Klasik Edebiyatın zengin nazım geleneğinin gölgesinde kalsa da asırlarca yoluna devam eden nesir geleneğinin önemli bir parçası olan mensur hikâyeler, toplumun anlatma ihtiyacını karşılayan ve edebiyat eşittir nazım düşüncesinin hakim olduğu bir dönemde kendi yolunda ilerlemeye devam eden zengin ve köklü bir kültürel miras olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Bu kültürel mirasın bir parçası olarak kaynaklarda ismi geçmeyen ve içerisinde 23 mensur hikâye örneği barındıran Gülşen-i Zürefâ, Doğu hikâye geleneği ve Türk zevkinin derin izlerine rastladığımız bir hikâye sentezi örneğidir. Şeyhzâde Mehmed Vardarî tarafından kaleme alınmış olan eser, edebiyatımızda ve kültürümüzde derin izler bırakan Binbir Gece Masalları, Binbir Gündüz Masalları, El-Ferec Ba’de’ş-Şidde gibi kaynaklardan esinlenilerek yazılmış geleneksel özellikler gösteren hikâyeler ve yazıldığı dönemin hususiyetlerini taşıyan realist özelliklere sahip yerli hikâyeler olmak üzere iki grupta değerlendirilebilecek olan farklı yelpazedeki hikâyeleri aynı çatı altında toplamaktadır.

In the perusal of the Irish literature, we see that the strength of this conservative instinct has been of the greatest service in the preservation of the early monuments in their purity. So much is this the case, that in many tales the most flagrant contradictions appear, the author or scribe being unwilling to depart at all from that which he found handed down. For instance, in the “Great Breach of Murthemney,” we find Laeg at one moment killed, and in the next riding black Shanglan off the field. From this conservatism and careful following of authority, and the littera scripta, or word once spoken, I conclude that the distance in time between the prose tale and the metrical originals was very great, and, unless under such exceptional circumstances as the revolution caused by the introduction of Christianity, could not have been brought about within hundreds of years. Moreover, this same conservatism would have caused the tales concerning heroes to grow very slowly once they were actually formed. All the noteworthy events of the hero’s life and his characteristics must have formed the original of the tales concerning him, which would have been composed during his life, or not long after his death.

From times immemorial, literature has accumulated a large and varied store of all kinds of general ideas and conceptions, material and metaphysical, to which the masters have recourse the moment the over-exacting and over-restless human voice begins to be heard. This is exactly the point. Tchekhov himself, a writer and an educated man, refused in advance every possible consolation, material or metaphysical. Not even in Tolstoi, who set no great store by philosophical systems, will you find such keenly expressed disgust for every kind of conceptions and ideas as in Tchekhov. He is well aware that conceptions ought to be esteemed and respected, and he reckons his inability to bend the knee before that which educated people consider holy as a defect against which he must struggle with all his strength. And he does struggle with all his strength against this defect. But not only is the struggle unavailing; the longer Tchekhov lives, the weaker grows the power of lofty words over him, in spite of his own reason and his conscious will. Finally, he frees himself entirely from ideas of every kind, and loses even the notion of connection between the happenings of life. Herein lies the most important and original characteristic of his creation. Anticipating a little, I would here point to his comedy, The Sea-Gull, where, in defiance of all literary principles, the basis of action appears to be not the logical development of passions, or the inevitable connection between cause and effect, but naked accident, ostentatiously nude. As one reads the play, it seems at times that one has before one a copy of a newspaper with an endless series of news paragraphs, heaped upon one another, without order and without previous plan. Sovereign accident reigns everywhere and in everything, this time boldly throwing the gauntlet to all conceptions. In this, I repeat, is Tchekhov’s greatest originality, and this, strangely enough, is the source of his most bitter experiences. He did not want to be original; he made super-human efforts to be like everybody else: but there is no escaping one’s destiny. How many men, above all among writers, wear their fingers to the bone in the effort to be unlike others, and yet they cannot shake themselves free of cliché—yet Tchekhov was original against his will! Evidently originality does not depend upon the readiness to proclaim revolutionary opinions at all costs. The newest and boldest idea may and often does appear tedious and vulgar. In order to become original, instead of inventing an idea, one must achieve a difficult and painful labour; and, since men avoid labour and suffering, the really new is for the most part born in man against his will.