No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 January 2009
The Islamic poetic tradition as it came to the Turks through Persian is characterized by a rather limited catalog of basic themes expressed by an equally limited number of standard tropes. The basic themes are usually quite easily recognizable (e.g. the sâkî theme, the bahâr theme, etc.), even though more than one basic theme may be included in a single poem. The standard tropes — for example, the moon for the face of the beloved, rubies for wine, drunkenness for mystical love — are also used over and over again without any serious attempt to freshen poetic expression by discarding them for new metaphores. Nevertheless, within this atmosphere of apparent similarity, contemporary critics placed high value on creativity, uniqueness, and the invention of ‘new’ fancies. Modern scholarship has, in most cases, attempted to resolve this paradox by stating that ‘creativity’ for the Ottoman poet consisted of rearranging and recombining traditional themes and tropes to create new patterns and, thereby, a subtle and precious uniqueness. Moreover, any internal cohesion or organization other than that provided by rhyme and meter is generally seen as fortuitous and unrelated to any conscious effort to present a unified poetic message. The result of this view is the rather pervasive conclusion that the Ottoman poet is no more creative than the child is ‘creative’ who operates a kaleidoscope which produces infinitely varied patterns, even though the mirrors (themes?) and colored bits of glass (tropes?) remain ever the same.
page 97 note 1 E.g. Latifi, in his Tezkere-i Şu'arâ, ed. Ahmet Cevdet (Istanbul, Ikdam matbaasi, 1314 a.h.), p. 30, describes a member of the first and best group of poets as ‘That poet who is innovative and a creative versifier, who is able, by virtue of his peculiar imagination, to produce virgin thoughts and special fancies.’Google Scholar
page 97 note 2 See, for example, Bombaci, Alessio, ‘Introduction’, Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, vol. 2, ed. Bazin, et al. (Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1965), pp. xxx–xxxi;Google ScholarRypka, Jan, Baki als Ghazeldichter, Sbirka Pojednani a Rozprav IX (Prague, Nakladem Filosoficke Fakulty University Karlovy, 1926), pp. 90–2;Google ScholarGibb, E. J. W., A History of Ottoman Poetry, vol. 1 (London, Luzac and Company Ltd., 1900), pp. 82, 128–9.Google Scholar
page 97 note 3 Arberry, A. J., ‘Orient Pearls at Random Strung’, BSOAS, vol. 11 (1943–6), pp. 699–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Wickens, G. M., ‘An Analysis of Primary and Secondary Significations in the Third “Ghazal” of Hafiz’, BSOAS, vol. 14 (1952), pp. 627–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The Persian Conception of Artistic Unity and its Implications in Other Fields’, BSOAS, vol. 14 (1952), pp. 239–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Windfuhr, G. L., ‘Struktur eines Robai’, ZDMG, vol. 118 (1968), pp. 75–8.Google Scholar
page 98 note 1 al-Râzî, Şems al-Dîn Muhammad ibn Kays, al-Mu'cam fî Ma'âyîr Aş'âr al-'Acam, ed. Rezavî, Muderris from the edition by Muhammad Kazvînî (Tehran, n.d.), p. 447.Google Scholar
page 98 note 2 Boyce, M., ‘A Novel Interpretation of Hafiz’, BSOAS, vol. 15, part 2 (1953), pp. 279–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 99 note 1 See, e.g. Tarlan, A. N., Şeyhî Divamm Tetkik (Istanbul, Edebiyat Fakultesi Basimevi, 1964)Google Scholar, and the thesis of his student, Çavuşoğlu, Mehmet, ‘Necâtî Beg Divaninin Tahlili ve Sistematik Indeksi’ (Istanbul University Thesis, 1966).Google Scholar
page 100 note 1 This poem appears in, Dvořák, R., Baki's Divan: Ghazalijjat, vol. 2 (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1911), pp. 122–4Google Scholar, and in Iz, Fahir, Eski Turk Edebiyatinda Nazim, vol. 1 (Istanbul, Kuçukaydin Matbaasi, 1966).Google ScholarThe text is reproduced as in Nazim, with the exception ofline 5 wherein the final kesb-i safâ has been replaced by husn-i edâ as given by Dvořák. It seems highly unlikely that safa would be used as the rhyme word three times, and moreover the existence of a very similar poem (Dvořâk, vol. 2, pp. 93–4) in the same rhyme and meter containing the kesb-i safâ misrâ' exactly as cited in Nazim indicates a very likely source for the variant. It is worth noting that the Ottoman poet seldom discards incomplete, unsuccessful or preliminary drafts of his poems; thus the need for a critical perspective is, or should be felt by potential editors.Google Scholar
page 101 note 1 The idea of figurative development has been generally discussed by Buechner, F. in ‘Stilfiguren in der panegyrischen Poesie der Perser’, Acta Orientalia, vol. 2 (1923), pp. 208–12. Associative development, however, represents a hitherto unpublished conceptwhich demands a rather more lengthy explanation. It is felt that the concept can be best understood as exemplified in the analysis. Therefore, associative development will be discussed rather fully at the end of this study.Google Scholar
page 101 note 2 Figures mentioned in the analysis will be understood as they are described in the following works: Vatvât, Raşîd al-Dîn, ‘Hadâ'ik al-Sihr’, Dîvân-i Raşîd al-Dîn Vatuât, ed. Nafîsî, Sa'îd (Tehran, Kitâbhâne-i Bârânî, 1339 a.h.), pp. 621–707; Şems-i Kays, al- Mu'cam, pp. 328–478, and Surûrî, Bahr al-Ma'ârif, Suleymaniye Library MS, Lala Ismail 394.Google Scholar
page 103 note 1 This interpretation may seem obvious to some; however, in view of Professor Boyce's objections to Wicken's use of cinás, kalb, etc., it is necessary to show that the use of such figures in interpretation can be given a very strong internal justification. Although such word and letter play would be possible in almost every case, nevertheless, in the presence of obvious contextual and artistic indications it would be a mistake to overlook such possibilities.Google Scholar
page 105 note 1 I.e. the root t, r, b in both the second and fourth forms means ‘to make music’ and the active participle of the fourth form is the common term for musician.
page 109 note 1 See Table 1, p. 3, for a diagram of the major factors considered in the analysis.