“They will surely turn to me one day. But when?” Tanpınar asked in a diary entry on 4 March 1961. Pondering the neglect of his writings by both the political right and the left in Turkey, Tanpınar correctly anticipated his work’s later rediscovery—in Turkey, that is. It seems safe to say that he did not anticipate his posthumous transformation into a global writer. “The truth is,” he wrote, “I’m new in Turkish. But I’m not new in the world.” Mournfully, he reminded himself that he had first visited Europe at the age of fifty-three: “Those who are a little occupied with Russian literature know what this means.” Tanpınar saw this both historically and existentially belated arrival in Europe as having foreclosed on the circulation of his work outside Turkey; and yet it was precisely these pangs of unoriginality, as we might call them, and the peculiar authenticity they suggested, that made his works attractive to “world literature” at the turn of the twenty-first century. We might dwell for a moment on the timing of this “Tanpınar turn,” attached as it was to specific transformations of conditions in both Turkey and the Anglophone world. As I have suggested elsewhere, Tanpınar’s local rediscovery, that is, his rediscovery within Turkey, accompanied a social and political “settling of accounts” with Kemalism. Tanpınar’s global discovery, meanwhile, was overdetermined by the geopolitical conjuncture set into motion by the events of 2001, in which Turkey figured as a phantasmic union of “East” and “West”—a union for a hot peace, as a brutally dispersive revenge war was waged in neighboring Iraq. Though the publication during this period of new English translations of Tanpınar’s major works A Mind At Peace and The Time Regulation Institute are welcome developments for comparative literary and cultural history, the occasions of their appearance cannot be abstracted from or purified of the contradictions that afflict minor literatures in English. No systematic effort to translate a body of work by an author from such a tradition, let alone a broader segment of that tradition, is possible, so a few available translations furnish synecdoches for a century or more of literary production. Thus it is that names like Tanpınar and Pamuk have the last word on modern Turkish literature in English, very much against their will. Tanpınar’s futures in English can be found in the criticism in this special issue. It emphasizes the unreconciled tensions in Tanpınar’s work: between modernity and tradition, the whole and the fragment, and Orientalism and Occidentalism. Refusing both the local and the global mystifications of Tanpınar’s work, these essays by Nurdan Gürbilek and others remind us more searchingly of Tanpınar’s unsettling relevance to a critical comparative study of global modernism informed by the historical memory of philological

中文翻译：

---

Tanpınar 的期货，英文版

“他们肯定有一天会转向我。但当？ ” 坦皮纳尔在 1961 年 3 月 4 日的日记中问道。考虑到土耳其政治右翼和左翼对他的著作的忽视，坦皮纳尔正确地预测了他的作品后来被重新发现——也就是在土耳其。可以肯定地说，他没有预料到他死后会转变为全球作家。“事实是，”他写道，“我是土耳其语新手。但我在这个世界上并不陌生。” 他悲痛地提醒自己，他在五十三岁时第一次访问欧洲：“那些对俄罗斯文学有点痴迷的人知道这意味着什么。” 坦皮纳尔认为，这在历史上和存在上都是迟到的欧洲，因为他的作品在土耳其以外的流通被取消了；然而，正如我们所说的，正是这些非原创性的痛苦，以及他们所暗示的独特的真实性，这使得他的作品在 21 世纪之交对“世界文学”具有吸引力。我们可能会在这个“Tanpınar 转向”的时间上停留片刻，因为它与土耳其和英语世界的特定条件转变有关。正如我在别处所建议的那样，坦皮纳尔在当地的重新发现，即他在土耳其的重新发现，伴随着凯末尔主义的社会和政治“清算”。与此同时，Tanpınar 的全球发现被 2001 年事件引发的地缘政治局势过度决定，其中土耳其被视为“东方”和“西方”的梦幻联盟——一个热和平的联盟，作为残酷的分散报复是在邻国伊拉克发动的。尽管在此期间出版的坦皮纳尔主要作品《平静的心灵》和《时间调节研究所》的新英译本是比较文学和文化史的可喜发展，但它们出现的场合不能从影响次要的矛盾中抽象出来或净化英文文献。不可能有系统的努力来翻译来自这样一个传统的作者的作品，更不用说该传统的更广泛的部分了，所以一些可用的翻译为一个世纪或更长时间的文学创作提供了借鉴。因此，像 Tanpınar 和 Pamuk 这样的名字在英语中对现代土耳其文学拥有最终决定权，这完全违背了他们的意愿。可以在本期特刊的批评中找到 Tanpınar 的英语未来。它强调了坦皮纳尔作品中不可调和的张力：现代性与传统、整体与片段、东方主义与西方主义之间。Nurdan Gürbilek 和其他人的这些文章拒绝了 Tanpınar 作品的地方性和全球性神秘化，更敏锐地提醒我们，Tanpınar 与基于语言学历史记忆的全球现代主义批判性比较研究有着令人不安的相关性。