Toplum ve Bilim [Society and Science], one of the leading journals in Turkey, published a special issue dedicated to Psychoanalysis in 1996. A pertinent image, Pierre-André Brouillet’s "Un Leçon Clinique à la Salpêtrière" (1887), appears on the front cover of this issue. In this painting Brouillet depicts Jean-Martin Charcot (1825-1893), French neurologist and professor of anatomical pathology often hailed as the founder of modern neurology, delivering a lecture to a group of male spectators. What renders this painting particularly haunting is the hysterical patient, “Blanche” (Marie) Wittman, who partakes in this medical spectacle as Charcot’s test subject. Half conscious and assisted by two nurses, Blanche is being scrutinized by Charcot. In fact, Brouillet’s painting captures a historical phenomenon. Back in the second half of the 19th century, Charcot regularly staged his hysterics on lecture halls that resembled theatres, which attracted a great deal of attention not only from Parisian medical students but also from a diverse body of intellectuals. At the turn of the 20th century, in Istanbul, in a manner similar to Jean-Martin Charcot, Mazhar Osman (1884-1951) held weekly lecture series where he exhibited his hysterics. Often praised as the founder of modern psychiatry and neurology in Turkey, Mazhar Osman kept his lectures open to the public. Hysterical cases exhibited during these spectacles were published in a journal, Şişli Müessesesinde Emraz-ı Akliye ve Asabiye Müsamereleri [Spectacles of Mental and Nervous Diseases in Şişli Institution], between 1916 and 1918. This paper will investigate the journal in question in an attempt to gain insight into the treatment and diagnosis of hysteria in the late Ottoman period. I’m particularly concerned with the gendered aspect of Mazhar Osman’s medical spectacles. The guiding questions for this paper are: given the fact that Ottoman Empire was governed by Islamic precepts that aligned women with the private sphere, were there any female hysterics that were exposed to the male gaze (read public sphere) as part of a medical spectacle? Did occupying the category of “patient” alter or override the woman’s gender position? To what extent late Ottoman “hysteria” was exclusively female? Starting with the basic question of whether any shift in the understanding of hysteria occurred in early 20th century Ottoman Empire, this paper will seek to shed light on a web of issues ranging from bodily privacy to the interpretive “tools” of medical authorities.