A Mathnawi of Love in the Context of the Representative-Allegoric Discussions: Şems u Kamer

Year 2019, Volume: 2019 Issue: 39, 221 - 246, 23.12.2019

Kübra Yılmaz

https://doi.org/10.28949/bilimname.644524

Cited By: 1

Abstract

The dominance of the mathnawis -especially the mathnawis of love- in terms of both its quality/quantity and variety is a known matter in the Turkish classical literature. Among the mathnawis of love the mystic ones remarkably shine out because in general these works are far from monotony in construct and are formed with the effort of pointing out several semantic strata. In the classical Turkish literature, the allegoric works are generally mystical. The main reason of this is to have the mystical works two layers of meaning by definition. Therefore, mysticism is favorable area for allegory. However it is said, for the allegory that existed in practice but not nominal, for be termed of the allegoric works of the Ottoman literature is to be used generally as “temsili istiare”. On the other hand, the allegoric text that says things to say other than which is meant splits into two types on the basis of reader and writer. That is to say, understanding of the inner meaning of a text depends on the interpretations of the readers. The allegoric texts requires a technique that is based on rhetoric. In this context, it can be said that all of the literary arts of the classical Turkish literature are in the allegorical expression techniques. But all texts containing these literary arts are not allegoric. In order to become allegoric for a text, the entire text is required to be coherent and two components of allegory must stand out equally without surpassing one another.
The mathnawis of love in the classical literature mostly talk about the mortal love because it is easier to describe and formulate the mortal love and to draw people’s attention with it. However, the mystic poets that thought to utilize the love’s mortal meaning narrate their difficulties, sufferings and intricate events on their journey towards being a perfect human by using the patterns of expression of mortal love. In this way, they make the representative stories by interpreting event, theme and fiction in the stories of love. The notions corresponding to the divine love and the spiritual journey and the internal maturing provide a way of representative story expression by using the power of the literary arts and the magic of words.
This article is about a love story named Şems u Kamer which forms an important part of Yenbu-ı Hikmet written by Uşşaki (15th century) as a compilation-translation mystic mathnawi consisting of 12832 verses, which is almost excepted as a separate mathnawi because of its voluminosity. In the allegoric mathnawis of the classical literature, the cosmic elements are used to be the names of protagonists. Şems u Kamer, which was not known before, is one of such mathnawis.
In the introduction of this study simile, which is admitted as the heart of literary arts, is discussed; and the terms of metaphor, representation and representative metaphor, symbol and allegory, which are directly related with simile, are discussed. Regardless of the differences/connections between figures of speech and related concepts, some of the mathnawis that are used to replace other mathnawi kinds are examined. In the second part titled “Şems ü Kamer ve Temsilî/ Alegorik Anlatım Tekniği”, Şems u Kamer is introduced and evaluated briefly. Then, the copy and form of Şems u Kamer are outlined and its content, which uses symbolic/allegorical fiction, is evaluated. When we studied to describe from the standpoint of the technique of expression, this mathnawi of love named as Şems u Kamer, the readings about the subject have showed that the descriptions of allegoric/symbolic works or the discussions about the subject have remained vague. In this context, this study focuses on the techniques of expression of Şems u Kamer within the scope of the suggestions and the theoretical knowledge provided by the consistent and well-organized research and reviews. Based on the theoretical background and analyses, the article discusses the place of Şems u Kamer among symbolic/allegorical love mathnawis and it suggests that Şems u Kamer should be added to the love mathnawis.
With this study, it is understood that in the classical Turkish literature the allegoric expression and the examples of these type works are from early times but the naming of these works was delayed and/or there was not a consensus on the naming. In some studies about the subject, it is argued that the allegory is very similar to the symbolic simile/temsil in the classical Turkish literature besides, the two of these are the same thing and in that context a lot of symbolic works were named as allegoric. Also, on the other hand, it is seen that the different properties/criterions are listed as an expression technique for both the allegory and the representation. In this context, considering the theoretical background and interpretation, the place of Şems u Kamer among of the representative/allegorical mathnawis of love is discussed and it is proposed to add Şems u Kamer to the literature of mathnawis of love.
In this context, this study focuses on the properties of the expression technique of allegoric and representative separately. Afterwards, these two expression techniques are applied on the fiction of Şems u Kamer. As a result, it is concluded that these two the expression techniques that are said to be the same thing, do not produce the same results in the context of Şems u Kamer. Indeed, given its fiction of representative expression technique Şems u Kamer is considered a successful representative mathnawi. But, despite the fact that Şems u Kamer has properties such as “personification, symmetry, equivoque, intrapsychic conflict, searching, polysemy and the clarification of work’s allegory at the end of the work”, not keeping the polysemy of fiction and reading some chapters as a love story of two heroes cause Şems u Kamer not to be considered as a successful allegoric mathnawi.

Keywords

Turkish Islamic Literature, Şems u Kamer, mathnawi of love, simile, representation, allegory

Temsilî-Alegorik Tartışmaları Bağlamında Bir Aşk Mesnevisi: Şems ü Kamer

Abstract

Eski Türk edebiyatında mesnevilerin ve özellikle aşk mesnevilerinin hem nicelik-nitelik hem de çeşit yönüyle hâkimiyeti bilinen bir durumdur. Aşk mesnevileri arasında ise tasavvufî olanlar dikkat çekecek şekilde öne çıkmaktadır. Zira bu eserler genellikle kurgusu bakımından tekdüzelikten uzaktır ve birden fazla anlam katmanına işaret etme gayretiyle oluşturulmuştur. Bu makale, Uşşâkî (XV. yy) tarafından telif-tercüme bir tasavvufî mesnevi olarak kaleme alınmış 12832 beyitlik Yenbû-ı Hikmet’in mühim bir bölümünü oluşturan ve müstakil mesnevi kabul edilebilecek kadar hacimli Şems ü Kamer isimli aşk hikâyesi üzerinedir. Eski şiirde temsilî/alegorik anlatım biçimlerinin denendiği mesnevilerde kozmik unsurların, kahraman adlarının yerine kullanıldığı görülmüştür. Daha evvel varlığından haberdar olmadığımız Şems ü Kamer de bu minvalde bir aşk mesnevisi olarak karşımıza çıkmıştır. Çalışmanın giriş bölümünde edebî sanatların merkezinde bulunan teşbihe değinilmiş; teşbihle doğrudan irtibatlı olan mecaz, istiare, temsilî istiare/temsil, sembol ve alegori kavramları üzerinde durulmuştur. Bu anlam sanatlarının ve kavramların aralarındaki uzaklığa-yakınlığa/farklara dikkat edilmeksizin, bazı aşk mesnevileri nitelenirken birbirlerinin yerine kullanılması irdelenmiştir. “Şems ü Kamer ve Temsilî/ Alegorik Anlatım Tekniği” başlıklı ikinci bölümde ise Şems ü Kamer hakkında kısa bir tanıtım yapılmıştır. Daha sonra Şems ü Kamer’in şekil ve nüsha özelliklerine genel hatlarıyla değinilip konusu ve temsilî/alegorik anlatımın tercih edildiği kurgusu üzerine değerlendirmelerde bulunulmuştur. Bu bağlamda temsil ve alegoriye dair teorik zemin ve yorumlar dikkate alınarak Şems ü Kamer’in temsilî/alegorik aşk mesnevileri içindeki önemi tartışılmış ve aşk mesnevileri literatürüne eklenmesi teklif edilmiştir.

Keywords

Türk İslâm Edebiyatı, Şems ü Kamer, aşk mesnevisi, teşbih, temsil, alegori

References

• AÇIL, Berat. Klasik Türk Edebiyatında Alegori, Küre Yay., İstanbul 2013.AÇIL, Berat. “Bir Tür mü Tarz mı? Klasik Türk Edebiyatında Alegori, Dîvân Disiplinlerarası Çalışmalar Dergisi, C. 19, S. 37 (2014/2), s. 145-167.AKSAN, Doğan. Her Yönüyle Dil Ana Çizgileriyle Dilbilim, TDK Yay., Ankara 2015, (3 cilt bir arada), c. 3.AKTAŞ, Hasan. Klasik Türk Edebiyatında Sembolik (Temsilî) Anlatım Üslûbunun Gelişimi, (doktora tezi, 2011), Atatürk Üniversitesi SBE, Erzurum.ANBARCIOĞLU, Meliha. “Türk ve İran Edebiyatlarında Mihr u Mah ve Mihr u Müşterî Mesnevîleri”, TTK Belleten, XLVII/ 188 (1984): s. 1151-1189.BİLGEGİL, M. Kaya. Edebiyat Bilgi ve Teorileri (Belagat), Enderun Kitabevi, İstanbul 1989.ÇELEBİOĞLU, Âmil. “Ay”, TDVİA, C. IV, İstanbul 1991, s. 186-191.DİZER, Muammer. “Ay”, TDVİA, C. IV, İstanbul 1991, s. 183-186.DURMUŞ, İsmail ve PALA, İskender. “İstiare”, Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (TDVİA), İstanbul: TDV, 2001, c. XXIII.HOLBROOK, Victoria. “Alegorinin Ölümü, Hüsn-ü Aşk’ın Özgünlüğü”, Defter, 27 Bahar 1996, s. 65-80.KILIÇ, Mahmut Erol. Sûfî ve Şiir, İnsan Yay., İstanbul 2009.KÜLEKÇİ, Numan. Açıklamalar ve Örneklerle Edebî Sanatlar Akçağ Yay., Ankara 2003. MACİT, Muhsin. “İlk Klasik Dönem (1453-1600) Mesneviler”, Türk Edebiyatı Tarihi II, İstanbul 2006.ONAY, Ahmet Talat. Eski Türk Edebiyatında Mazmunlar ve İzahı, Akçağ, Ankara 2000.SABUNCU, Zeynep. “Gelibolulu Mustafa Âlî’nin Mihr ü Mâh Mesnevisi”, Journal of Turkish Studies, Âgâh Sırrı Levend Hatıra Sayısı (TUBA) 24/III, 2000, s. 295-305.SARAÇ, M. A. Yekta. Klâsik Edebiyat Bilgisi Belâgat, Gökkubbe Yay., İstanbul 2018.TARAKÇI, Muhammed. “Origen ve Alegorik Kitab-ı Mukaddes Yorumu”, Uludağ Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, c. 19/1, Bursa 2010, s. 183-213.TOPRAK, Metin. Hermeneutik (Yorum Bilgisi) ve Edebiyat, Bulut Yay., İstanbul 2003.Uşşâkî. Yenbû-ı Hikmet, Süleymaniye Yazma Eserler Kütüphanesi, Uşşâkî Tekkesi Kataloğu, no: 358.WHITMAN, Jon. Allegory- The Dynamics of an Ancient and Medieval Technique, Harvard University Press, 1987.