Elucidating or (Un)breaking the Chain? Intralingual Translations and Retranslations of Şeyh Galib’s Hüsn ü Aşk

  • A. Handan Konar
Part of the New Frontiers in Translation Studies book series (NFTS)


Şeyh Galib (1757–1799), regarded as the last mighty poet of Ottoman Literature, marked, and in a sense closed the classical era of Ottoman poetry with his masterpiece Hüsn ü Aşk [Beauty and Love]. Written in 1783, the work was imitated by many during the Ottoman era, and rewritten, adapted, intralingually translated, and retranslated many times after the proclamation of the Turkish Republic. These intralingual translations and retranslations were sometimes in prose; in that case it could be argued that they served more as elucidatory texts to make the original work comprehensible for modern readers due to the change in language and, more importantly, in the alphabet. Yet, in intralingual translations and retranslations written in verse, the output became more of an artistic creation similar to the process of a particular literary production method called nazîre (parallel poem) during the Ottoman period. In this regard, they turn into literary works in their own right that could replace the original work by way of rewriting and recreating the original; and thus without presenting themselves as nazire (parallel), they maintain the chain of the nazire tradition.


  1. Ahmet Necdet. (2003). Hüsn ü Aşk, Güzellik ve Aşk. Istanbul: Adam Yayınları.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, W. (2002). Starting over again: Some suggestions for rethinking Ottoman divan poetry in the context of translation and transmission. In S. Paker (Ed.), Translations: (re)shaping of literature and culture (pp. 15–40). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berk Albachten, Ö. (2015). The Turkish language reform and intralingual translation. In Ş. Tahir-Gürçağlar, S. Paker, & J. Milton (Eds.), Tension and tradition: The dynamics of translation in Turkey (pp. 165–180). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dilçin, C. (2007). Divan Şiirini Günümüzün Türkçesine Aktarma ve Dil İçi Çeviri. In Divan Şiiri ve Şairleri Üzerine İncelemeler (pp. 225–247). Istanbul: Kabalcı.Google Scholar
  5. Doğan, M. N. (2008/2002). Şeyh Galib – Hüsn ü Aşk. Istanbul: Yelkenli Yayınevi.Google Scholar
  6. Emre, A. C. (1932). Hüsün ve Aşk. Muhit, 41, 1–3.Google Scholar
  7. Fatma Aliye. (2017). Levâyih-i Hayât (Hayattan Sahneler) (T. G. Demircioğlu, Trans. and Ed.). Istanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınevi.Google Scholar
  8. Gölpınarlı, A. (2015/1968). Şeyh Galib Hüsn ü Aşk. Istanbul: Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları.Google Scholar
  9. Holbrook, V. (2005). Şeyh Galip beauty and love. New York: The Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
  10. Jakobson, R. (2000). On linguistic aspects of translation. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader (pp. 113–118). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Kanar, M. (2015). Şeyh Galib Hüsn ü Aşk. Istanbul: Tekin Yayınevi.Google Scholar
  12. Kocatürk, V. M. (1944). Şeyh Galib – Hüsn ile Aşk. Istanbul: Ahmet Halit Kitabevi.Google Scholar
  13. Malay, M. (2005). Yayıncının Önsözü. In Şeyh Galib Hüsn ü Aşk (Vol. 4). Istanbul: Mem Yayınları.Google Scholar
  14. Marancı, C. (2005). Şeyh Galib Hüsn ü Aşk. Istanbul: Mem Yayınları.Google Scholar
  15. Okay, O., & Ayan, H. (2012/1975). Şeyh Galip – Hüsn ü Aşk. Istanbul: Dergâh Yayınları.Google Scholar
  16. Paker, S. (2014). Translation as terceme and nazire culture-bound concepts and their implications for a conceptual framework for research on Ottoman translation history. In T. Hermans (Ed.), Crosscultural transgressions. Research models in translation studies II. Historical and ideological issues (pp. 120–143). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
  17. Sarıalioğlu, K. (2010). Aşk ve Güzellik. Istanbul: Apollon Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  18. Tahir Gürçağlar, Ş. (2002). What texts don’t tell. The uses of paratexts in translation research. In T. Hermans (Ed.), Crosscultural transgressions. Research models in translation studies II. Historical and ideological issues (pp. 44–60). Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
  19. Tekin, G. (2017). Eski Türk Edebiyatı Metinlerinin Bugünkü Türkçeye Açılamalarla Çevrilmesinin Gerekliliği Üzerine. In H. Ağacı (Ed.), Nihal Metin (pp. 145–168). Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi.Google Scholar
  20. Toska, Z. (2002). Evaluative approaches to translated Ottoman Turkish literature in future research. In S. Paker (Ed.), Translations: (re)shaping of literature and culture (pp. 58–76). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Handan Konar
    • 1
  1. 1.Boğaziçi UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations