1 From Discourse to Practice: Rethinking Translation (Terceme) and Related Practices of Text Production in the Late Ottoman Literary Tradition Cemal Demircioğlu Boğaziçi University 2005
2 ii From Discourse to Practice: Rethinking Translation (Terceme) and Related Practices of Text Production in the Late Ottoman Literary Tradition Dissertation submitted to the Institute of Social Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Translation Studies by Cemal Demircioğlu Boğaziçi University 2005
3 iii The dissertation of Cemal Demircioğlu is approved by: Prof. Dr. Saliha Paker (Committee Chairperson) Prof. Dr. Işın Bengi-Öner Prof. Dr. Zafer Toprak Prof. Dr. Günay Kut Doç. Dr. Süha Oğuzertem June 2005
4 iv To the memory of İlhan Demircioğlu, Aynur and Zeki Kurt and Serpil Hotaman
5 v Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisor Prof. Dr. Saliha Paker, first of all for her invaluable support and for her encouraging me to become engaged in translation studies and to pursue research on Ottoman translation history in particular. I am deeply grateful to Professor Paker for her invaluable supervision and comments on revising and editing the dissertation. I owe this thesis to her enthusiasm, vision, energy, kindly assistance and friendship as well as to her questioning perspectives in her publications on Ottoman translation history that opened new perspectives for me throughout my research. I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Işın Bengi who carried out the first doctoral study on Ahmed Midhat Efendi s translations for her invaluable comments that developed my vision during my research. I also wish to express my thanks to the members in my doctoral dissertation committee for their invaluable comments and suggestions. I am also deeply grateful to two other scholars at Boğaziçi University for their invaluable support and assistance throughout my studies. I thank Prof. Dr. Günay Kut for her friendly assistance in solving several problems during my research into a number of primary sources in Ottoman Turkish in my corpus. I also thank Doç. Dr. Zehra Toska, both for her kindly inviting me to the first interdisciplinary translation project in Turkey which was initiated and coordinated by Prof. Dr. Saliha Paker in 1997, and for answering my never-ending questions on classical Ottoman literature. I am also grateful to the late Prof. Dr. Şinasi Tekin of Harvard University for his invaluable comments and suggestions on translation activity in Turkish, particularly in East Turkic, in the early stages of my research. I also thank The American Research Institute in Turkey (ARIT) for a grant to support my doctoral research project in I would like to express my gratitude too to Melek Gençboyacı, the administrator of the Millet Library, and to library staffs of both the Taksim Atatürk Kitaplığı and the Center for Islamic Research (ISAM) in Istanbul for doing their best to help me work on a number of Ottoman Turkish materials.
6 vi Finally, many thanks go to my wife and colleague Dr. Tülay Gençtürk Demircioğlu for her academic and technical help, for her invaluable enthusiasm and energy and for sharing with me all the trials of conducting doctoral research. Many thanks also to our petite fille Ezgi, a five year old side-product of the thesis, for letting me finish my research though I stole much time from her, and for her patience, smiles and love. I am also grateful to the Gençtürk Family for their kind support in household matters and to my late mother and my father for their love and support.
7 vii Vita Place and Date of Birth: Samsun, Degrees Awarded: M.A. in Turkish Language and Literature, Boğaziçi University, B.A. in Turkish Language and Literature, Boğaziçi University, Professional Appointments: Lecturer, Boğaziçi University, Department of Turkish Language and Literature (2002-) Research Assistant, Boğaziçi University, Department of Turkish Language and Literature ( ) Rewards Awarded: A reward for scholarly studies on the biography and works of Müfide Ferit Tek, the founder of the Turkish Federation of Soroptimist International in 1948, given by the Turkish Federation of Soroptimist International in May Grants in Scholarship: A grant for the doctoral research project in 1993, supported by the American Research Institute in Turkey (ARIT). Publications Demircioğlu, Cemal, Tülay Gençtürk Demircioğlu et al. (2004) Üniversitelerde Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Alanında Yapılan Tezler ve Yayınlar Bibliyografyası İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Department of Turkish Language and Literature. Demircioğlu, Cemal (2003) 19. Yüzyıl Sonu Türk Edebiyatında Tercüme Kavramı, Journal of Turkish Studies (Türklük Bilgisi Araştırmaları), Kaf Dağının Ötesine Varmak, Günay Kut Armağanı, No. 27, vol. II, Demircioğlu, Cemal, Tülay Gençtürk Demircioğlu et al. (2003) Üniversitelerde Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Alanında Yapılan Tezler ve Yayınlar Bibliyografyası İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Department of Turkish Language and Literature. Demircioğlu, Cemal, Tülay Gençtürk Demircioğlu et al. (2002) Üniversitelerde Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Alanında Yapılan Tezler ve Yayınlar Bibliyografyası İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Department of Turkish Language and Literature.
8 viii Demircioğlu, Cemal (2000) Aziyade ve Hamam'da Doğunun Kurgulanışı, Toplumsal Tarih, No. 73, Demircioğlu, Cemal (1998) İmparatorluktan Cumhuriyete Aydemir Müellifi Müfide Ferit Hanım, Toplumsal Tarih, No. 59, Demircioğlu, Cemal (1998) Çeviribilim Açısından Usta Beni Öldürsen E! ve Bazı Sorunlar, Varlık, No. 1088, Demircioğlu, Cemal (1998) Müfide Ferit Tek ve Romanlarındaki Milliyetçilik, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Boğaziçi University. Demircioğlu, Cemal (1997) Oryantalizm ve Edebiyat İlişkisinde İki Eser: Aziyade ve Miss. Chalfrin'in Albümünden, Adam Sanat, No. 138, Novack, Cynthia J. (1990) Bedensel Devinim Kültüreldir (Translated from the English by Mutlu Öztürk and Cemal Demircioğlu) Folklora Doğru, Dans- Müzik-Kültür Araştırmaları, vol. 59, Rıza Tevfik (1998) Dans Hakkında (Intralingual translation by Cemal Demircioğlu and Tülay Gençtürk Demircioğlu) Folklora Doğru, Dans-Müzik-Kültür Araştırmaları, vol. 63,
9 ix Abstract The aim of the present thesis is to explore and analyze on various levels concepts of translation in Ottoman culture in the late nineteenth century. Cemal Demircioğlu s From Discourse to Practice: Rethinking Translation (Terceme) and Related Practices of Text Production in the Late Ottoman Literary Tradition investigates on one level the implications of various discourses on the literary translation activity carried out in this period from the historical-descriptive and systemic perspective in Translation Studies. It also examines the ways in which translation/s contributed to the making of Ottoman literary repertoires in connection with European culture and literature. On another level, it examines culture-specific aspects of Ottoman translation practices, with a special focus on terms and concepts, and suggests rethinking terceme as a culture-bound and time-bound notion of Ottoman translation tradition. As an exemplary corpus for rethinking translation in terms of diverse writing practices, a number of works by Ahmed Midhat Efendi, a significant Tanzimat novelist, translator and journalist, are analyzed with an eye demonstrating diversity, culture-bound and time-bound notions in his translation discourses and practice. The present thesis also offers a comparative analysis of Ahmed Midhat Efendi s summary translation, Sid in Hulâsası, of Pierre Corneille s Le Cid as a case study. The summary translation was chosen because it combines in a single work both paratextual and translation discourse that lend themselves to the analysis of a particular kind of Ottoman text production via translation. The present thesis is also the first extensive academic research on the history of Ottoman/Turkish (a) translational terms and concepts, and (b) translational practices. It proposes a genealogy and lexicon of translational terms which is intended for the use of researchers. Most importantly, the thesis emphasizes the importance of the distinctions between time-bound and culture-bound practices of translation as terceme in the study of Ottoman translation history. As a result, the present thesis suggests rethinking translation in Ottoman culture not in terms of the modern concept of çeviri but of terceme and related practices, without overlooking historical continuity.
10 x Özet Bu tezin amacı, 19. yüzyıl sonu Osmanlı kültüründe terceme kavramını çeşitli yönlerden incelemek ve çözümlemektir. Cemal Demircioğlu nun From Discourse to Practice: Rethinking Translation (Terceme) and Related Practices of Text Production in the Late Ottoman Literary Tradition başlıklı araştırması hem edebi çeviri etkinliği üzerine çok çeşitli söylemleri tarihsel-betimlemeli ve dizgeci bir bakış açısı ile incelemekte hem de çevirilerin Avrupa kültür ve edebiyatıyla ilişkili olarak Osmanlı edebiyat repertuvarları nın oluşumuna ne şekilde katkı sağladığını araştırmaktadır. Öte yandan, terim ve kavramlara odaklanarak, Osmanlı kültüründe terceme uygulamalarındaki kültüre-bağlı yönleri de ele almaktadır. Ayrıca bu tez, terceme yi Osmanlı çeviri geleneğinin kültüre-bağlı ve zamana-bağlı bir kavramı olarak yeniden düşünmeyi önermektedir. Çeviriyle ilişkili çok çeşitli yazı uygulamaları bağlamında terceme kavramını yeniden düşünmek üzere araştırmada, Tanzimat döneminin önemli yazarı, mütercimi ve gazetecisi olan Ahmed Midhat Efendi nin pek çok eseri, örnek bir külliyat olarak ele alınmaktadır. Onun çeviri söyleminde ve uygulamalarında karşımıza çıkan kültüre-bağlı ve zamana-bağlı kavramlar, çeşitliliği göstermek bakımından incelenmektedir. Tez, ayrıca Ahmed Midhat Efendi nin Pierre Corneille in Le Cid isimli eserinden yaptığı özet çeviriyi de karşılaştırmalı bir biçimde çözümlemektedir. Bu eser, gerek metin-ötesi ve çeviri ile ilgili söylemlerin tek bir eserde bir araya gelmesi, gerekse çeviri yoluyla Osmanlı kültüründe metin üretiminin özgün bir örneğini incelememize imkân sağlaması bakımından seçilmiştir. Bu tez, hem Osmanlıca/Türkçedeki çeviriyle ilgili terim ve kavramların tarihi hem de çeviri uygulamaları üzerine yapılan ilk akademik araştırmadır. Bu nedenle araştırma, çeviriyle ilgili terim ve kavramların bir soykütüğünü ve sözlüğünü de oluşturmaktadır. Daha da önemlisi araştırma, Osmanlı çeviri tarihi araştırmalarında, terceme olarak çevirinin, kültüre-bağlı ve zamana-bağlı uygulamaları arasındaki farklara dikkat çekmektedir. Sonuç olarak bu tez, Osmanlı kültüründe çeviri olgusunu, tarihsel sürekliliği gözardı etmeden, modern kavram olan çeviri ile değil terceme ve onunla ilişkili uygulamalar ile düşünmek gerektiğine işaret etmektedir.
11 xi From Discourse to Practice: Rethinking Translation (Terceme) and Related Practices of Text Production in the Late Ottoman Literary Tradition Introduction... 1 Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework and Methodology Representation of Late Ottoman Translation Activity in the Literary Histories between and The Late Ottoman Context of Translation A Period of Innovation (Teceddüd) Translation (Terceme) and Progress Importing (İdhal) and Taking (Ahz) Material from the West A Period of Imitation (Taklid), Borrowing (İktibas), Translation (Terceme), Modelling (İmtisal) and Emulation (Tanzir) The Republican Representation of the Late Ottoman Context of Translation Innovation as Our Starting Point Western Acculturation and Innovation Shifting Civilization; Europeanization and Humanism A Period of Translation (Çeviri), Imitation (Taklid) and Emulation (Tanzir) Objections to the Origins of Innovation Imitation and Negative Attitudes towards Western Influence Republican Discourse on Ottoman Translation Strategies and Fidelity Scholarly Studies on Ottoman Translation Activity Questioning Perspectives Consequences Theoretical Framework Toury s Notion of Assumed Translation Even-Zohar s Theory of Culture Repertoire, Invention, Import and Transfer Culture/Literature Planning and Idea-Makers Lefevere s Concept of Rewriting
12 xii Venuti s Distinction between Domesticating and Foreignizing Translations Ottoman Interculture and Translation Methodology Summary Chapter 2: A Historical Overview: Turkish Terms/Concepts for Translation from the Pre-Ottoman to Ottoman Periods Identifying Translation in East Turkic: Uyghur Turkish Translation as Evirmek, Yaratmak, Aktarmak, Çevürmek, Döndermek Identifying Translation in West Turkic: Old Anatolian Turkish and What Followed Translation as Döndermek (14 th, 15 th and 16 th Centuries) Translation as Nakl, Terceme/Tercüme (14 th and 15 th Centuries) Translation as Tasnif (Re-arrangement/Compilation or Rewriting) (14 th and 15 th Centuries) Translation as Turkifying in Verse Narratives Translation as Nazm nakl eylemek (To convey in verse), Be-tazmin getürmek (To take/appropriate from), Mütercem itmek (To translate) (14 th and 15 th Centuries) Translation as Türkî suretinde söylemek (To tell in Turkish) (14 th Century) Translation as Türkîye dönmek (To turn into Turkish), Türkîye getürmek (To bring into Turkish), Türkîce şerh eylemek (To comment in Turkish) (14 th Century) Translation as Türkçe nazm inşa eylemek (To construct verse in Turkish), Türkçe kılmak (To make/render Turkish) (16 th Century) Translation as Türkîce dibac giyürmek (To dress in a garment of Turkish), Dîbâ-yı Rûmî giyürmek (To dress in a western (Anatolian) garment) (16 th and 18 th Centuries) Identifying Translation in Lexicons in the Late Nineteenth Century Two Orthographic Variants: Terceme and Tercüme
13 xiii Terceme in Dictionaries Translated from Arabic Translation as Tefsir (Exegesis) and Beyan (Stating/Expressing) Terceme in Ottoman Turkish Dictionaries Translation Defined as Tefsir (Exegesis) and Beyan (Stating/Expressing) Nakl (Conveying) Defined as Terceme (Translation) Translation Defined as Çevirme Summary 148 Chapter 3: Aspects of Late Nineteenth Century Ottoman Turkish Discourse on Literary Translation Concepts and Definitions of Translation (Terceme) Terceme as Metaphor Ahmed Midhat Efendi and the Classics Debate of 1897: translation as Terceme and Taklid (Imitation) Translation as Nazire (Emulation) in Prose Terceme Strategies in Translating Poetry Translation as İktibasen Terceme (Translation by Means of Borrowing) Translation as Aynen Terceme (Translation as the Same) Translation as Nazire/Tanzir (Emulation) in Poetry Functions Attributed to Translations (Terceme) in the Late Nineteenth Century Ottoman Discourse A Need for Translating from the West: Translation and Progress Norms in Selecting Source Texts: Suitability to Moral Values Strategies of Translation in Late Ottoman Discourse Two-Term Taxonomy in the Discourse on Translation: Aynen (as the Same) and Serbest (Free) Three-Term Taxonomy in the Discourse on Translation: Aynen (as the Same), Mealen (Sense-for-sense) and Tevsien (Expanded) Four-Term Taxonomy in the Discourse on Translation: Fidelity to Sanayi-i Lafziyye (Figures of Speech) and Maneviyye (Figures of Thoughts), Mealen (Sense-for-sense) and Taklid (Imitation)
14 xiv Tahvil (Conversion) and Akd ü Hall as Translation in the Late Ottoman Discourse Hulâsa (Summary Translation) as a Strategy in the Discourse on Translation The Problem of Translatability The Problem of Terminological Correspondences in the Discourse on Translation The Quality of Translators: Competence in Target and Source Languages Summary Chapter 4: Analyzing Culture-Specific Aspects of Translation in the Works of Ahmed Midhat Efendi An Analysis of Two Bibliographies Rethinking Turkish Notions of Translation in Space and Time: Translation as Çeviri or Terceme Culture-bound and Time-bound Terms and/or Notions of Translation (Terceme) in Paratexts Translation as İktibas (Borrowing) Diplomalı Kız İki Hüd akâr Ana Kız Aleksandr Stradella Şeytankaya Tılsımı Nedamet mi? Heyhat! Kısmetinde Olanın Kaşığında Çıkar Çifte İntikam Translation as Terceme (Translation) Amiral Bing Bilgiç Kız Üç Yüzlü Bir Karı Hüsrevnâme Translation as Muhavere (Conversation/Dialogue) Niza-ı İlm ü Din İslâm ve Ulûm Translation as Nakl (Conveying)
15 xv Konak yahud Şeyh Şamil in Kafkasya Muharebatında Bir Hikâye-i Garibe Translation as Hulâsa (Summary) Hulâsa-i Humayunname Conclusions Summary Chapter 5: Translating in Dialogue with the West: Ahmed Midhat Efendi s Summary Translation of Pierre Corneille s Le Cid Looking at Paratextual Elements The Preface: İfade (Statement) The Supplement: Sid in İntikadı (The Critique of Le Cid) Analysis of Ahmed Midhat Efendi s Critique of Le Cid On the Foundations of Corneille s Le Cid Analyzing the Matricial Features of the Summary Translation of Le Cid Comparative Analysis of the Structural Distribution in TT and ST Comparative Analysis of the Matricial Features of the TT and the ST with regard to the Narrative Makeup of the TT Introductory Explanations to Individual Scenes Paraphrases of Individual Scenes, Dialogues and Long Utterances Translations in one-to-one Correspondence with ST Utterances One-to-one Correspondence in the Translation of Verse Speeches and Dialogues Ahmed Midhat Efendi s Narrative Technique in his Summary Translation Treatment of Proper Names in TT Summary Conclusion References
16 xvi Appendices Appendix 1: The Title Page of Ahmed Midhat Efendi s Summary Translation Sid in Hulâsası and of Pierre Corneille s Le Cid. 363 Appendix 2: Title Pages of Ahmed Midhat Efendi s Works Examined in the Thesis Appendix 3: Chart indicating non-linear, beyond-binary translational relationships among terms and/or concepts in Ahmed Midhat Efendi s Discourse Appendix 4: A Selected Corpus of Ahmed Midhat Efendi s Translational Works Appendix 5: Turkish Transcription of Ahmed Midhat Efendi s Summary Translation (Sid in Hulâsası) of Pierre Corneille s Le Cid
17 xvii Notes English translations of quotations from Ottoman Turkish (written in Arabic script) as well as from modern Turkish (written in Roman letters) are mine, unless otherwise stated. In converting dates in the hegira calendar to the Christian calendar, Faik Reşit Unat s Hicrî Tarihleri Milâdî Tarihe Çevirme Kılavuzu (1988) has been used. In the thesis, publication dates of the works in the hegira calendar are given after a slash [/], preceded by their correspondences in the Christian calendar. Türk Dil Kurumu İmlâ Kılavuzu (1995) (The Guide for Turkish Orthography, published by the Turkish Language Association) has been used in the Turkish transcription of textual materials in Ottoman Turkish. The principles below have been followed in the Turkish transliteration of Ottoman texts: 1. Arabic letters indicating long vowels (e.g., â, î, û) have not been shown except in cases that may lead to semantic confusion such as asar and âsar, or alem or âlem. 2. Long vowels followed by Arabic letters ك and ل have been shown, e.g. lâkin, inkâr or malûm. 3. The feminine gender of the possessive case [î] has been transliterated with double [y], as in edebiyye and fikriyye. A Turkish transcription of Ahmed Midhat Efendi s summary translation (Sid in Hulâsası) of Pierre Corneille s Le Cid is presented in Appendix 5.
18 Introduction This thesis attempts to explore and analyze concepts of translation in Ottoman culture in the late nineteenth century: primarily terceme and related practices such as nakl (conveying), iktibas (borrowing), taklid (imitation), tanzir (emulation), tahvil (conversion), hulâsa (summary) and muhavere (dialogue). Through the examination of Ottoman Turkish discourses on literary translation, and of the works of Ahmed Midhat Efendi ( ), I will set out to analyze culture-specific aspects of translation glossed over (Paker 2002a: 120) by researchers who have previously studied translation activity in Ottoman culture in the late nineteenth century. With the term culture-specific or culture-bound, I refer to any aspect of translation which is construed by the members of a particular culture in a certain manner (Hermans 1995: 221; Paker 2002a: ). The term denotes that a particular culture may construe and label their own concepts and practices of translation in a different way which may not be compatible with those in other cultures (Hermans 1995: 221). That is why one needs to pay attention to the culture-specificity of terceme and examine it as an Ottoman concept of translation (Paker 2002a: 120, 127; 2005a: 1-2; my italics) in the various ways it was practised and in the ways it related to cultural and literary issues. I will also use another term time-bound to indicate that culture-bound aspects of translation are time-dependent (Hermans 1995: 221; Paker 2002a: 127). It is obvious that practices and conceptions of translation may change in accordance with temporal lines of a particular culture. Thus, the term denotes possible shifts in the concepts and practices of translation in a
19 2 given culture, especially in the context of historical continuity/discontinuity. Timebound aspects of translation seem to be important for cultures such as the late Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, which undergo great socio-political, ideological transformations, particularly at the intra-cultural level (Paker 2002a: 127; 2005a: 1-3; 2005b: 1-2). That is why one needs to regard the culture-specificity of translation as a time-dependent matter when conducting a historical, descriptive and interpretative study of translation in both Ottoman and republican Turkey (Paker 2002a: 120). For the same reason, I intend to keep Ottoman terms for translational practices such as nakl, iktibas, taklid, tanzir, tahvil, hulâsa and muhavere as they were named and identified by the Ottomans themselves. This is also intended to avoid the problem of overlooking and thus erasing cultural, literary and linguistic indications of translation while writing a history of the Ottoman translation tradition such as the present thesis. My doctoral research indicates that we are constantly faced with the problem of translating the otherness of other cultures when writing in English as lingua franca (Hermans 1995: 221; Paker 2002a: 121). In a similar vein, the same problem exists in writing in modern Turkish today. In conveying Ottoman terms, concepts and practices of translation to modern Turkish in terms of çeviri, we unavoidably perform both an intra-cultural and intra-lingual translation, in other words, a translation of the other s cultural otherness i.e. of Ottoman culture (Paker 2002a: 127). This may indicate actually the problem of what kind of cultural translation we are performing when we are interpreting certain concepts of translation between cultures (Hermans 1995: 222). The present thesis has a number of interrelated aims. The first is to identify and present a descriptive analysis of culture-specific aspects of Ottoman translation practices with a special focus on terms and concepts, hence to suggest rethinking
20 3 translation (terceme) and its related practices in which some forms of translational behaviour conform to the modern Turkish concept of translation (çeviri) today, while others do not (Paker 2002a: ). The second is to analyze from a translational point of view a corpus of the works of Ahmed Midhat Efendi who was a significant Tanzimat novelist, translator, publisher, journalist and the owner of the newspaper Tercüman-ı Hakikat. It is Ahmed Midhat Efendi s writings that provide an exemplary framework for rethinking translation in terms of multiple related practices. The third aim is to foreground discourses on nineteenth century literary translation activity, including Ahmed Midhat Efendi s, so as to understand and explain in what ways translation/s contributed to the making of Ottoman cultural and literary repertoires by means of invention, import and transfer from European culture and literature (Even-Zohar 2002: 166; 2004b: 223; 2004c: ). The first extensive research in translation studies on Ahmed Midhat Efendi was carried out by Işın Bengi (1990) in her doctoral thesis where she focused on paratextual data in Ahmed Midhat Efendi s texts and his translation of La Dame aux camélias. Özlem Berk (1999) surveyed the late nineteenth century translation activity from the perspective of westernization. Other than these studies and articles by Paker (1986a, 1986b, 1987, 1991, 1998, 2004, 2004b, 2005a, 2005b), no research has been done on nineteenth century translation activity within the modern paradigm of historical, descriptive, explanatory and interpretative translation studies. The present thesis is therefore the first to survey nineteenth-century Ottoman terms, concepts and practices of translation on a broad scale, to include those that are interrelated but have not been foregrounded before, to contextualize those terms, concepts and practices using various literary-historical discourses from the nineteenth and
21 4 twentieth centuries, to describe and analyze them, and to relate them to nineteenth century literary-cultural activity. In order to indicate connections with the nineteenthcentury terms and concepts, the present research is also the first to offer a genealogy and a lexicon of translational terms and concepts of earlier Ottoman, pre-ottoman and East Turkic ones, based largely on various lexicographical sources. Seen as a significant cultural entrepreneur in the late Ottoman literary tradition (Paker 2004b), Ahmed Midhat Efendi deserves particularly close attention among the writers and translators of the Tanzimat period. He has been described as not only a famous person who wrote European-like novels in our literature of the previous century (Özön 1942: 82), but also as a writing machine of 40 horse power who met the cultural needs of the Turkish generations of his time and wrote 150 works including novels, short stories and plays as well as works in history, philosophy, psychology and education a novelist, short story writer, philosopher, scholar, historian, educator, researcher, bibliophile, printer and businessman (Rado 1955: 9; 1986: 3). According to Ahmed Hamdi Tanpınar, he was a huge apparatus for consumption, a giant who ate with no concern for digestion but also a writer who opened the gates to the short story and the novel through invention [ icat ] or adaptation [ adaptasyon ] (Tanpınar 1988: ). Fevziye Abdullah Tansel describes him as the one who wrote the first indigenous examples of [the story and the novel] and drew much attention to this genre with his translations [ tercüme ] and borrowings [ iktibas ] from French literature (Tansel 1955: 109). In Işın Bengi s words, he was a giant figure and the eloquent mediator who struggled in a revolutionary fashion to introduce and establish what was missing in the home literary polysystem (Bengi 1988: 288). According to Saliha Paker, he was also in translation the leading advocate for an extreme form of acceptability, and in a
22 5 sense, institutionalized it (Paker 1991: 23). Not only these views but also my preliminary investigations indicate that Ahmed Midhat Efendi s text production displays considerable diversity and provides us with a wide scope for studying the various options (Even-Zohar 1997: 356; 2002: 167) in translating from European literatures and in enlarging the literary repertoires of his time by means of these options. His translated works, as well as his discourse on translation, help expose the culture-bound and time-bound (Hermans 1995: 221; Paker 2002a: ) aspects of translation in the late Ottoman literary tradition. My analysis of Koz (2002) and Esen (1999), which provide comprehensive bibliographical information on Ahmed Midhat Efendi s works, will also help examine the Turkish concepts of translation in connection with terceme and çeviri, both of which represent two principal notions of translation in the continuity of Turkish culture (Paker 2002a: 127). In this manner, the thesis will entail rethinking Ahmed Midhat Efendi s works retrospectively without glossing over culture-specific aspects of his general translation practices. It will also help adopt questioning perspectives in the classification of literary texts translated from foreign languages into Ottoman Turkish in the late nineteenth century. My involvement in historical research has its roots in the first major interdisciplinary translation research project in Turkey in which I participated as a graduate student. The project, Translations and their functions in the continuity of Ottoman culture: fourteenth nineteenth centuries, was coordinated by Saliha Paker and initiated in 1997 with the participation of members and graduate students from the Departments of Translation and Interpreting, and of Turkish Language and Literature at Boğaziçi University (Paker 2002a: 123; 2002b: viii-x). In reviewing the range of Ottoman translations from several centuries with respect to their functions,