Aşkın gücünü yüzyıllar öncesinden günümüze taşıyan bir mensur hikâye…

Zengin bir devlet adamının oğlu olan Meyyâl ile esir pazarında satılan cariye Şehnâz’ın engellerle sınanan aşklarının hikâyesi…

Gülünden ayrı düşmüş bülbül gibi, gönlü sevgilinin ayrılığıyla incinen Meyyâl ve döktüğü gözyaşları için ayıplanan Şehnâz… Oysa aşk yalnızca “aşkın boyun eğdirdiği kimselerce bilinebilir”.

Ve yalnızca aşkın gücü, gönül yaralarına vuslat merhemi olabilir. Aşkı istemek yetmez, kavuşmak için ayrılmayı da göze alabilmeli insan. Sevda ateşiyle yanan gerçek âşıklar, küle dönseler de birbirlerine verdikleri sözden dönmezler. Sabâ rüzgârına sevdiğini soran Meyyâl’den habersiz, Şehnâz’ın aşkının kasırgası dünyayı titretir.

Süslü nesrin güzel bir örneği olan Hikâye-i Meyyâl ü Şehnâz, aşkı anlamlı kılan sabır, vefa, sadakat, fedakârlık gibi duyguları da öne çıkararak günümüz insanına bu değerleri tekrar hatırlatmaktadır. O hâlde hikâye başlasın:

Kıssa-hânân-ı bezmgâh-ı hikâyet ve dâstân-serâyân-ı tarabhâne-i rivâyet bu güne şem‘-i efrûz-ı ahbâr ve bu vech ile mecâlis-pîrây-ı ûli’l-ebsâr olurlar ki Bagdâd-ı behişt-âbâd kibârından bir pîr-i nîkû-kâr ü devlet-şi‘âr var idi…

The author has dwelt, especially in the theoretical part, upon general questions which are side-issues in respect to the theme that he has treated. But this will not seem a digression to those who remember that, strictly speaking, there are no particular philosophical sciences, standing by themselves. Philosophy is unity, and when we treat of Æsthetic or of Logic or of Ethics, we treat always of the whole of philosophy, although illustrating for didactic purposes only one side of that inseparable unity. In like manner, owing to this intimate connexion of all the parts of philosophy, the uncertainty and misunderstanding as to the æsthetic activity, the representative and productive imagination, this firstborn of the spiritual activities, mainstay of the others, generates everywhere else misunderstandings, uncertainties and errors: in Psychology as in Logic, in History as in the Philosophy of Practice. If language is the first spiritual manifestation, and if the æsthetic form is language itself, taken in all its true scientific extension, it is hopeless to try to understand clearly the later and more complicated phases of the life of the spirit, when their first and simplest moment is ill known, mutilated and disfigured. From the explanation of the æsthetic activity is also to be expected the correction of several concepts and the solution of certain philosophic problems which generally seem to be almost desperate. Such is precisely the spirit animating the present work. And if the present attempt and the historical illustrations which accompany it may be of use in winning friends to these studies, by levelling obstacles and indicating paths to be followed; if this happen, especially here in Italy, whose æsthetic traditions (as has been demonstrated in its place) are very noble, the author will consider that he has gained his end, and one of his keenest desires will have been satisfied.

The literary history, as I conceive it, is an account of one strand, so to speak, in a very complex tissue: it is connected with the intellectual and social development; it represents movements of thought which may sometimes check and be sometimes propitious to the existing forms of art; it is the utterance of a class which may represent, or fail to represent, the main national movement; it is affected more or less directly by all manner of religious, political, social, and economical changes; and it is dependent upon the occurrence of individual genius for which we cannot even profess to account. I propose to take the history of English literature in the eighteenth century. I do not aim at originality: I take for granted the ordinary critical judgments upon the great writers of whom so much has been said by judges certainly more competent than myself, and shall recall the same facts both of ordinary history and of the history of thought. What I hope is, that by bringing familiar facts together I may be able to bring out the nature of the connection between them; and, little as I can say that will be at all new, to illustrate one point of view, which, as I believe, it is desirable that literary histories should take into account more distinctly than they have generally done.