren Topal and Einar Wigen, “Ottoman Conceptual History: Challenges and Prospects,” Contributions to the History of Concepts 14, no. 1 (2019): 93–114. For recent examples of conceptual approaches in Ottoman and Turkish historiography, see Ahmet Şimşek (ed.), Kavram Tarihi Çalışmaları (Istanbul: Vakıfbank Kültür Yayınları, 2025). For foundational works in the literary and cultural applications of the method, see Raymond Williams, Keywords (London: Fontana Paperbacks, 1988); and Quentin Skinner, Visions of Politics, Volume 1: Regarding Method (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).