In this article, we trace the diversification of Ottoman political vocabulary from the eighteenth century to the mid-nineteenth in a time of dynastic restoration and administrative modernization. We focus particularly on the transformation of the concept siyâset (rule, politics) which had been in use in Muslim polities for centuries, and the emergence, in the late eighteenth century, of the word politika which has come to be used alongside siyâset since then. In making sense of this bifurcation, we demonstrate that the (...) Ottoman elite conceptions of politics were not simply replaced by the European conceptions. Rather, the equivalence of siyâset and politika was clearly contested by Ottoman statesmen, and the political terminology of rule and administration evolved in tandem with the material transformation of the Ottoman dynasty and state. (shrink)

Empire was never an important concept in Ottoman politics. This did not stop Ottoman rulers from laying claim to three titles that may be called imperial : halife, hakan , and kayser . Each of these pertains to different translationes imperii , or claims of descent from different empires: the Caliphate, the steppe empires of the Huns, Turks, and Mongols, and the Roman Empire. Each of the three titles was geared toward a specific audience: Muslims, Turkic nomads, and Greek-Orthodox Christians, (...) respectively. In the nineteenth century a new audience emerged as an important source of political legitimacy: European-emergent international society. With it a new political vocabulary was introduced into the Ottoman language. Among those concepts was that of empire , which found its place in Ottoman discourse by connecting it with the existing imperial claims. (shrink)

The beginnings of epidemics are often told as if they are simple to locate in time. They take the form of a crisis, and as such, function as great synchronisers of different temporalities, bringing social temporalities “in line” with biological ones. In the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, political processes that are usually slow were accelerated in order to “catch up with” the fast pace of the virus's reproduction, as policymakers saw a need to contain the virus. The (...) end of an epidemic, on the other hand, is more difficult to pinpoint. This can be attributed to the fact that the myriad actors involved in and affected by an epidemic operate on diverging time scales. Although seemingly synchronised from its outset, these lifetimes become un-synchronised as the epidemic unfolds. Some effects of an epidemic outbreak are easily observed, such as infection rates and the number of deceased. Others-psychological or medical after-effects, or the lasting memory in a population-may be harder to spot. Declaring that an epidemic has “ended” usually relies on the ceasing of the former, not the latter. However, as this article argues, the ending(s) of an epidemic should be regarded in the plural, each operating within its own rhythm and scale. This article explores the multiplicity of lifetimes involved in epidemics-human, microbial, institutional-and tries to give an explanation as to how epidemics end (or linger on) using an approach of multiple temporalities. (shrink)