The letters have been very functional instruments in regard to providing various opportunities for dialogue, and opening negotiation and interaction areas to master writers in the modern era literary public. When we look at the voluminous correspondences of Namık Kemal, the exchange of letters between Fatma Aliye and Ahmet Mithat Efendi, the controversy between Abdülhak Hamid and Recaizade Mahmut Ekrem regarding Nesteren and many other cases, especially during the formation period of modern Ottoman literature, a vivid dialogue and interaction via letters attract attention. In this article, Recaizade Mahmut Ekrem’s letters to Sadullah Pasha which have not been included in sources until today and are published here for the first time, are analyzed in the related context.

As in the case of many examples, writers’ letters are amongst the primary sources of literature history. In Orhan Okay’s words, private letters have documental features and they shed light on their era, personages, interpersonal relations, and many unknown stages in the background of art works; thus, they are an important source for biographical research.

When we look at the correspondence between these two important figures in Ottoman literature during the modernization period - Recaizade Mahmut Ekrem and Sadullah Pasha - it is seen that the content of these letters is not limited to personal matters, there is a vivid discussion on the construction of a new literary tradition and literary modernization, and considerations on the main matters of debate in the literary history. In this regard, these letters in question have a documental value.

Information about Sadullah Pasha’s literary personality and scope is limited because after his suicide, his unpublished poems, writings and translations were lost. Therefore, the data obtained from these letters in this article, will shed further light on his portrait today. Moreover, Sadullah Pasha is known to have an influence on other important writers such as Abdülhak Hâmid, and his dialogue and interaction with Recaizade Mahmut Ekrem are identified and evaluated via these letters. One of Recaizade Mahmut Ekrem’s poems which is not included in his books and passed on until today, was also revealed owing to one of those letters and is analyzed in this article.

An outstanding agenda item, especially in the letters dated 1879, was “progress in literature”. “Progress” [terakki] was a characteristic term of the 19th century and onwards and was a keyword in literary discussions. The purpose of progress in literature here, as it is understood, is to construct a new literature following the example of modern literature blooming in the West.

In the exchange of ideas between these two figures, Recaizade specifies that the most important obstacles to modernization in literature are the absence of literary criticism in the Ottoman cultural world, the lagging of language of poetry behind the developments in the language of prose, the contradiction between the aruz prosody and the nature of Turkish, and inadequate research conducted on ancient Ottoman literature. If we broach his views, it is the nature of the aruz prosody that drags Ottoman poets to tumturak-ı elfaz obsession and even forcefully leads them to this direction because aruz prosody is at variance with Ottoman Turkish. If the syllabic meter replaces aruz prosody, misdeeds such as unfamiliar usage of compound phrases are prevented. Thus, the beauty of meaning and clarity of meaning will be provided in regard to rhetoric. According to him, there has been great progress in the language of prose and in line with this progress, it is possible to write a novel appropriate for the current circumstances of that period. However, it is not possible to write a drama in verse, as aruz prosody withstands the structure of Ottoman Turkish. According to Recaizade, another condition to advance in literature depends on research and studies on classical Ottoman literature. In fact, he would also make an effort in 1879, when he wrote these lines, by writing Talim-i Edebiyat, and Kudemâdan Birkaç Şair a while later.

On the other hand, Sadullah Pasha suggests that Turkic tribes improved Turkish literature by imitating Arabian and Persian poets on the way to civilization but could not preserve the “national characteristic” of Turkish poetry in the meanwhile. Sadullah Pasha’s propounded ideas remind us of the suggestions of the nationalist criticism that bloomed at the threshold of 20th century and can be considered as one of their premises. During the Meşrutiyet and Republican period, one of the primary criticisms addressed towards Ottoman literature was that it was a cosmopolitan literature rather than a national literature.

Because of the conducted research and investigation, it is believed that the letters written by Recaizade Mahmut Ekrem to Sadullah Pasha are not limited to those mentioned here. It is hoped that the other letters and documents of these two personages will be revealed and will fill the gaps in the history of literature and clear the way for new studies.

The subject-case of this article, also confronts us with the problematic of accessing resources in the history of Turkish literature studies. It is a known fact that many works and documents like those mentioned here are not open to access as they are kept in private collections or archives. For this reason, the future steps to be taken by the institutions are important to carry out the necessary studies on the collections and archives that are, at least, possible to be open for public use.