This is the first of two connected articles that survey recent trends in the historical scholarship of Ottoman imperial governance from the beginning of the Tanzimat state building efforts in the 1830s to the end of empire in the early 1920s. In both articles, I examine how historians have answered the question of what was imperial about the ways in which the Ottoman Empire was governed during this period. Throughout this two-part series I argue that an approach that pays attention to the capacity to govern, as Jane Burbank and Frederick Cooper put it, “different people differently” through a broad repertoire of rule, balancing this politics of difference with the politics of incorporation, is more conducive to bringing out the complexities of late Ottoman governance than teleological assumptions that consider the empire during this period on a linear path toward the nation state. Part I begins with a brief discussion of different ways in which historians have conceptualized imperial governance in the Ottoman context. I will then demonstrate that scholarship on the empire's peripheries in Transjordan, Mount Lebanon, Yemen, and Albania was instrumental in reframing the study of late Ottoman governance by taking its imperial dimensions seriously.

中文翻译：

---

让帝国回归：重新考虑奥斯曼帝国晚期的治理，1839-1923（第一部分）

这是两篇相关文章中的第一篇，这些文章调查了从 1830 年代坦齐马特国家建设努力开始到 1920 年代初期帝国结束的奥斯曼帝国统治历史学术研究的最新趋势。在这两篇文章中，我研究了历史学家如何回答关于奥斯曼帝国在此期间统治方式的帝国问题。在这个由两部分组成的系列文章中，我认为一种关注治理能力的方法，正如 Jane Burbank 和 Frederick Cooper 所说，通过广泛的规则库“不同的人不同”，平衡这种差异政治与成立，与将这一时期的帝国视为走向民族国家的线性路径的目的论假设相比，更有助于揭示奥斯曼帝国晚期治理的复杂性。第一部分首先简要讨论历史学家在奥斯曼帝国背景下对帝国治理进行概念化的不同方式。然后，我将证明，关于外约旦、黎巴嫩山、也门和阿尔巴尼亚的帝国周边地区的学术研究有助于通过认真对待帝国层面来重新构建对奥斯曼帝国晚期治理的研究。