Jump to content

Talk:Turkish literature/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Note

N.B.: I am currently working hard to get this entire article fleshed out and, in fact, fully informed. I realize that, in doing so, it is going to go over the recommended limits for article size. However, once the article has been "completed" (I use quotes since, after all, what article in Wikipedia is ever really complete?), I intend to start reshaping it and redirecting detailed info to other pages as per the summary style guidelines; it will be much easier to make an attractive (and not too long!) page by subtracting after the article's "completion", rather than constantly revising each single section as the article is in process of being written. Thanks for your patience. —Saposcat 14:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Turkish Folk Literature

The information in Turkish Folk Literature and Turkish_literature#Folk literature looks very unbalanced. Ideally the latter should be a summary of the first. At the moment Turkish Folk Literature is as substub and the section Turkish_literature#Folk literature is has more than a page-long of contents. --Donar Reiskoffer 10:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, absolutely right. I can chalk that up to the fact that I have yet to get around to managing/expanding on the subpages of the Turkish literature article. For the nonce, what I will do is simply copy/paste Turkish literature's Folk literature section into Turkish Folk Literature—rather inadequate, I know, but it should suffice as a stopgap until I can do further expansion. Thanks for pointing this out; I appreciate it. —Saposcat 10:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Arabic script

I have begun the process of adding the Arabic script of Ottoman names, terms, etc. However, as I am a novice in using the script, if anyone is able to help out by adding Arabic script in the appropriate places (or correcting any mistakes I may have made), it would be greatly appreciated. —Saposcat 09:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have decided to use Arabic script only for terms (e.g. tenâsüb, tezâd), titles (e.g. Hüsn ü Aşk, Taaşuk-u Tal'at ve Fitnat), and group names (e.g. Jön Türkler, Genç Kalemler). There is such a plethora of personal names that it would create too much clutter to give them all Arabic script; instead, the person's individual pages will have the script (if applicable). —Saposcat 10:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Normative?

The current first sentence is

  • "Turkish literature refers to literature written in the Turkish language, either in its Ottoman variety—which was heavily influenced by Persian and Arabic and used a variant of the Arabic script—or in its more normative variety, such as that spoken in the Republic of Turkey today."

What does "normative variety" mean? Melchoir 00:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Here, "normative" is used to mean basically, "standard". Ottoman Turkish was, in a sense, a very specialist variety of the Turkish language, and was not understood by the vast majority of Turkish speakers. Definition-wise, the word "normative" approximates better to the situation than the word "standard" (at least, as far as I understand the meanings and connotations of the two words), and that is why I used it here. —Saposcat 04:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Historians

Among prose traditions, historians should be mentioned as well. I suggest the following phrase;

the tarih or history, was a prose tradition that started very early in the Ottoman Empire, with Aşıkpaşazade's work on the origins of the Ottoman dynasty in the 15th century, and reached its summit with such 17th century historians as Naima and Peçevi. Often, the historian was a part of the imperial bureaucracy, assigned to the task of recording events, but great Ottoman historians could build upon the inheritance of former writers, and enrich their prose with lively accounts and shrewd observations, thus going beyond the mere task of the vak'anüvis (chronicler, annalist). There were also many local chroniclers, concentrating on the events that had taken place at a specific locality or region during a certain period and this tarih tradition strecthed well into the 19th century.

--Cretanforever 16:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right about me missing out on the history-writing tradition; a big oversight on my part. However, I don't think that so much text should go in this article, but rather in the Prose of the Ottoman Empire article, once it gets fleshed out (not to say that history isn't important, of course, but rather so as not to destroy the integrity of the current article's prose section).
I will write up a brief summary statement of history soon and put it into the list of prose types. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. —Saposcat 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I have added history (i.e., târih) to the list, mentioning Aşıkpaşazâde, Kâtib Çelebi (another very important historian), and Naîmâ to the note. I think it best, at this stage, for the good points you bring up regarding their style of history-writing to go into the sub-page rather than this page (once the sub-page starts getting built up, of course). —Saposcat 20:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking my suggestion into account Saposcat. I appreciate a lot the serious application you put into the articles you work on. :) --Cretanforever 21:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

How about we play with it here and discuss it? I think the original complaints on the mainpage were that the first sentence was far too complex and that the "...literature is literature..." construction was a bit redundant.

It currently stands thusly: "Turkish literature is written or composed in the Turkish language, either in its Ottoman form or in less exclusively literary forms, such as that spoken in the Republic of Turkey today. The Ottoman Turkish language, which forms the basis of much of the written corpus, was heavily influenced by Persian and Arabic and used a variant of the Perso-Arabic script."

Any comments? --Monotonehell 08:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the lead paragraph, as it stands now, is good and solid. The only slight problem I might have with it is the fact that it seems to sort of come crashing to an end with the mention of Ottoman Turkish and its script, etc. An addition about non-Ottoman Turkish lit. and its linguistic milieu might be in order, so as to give more of a sense of completion. The only qualm with that is that doing so would start to bring the lead paragraph perilously close to just repeating information that the rest of the lead section sums up. Any thoughts?
(By the way, thanks for all your assistance; I appreciate it.) —Saposcat 08:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think we need to change these two but add a third, perhaps beginning "The oral tradition, meanwhile,..." This will only be partially redundant with the last two sentences of the last paragraph.
I agree the "literature is literature" bit reads oddly. A quick survey shows other pages employ the construction. Perhaps unpack literature as "the collection of texts, both written and oral" or simply remove the second mention as Mono did and then reverted. Marskell 09:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
"The collection of texts" idea is a good one, something like this:
Turkish literature is the collection of oral and written texts in the Turkish language. It/Turkish literature (which one?) includes both works composed in the Ottoman Turkish language, which was heavily influenced by Persian and Arabic and used a variant of the Perso-Arabic script, and works composed in less exclusively literary forms of Turkish, both oral and written.
That, too, may be a bit of a monstrosity, but maybe it's a step in the right direction. Maybe some cutting down on the second sentence (I'm a big fan of long, complex sentences—as you may have noticed—so I tend to be quite inadequate when it comes to splitting them apart, just as I wouldn't want to sever any of my own limbs) ... —Saposcat 09:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, I'm taking us back to the original problem. Let's do this:
Turkish literature is the collection of oral and written texts in the Turkish language, either in its Ottoman form or in less exclusively literary forms, such as that spoken in the Republic of Turkey today. The Ottoman Turkish language, which forms the basis of much of the written corpus, was heavily influenced by Persian and Arabic and used a variant of the Perso-Arabic script.
... and then maybe come up with a way to add another sentence to the end of the paragraph. The "meanwhile" bit would sound too story-like, I think, but perhaps we can come up with some other transitional word/phrase to get at the same idea. Right now, I'm a bit tapped out of ideas on how to do it, though. If you agree with the above version of the first paragraph (using "collection of ... "), then I'll go ahead and make the changes. —Saposcat 09:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the second is best. If we use the first suggestion we'll simply have the same problem that got this whole issue rolling. Marskell 10:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Mehmet Akif and Yahya Kemal missing??

Mehmet Akif Ersoy and Yahya Kemal Beyatlı are two of the greatest poets of Turkish literature. As a matter of fact they would be in the first 10 poets/authors that come to mind when Turksh Literature is in question. I wonder why noone had written anything about0 neither them nor their works; which include Kahraman Ordumuza...(a.k.a. İstiklal Marşı), Çanakkale Şiiri, Safahat (by Mehmet Akif); Rindlerin Hayatı, Rindlerin Akşamı, Rindlerin Ölümü, Eğil Dağlar, Kendi Gökkubbemiz (by Yahya Kemal).

You're right (though not, perhaps, about the top 10 thing, since that's always going to be a highly subjective list which they may or may not make their way onto, depending on whom you talk to). Why not be bold and add them in in an appropriate place, with appropriate brief summary/discussion? —Saposcat 04:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well; my knowledge upon the subject is not enough for that. I just like to read them; but I can not write a satisfactory comment on their works. :)

Re: Karamanids

Karamanid literature is indeed important in the development of Turkish literature, but the addition of an entire section thereupon compromises the article's clearly stated organization; namely, the part where it says that Turkish folk literature (of which Karamanid literature is a part) will be looked at "from the perspective of genre". To put an entire new section on the Karamanids in thus disrupts the integrity of a featured article.

I have added, to the already existing text, a note about the importance of Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey's declaration, as well as (on a different issue) a note about the Kutadgu Bilig. I am currently considering how to smoothly work in mention of other Karamanid poets, as well as of the "Divan-i Lugat-it Turk", without compromising the article's structure. I believe that this is a fair way of proceeding, and kindly request that you please propose further text changes/additions here, on the talk page, before suddenly adding large chunks of text into the article. —Saposcat 14:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have added a note, in the "Folk poetry" section, about the early Anatolian poets Yunus Emre, Sultan Veled, and Şeyyat Hamza. —Saposcat 14:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks,
Would it be possible to enter a sub-section for Autobiograpies-Historical works, as there are many such as the Baburnama, many of the Ottoman Sultans etc as Autobiographies are not common in Islamic history prior to these Turkish works. Or the Piri Reis "Kitab-i Bahrieh" and also I think Mir Ali Shir Navaoi definately deserves a special place, Bernard Lewis the famous Islamic Historian refer's to him as "Chaucer of the Turks.
Regards
—Johnstevens5
Not an entire separate subsection on autobiographies, as that would be too much (history already exists as a note in the Ottoman prose section), but if you could give me the names of a few authors and such, I could certainly add autobiographies to the list in the section where history (târih) is now.
However, remember what this "Turkish literature" page is discussing: literature in Turkish and Ottoman Turkish. By those standards, neither the Baburnama nor Nava'i actually belong in this article. Cheers. —Saposcat 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mir Ali Shir Nava'i

Alisher Navoi

—Johnstevens5

This is good, but certainly too much for a subsection of this article, which is a general overview of Turkish literature. The main problem with it, however, is that Nava'i is not considered Turkish literature by the standards of this article (i.e., he did not write in Turkish or Ottoman Turkish, which is explicitly what this article covers).
Note, however, that a page on Nava'i already exists. Try adding information there. Cheers. —Saposcat 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
Navoiy did write in Turkish and influenced its literature to such a degree that the Ottoman Sultans kept his work's in their private libraries and were taught it. I have photographs of Navoiy illustrations and page's from Suleyman the Magnificent's library could I add this?
—Johnstevens5
To take an example from the Alisher Navoi page:
Qaro ko'zum, kelu mardumlug' emdi fan qilg'il,
Ko'zum qarosida mardum kibi vatan qilg'il.
Now, this is definitely Turkic (i.e., Türkî), and I would assume it's Uyghur insofar as the article claims Nava'i "was a Central Asian poet of Uyghur heritage", but it is certainly not Turkish (i.e., Türk).
I will not deny the fact that Nava'i had an influence on Turkish literature, but we can hardly just start naming every non-Turkish-language poet who had an influence on the tradition, or the article would become a mess of Persian poets, Turkic poets, et cetera ad nauseam. So again, I would say just use what you have on the Alisher Navoi article rather than here; you're doing good work on that page, and I appreciate that. Cheers. —Saposcat 20:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
Its no different as to "Olde English", or "Middle English" differences to modern English. Chaucer, Beofwolf etc is accepted as English literature today although we cannot read it.
As for Nava'i, the phrase you mentioned above is understandable even today.
Qara = Dark, Koz'um = Eye, kel'u come, emdi now etc etc
For example
Bir-bir ne deyin boshtin-ayog'ing yaxshi.
What can I say, your great from head to bottom,
This phrase would be understandable to any Turkish speaker.
Or
Yoq, Yoq, Yoq, desang agar ayoqingni o'pay"
If you say No, No, No I'll kiss your feet
The reason I think its important to include maybe a little sentance or somthing to Nava'i is because he was among the key figures who transformed the Turkic language into an accepted literary language.
As he was a Turk and wrote Turkish, he influenced the Turkish language this is why its important. If we read his work he state's that he is a Turk as does Babur Khan in his Baburnama, I don't think therefore we can isolate him from Turkish literature as from his work its clear that its how they percieved themselves.
Could you check the page I've just created regarding Navoi Alisher Navoi what do you think? I've got images of his work in Suleyman the Magnificent's library which I'm going to upload aswell.
p.s I have copies of the Divan's of Suleyman the Magnificent and his wife, also other works by him, could I upload them? they're really beautiful.
Regards,
—Johnstevens5 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I still have to say that, despite a certain level of mutual intelligibility (which also exists among English and West Frisian, for example), Navai's language was not actually Turkish, but Chagatai, an extinct language most closely related to modern-day Uzbek, I believe. Thus, your example of Old English and Middle English applies to the relation between Navai's language and modern Uzbek (and possibly Uyghur), but not to that between his language and modern Turkish, which is in an entirely different branch of the Turkic language family. Unfortunately, there is not yet a page on Chagatai or Uzbek literature for Navai to fit into.
Moreover, I do think that Navai's influence on a Turkic language being used as a literary language was significantly less in the Ottoman world—which is what the article deals with in that time period—than, for example, Nesîmî's was.
I'll have a look at what you've been doing on the Navai page, too, and at some point I'll probably help out a bit with rearranging it and that sort of thing. As for Süleyman and Roxelana's divan pictures, you are of course more than welcome to upload them, and I think they might go well in his article and hers, though they wouldn't really fit in this article, since neither of them is really mentioned here. —Saposcat 11:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you are correct to a certain degree
The Ottoman Turkish spoken by the elite of the Ottoman was not very distant to the Turkish spoken in their original homeland of Central Asia.
For example, many scientists and professors's of Ulug Bek migrated later to the Ottoman court like the famous Ali Kuşçu.
In the libraries of the Sultan's there were many works by Central Asian Turks,
Suleyman the Magnificent, J.M.Rogers & R.M.Ward page 93-99 ISBN 0-7141-1440-5 - States that they payed alot of attention to the works of these Central Asian Turks.
The reason I'm stressing the importance of Nava'i is because Bernard Lewis the famous Brittish historian on Islamic studies refer's to him as the "Chaucer of the Turks". He was like a catylst in the movement of Turkish literature, writers like Fuzulli and even Suleyman the Magnificent were inspired by him and began to use Turkish in poetry instead of Persian.
Nava'i took the step to use Turkish as a language equal to or as he puts it one that could surpass Persian in the writting of poetry.
Over 30 years he produced more than thirty important works his material had a far reaching impact as he also wrote technical works that would be helpful to other Turkish poets - such as Mizan al-Awzan ("The Measure of Meters"), a detailed treatise on poetical meters – in addition to this he compiled the monumental Majalis al-Nafa'is ("Assemblies of Distinguished Men") and the Muhakamat al-Lughatayn ("Judgment between the Two Languages"), completed in December, 1499. He defended the superiority of Turkish from various points of view in comparison to Persian. It was the writer’s last definitive statement on the subject dearest to his heart, the Muhakamat is a perfect example of an author's final work acting also as his last will and testament which was to emphasize the importance of his native language.
Without these early writers the later Ottoman writers may not have had the inspiration to carry out the work they did.
Regards
—Johnstevens5
Although I still disagree with you (in a rather quibbling way, I admit), I'll just say "Fret no more", because I think I've found a reasonable place for a brief mention of Navai. It's in this paragraph from the "Divan poetry" section:
"As for the development of Divan poetry over the more than 500 years of its existence, that is—as the Ottomanist Walter G. Andrews points out—a study still in its infancy; clearly defined movements and periods have not yet been decided upon."
I'm thinking that something like this could be done:
"As for the development of Divan poetry over the more than 500 years of its existence, that is—as the Ottomanist Walter G. Andrews points out—a study still in its infancy; clearly defined movements and periods have not yet been decided upon. Early in the history of the tradition, the Persian influence was very strong, but this was mitigated somewhat through the influence of poets such as the Azerbaijani Nesîmî (?–1417?) and the Uyghur Ali Şîr Navâî (1441–1501), both of whom offered strong arguments for the poetic status of the Turkic languages as against the much-venerated Persian. Partly as a result of such arguments, Divan poetry in its strongest period—from the 16th to the 18th centuries—came to display a unique balance of Persian and Turkish elements, until the Persian influence began to predominate again in the early 19th century."
"Despite the lack of certainty regarding the stylistic movements and periods of Divan poetry, certain highly different styles are clear enough, and can perhaps be seen as exemplified by certain poets ..." etc.
So—what do you think? —Saposcat 12:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
It sounds great, fantastic work on this page by the way, I've uploading image's in the Navoi page aswell, I've got many copies of manuscripts of Turkish literature if you need any tell me and I'll see if I have it.
Do you think the names of Turkish literary awards should be added?
Regards,
—Johnstevens5
Okay, I'll make the change then. I don't think the name of awards is especially necessary, but I'll have a look around other general national literature sites on Wikipedia when I get a chance, and see how they handle that sort of thing. By the way, thanks for your consideration, and your compliment. I appreciate it. —Saposcat 12:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

More detail needed

I think that better organisation is needed here.

There should be clear sub-headings

1. Pre-Islamic Literature - Orkhon Inscriptions, Dede Korkut, Oguzname 2. Karakhanid Literature - Divani Lugat-i Turk, Yusuf Has Hajib "Kutat-Ku Bilik" (Blessings and Wisdom), ABC of Truth compiled by Ahmat Yuknaki etc etc 3. Selcuk Literature - Yunus Emre, Bektashi, Nasreddin Hoca, KaramanOgulari etc etc (Beyliks literature aswell) 4. Timurid Literature - Mir Ali Shir Nava'i, Babur's Baburname,Adib Ahmad Yugnaki “Hibatu-l-Hakoyik”, Horazmi “Muhabbatnoma”, Husainiy (Husain Baikara)Risola-Treatize, Abulgozi Bahodirhon “Shajarai-tarokima, etc etc

Everything after is well organised but more information is needed for pre-Ottoman Turkish.

Regards

—Johnstevens5

I appreciate your efforts to add this information; however, please try not to do so by simply copying information/text from other sites. I have deleted (see edit history) the paragraphs which I found to be copied; I will, however, add the information back in, rewriting it so as not to violate copyright, when I get the chance.
Please try to remember also that this is a featured article, and as such, any major additions should be "tested out" here, on the talk page, first, so as not to lower the article's quality.
Thanks again for your efforts and suggestions. —Saposcat 06:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
They were not copied, there in my own words, however there basically facts so the material is going to be the same what-ever way its put.
The section about the Karamanids is especially important as they raised Turkish to the level of official language and language of all state institutions.
This is in my own words
The conversion to Islam at the start of the 10th century brought about radical changes to literature. The Kutadgu Bilig ((The Wisdom of Royal Glory)) written by Yusuf Has Hacib is an important work and consisted of 6,500 couplets. It was practically written in pure Turkish, and included views on government, philosophy and religion. Another important literary work written around this time was Mahmud Kashgari's epic Divan-i Lugat-it Turk (Dictionary of Turkish languages) masterpiece, which was written to show that Turkish was a language just as rich as Arabic.
Its very important in regards to the development of Turkish literature, I think it should stay, could I add an image of the map in it? as it is one of the first Turkish maps in existance.
Ok I've edited the Karamnid part alot more, what do you think? still more work needed?
Regards.
—Johnstevens5
I question whether those are your own words; here is the text from this page:
"The conversion to Islam at the start of the 10th century brought about radical changes to literature. The Kutadgu Bilig was practically written in pure Turkish, and included views on state and religion. Another important literary work written around this time was the Divan-i Lugat-it Turk (Dictionary of Turkish languages), which was written to show that Turkish was a language just as rich as Arabic."
And your text, with additions in bold:
"The conversion to Islam at the start of the 10th century brought about radical changes to literature. The Kutadgu Bilig ((The Wisdom of Royal Glory)) written by Yusuf Has Hacib is an important work and consisted of 6,500 couplets. It was practically written in pure Turkish, and included views on government, philosophy and religion. Another important literary work written around this time was Mahmud Kashgari's epic Divan-i Lugat-it Turk (Dictionary of Turkish languages) masterpiece, which was written to show that Turkish was a language just as rich as Arabic."
Changes like these (adding the author's name, changing "state" to "government", and the like) do not make it your own text; it is still a quotation, and would need to be attributed.
Also, please keep in mind that I'm not questioning the importance or relevance of the information you'd like to put in; I'm trying to keep it in, but—as it says in the note at the top of this page—"without compromising previous work", which your reorganization is doing. This is a featured article, and as such, any such major changes need to be thoroughly discussed here before going into the article itself.
As for the map, I don't think it would quite fit well into this article, but would be perfect for articles on the Kutadgu Bilig or the Divan-i Lugat-it Turk. —Saposcat 14:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I've edited it to this, is it fine?

The conversion to Islam at the start of the 10th century brought about radical changes to literature. Mahmud Kashgari's epic Divan-i Lugat-it Turk (Dictionary of Turkish languages) masterpiece, which was written to show that Turkish was a language just as rich as Arabic. It was practically written in pure Turkish, and included views on government, philosophy and religion.

I think the Divan-i Lugat-it Turk is very important and essential for this page as its one of the earilest "large" works.

This is important

Common Thoughts of Socrates and Yusuf Khass Hajib on Wisdom and Virtue

http://www.ishim.net/ishimj/5/06.pdf

Also this is important

The subjects of the plaques were jointly chosen by a group from the University of Pennsylvania, and the Columbia Historical Society of Washington D.C. in consultation with authoritative staff members of the Library of Congress. The selection was approved by a special committee of five Members of the House of Representatives, the Architect of the Capitol and his associates.

The plaster models of these reliefs may be seen on the walls of the Rayburn House Office Building subway terminal. In chronological order the lawgivers are:

Hammurabi (c. 2067-2025 B.C.); Moses (c. 1571-1451 B.C.); Lycurgus (c. 900 B.C.); Solon (c. 595 B.C.); Gaius (c. 110-180 A.D.); Papinian (c. 200 A.D.); Justinian (c. 483-565); Tribonian (c. 500-547 A.D.); Maimonides (c. 1135-1204 A.D.); Gregory IX (c. 1147-1241 A.D.); Innocent III (1161-1216 A.D.); de Monfort (1200-1265 A.D.); St. Louis (1214-1270 A.D.); Alphonso X (1221-1284 A.D.); Edward I (1239-1307 A.D.); Suleiman (1494-1566 A.D.); Grotius (1583-1645 A.D.); Colbert (1619-1683 A.D.); Pothier (1699-1772 A.D.); Blackstone (1723-1780 A.D.); Mason (1726-1792 A.D.); Jefferson (1743-1826 A.D.); Napoleon (1769-1821 A.D.).

Thus we learn that Suleiman (1494-1566), the sixteenth on this list, whose epithet is Lawgiver (he recodified the laws of the Ottoman empire), is regarded as an individual whose actions and thoughts have influenced the formation of the U.S. law; therefore our actions. One can learn more about Suleiman's reign by reading works about him. However, a factor concerning Suleiman needs to be considered: What influenced his mind?

Suleiman's ancestors in the Ottoman dynasty (13-20th centuries) have established a palace school. The purpose of this institution was twofold: to educate the future rulers (their own off spring) and to simultaneously train the future high level bureaucracy. In this manner, the high level bureaucrats and the rulers would know each other, from their earliest ages. As can be expected, Suleiman was also a student.

The palace school instructors also had to train future teachers, to maintain successful continuity. Among other subjects, statecraft (what we may term Public Administration) was taught at the palace school. One of the earliest known manuals of statecraft anywhere is Balasagun'lu Yusuf's KUTADGU BILIG. It was completed in 1070/1 C.E. in the heart of Asia, four centuries prior to the voyage of Columbus, and dedicated to Tavgach Han, the ruler of the Karakhanids in Central Asia. An English translation by Robert Dankoff is available, under the title Wisdom of Royal Glory: KUTADGU BILIG (Chicago, 1983). KUTADGU BILIG has three known mss. One of them is referenced as the Herat copy. According to a note found on the Herat mss, the volume was brought to Istanbul in 1474 (still before the Columbus voyage) from Tokat in Asia minor by Fenerizade Kadi Ali, for the specific needs of Abdurrezzak Seyhzade Bahshi. The late Professor Resit Rahmeti Arat makes the following observation concerning this note:

In the Ottoman bureaucracy, there were chanceries managing the official correspondence with the Central Asian states. At their head, there was an educated individual with the title 'Bahshi' who knew the Central Asian conditions well; often they themselves were from those regions. Seyhzade Abddurrezzak Bahshi is such a person during the time of Fatih Sultan Mehmet (Mehmet II), working in Istanbul. Thus we understand why the said copy of KUTADGU BILIG is brought to Istanbul in 879/1474. However, it becomes difficult to trace the peregrinations of that work afterwards. On page 190, there is another note: "purchased from blacksmith Hamza; next to Molla Hayreddin's friday chapel; as witnessed by Hoca Haci Dellal. This Hoca Hayreddin mentioned is a teacher of Fatih Sultan Mehmet, and died in 880/1475.

Recalling that Fatih died in 1481, his son Bayazit II in 1512, and so his son Yavuz Selim in 1520; Selim's son, Suleiman, ruled 1520-1566, one might place KUTADGU BILIG into perspective, by briefly considering similar works from other cultures, contents and messages.

NOTE: Extracted and translated (with additions) by the author from a much longer paper he presented to a Toyo Bunko (Tokyo) audience. That original paper previously appeared in: Annals of Japan Association for Middle East Studies No. 7, 1992. Pp. 173-220. [Reprinted in Yeni Forum Vol. 13, No. 277, Haziran 1992.]

About the author: H. B. PAKSOY has taught at the Ohio State University, Franklin University, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, the Central Connecticut State University.

Over the past two decades, some fifty of his research papers have appeared in over forty-five periodic journals and scholarly collections, in ten countries, on the European, Asian, and North American continents. In addition to the present volume, Dr. Paksoy also published (as author or editor) seven other books: THE BALD BOY AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE WORLD (Lubbock: ATON, 2003) ESSAYS ON CENTRAL ASIA (Lawrence, KS: Carrie, 1999); INTERCULTURAL STUDIES (Co-Editor)(Simon and Schuster Education Group, 1998); TURK TARIHI, TOPLUMLARIN MAYASI, UYGARLIK (Izmir: Mazhar Zorlu Holding, 1997); CENTRAL ASIA READER: The Rediscovery of History; (New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1994); CENTRAL ASIAN MONUMENTS (Istanbul: Isis Press, 1992); ALPAMYSH: Central Asian Identity Under Russian Rule (Hartford, Connecticut: AACAR, 1989).

H. B. PAKSOY earned his D. Phil. from Oxford University, England (with a Grant from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom), M.A. at the University of Texas at Dallas (with a National Science Foundation Project Grant Assistantship), and B.S. at Trinity University (with Bostwick Scholarship)

I found an image of the Kutadgu Bilig

Regards

—Johnstevens5

All of the above is great information, but what you have to remember is that this article is a general overview of Turkish literature. As such, there should not be this sort of extensive information about any single work in this article, though it would be appropriate for the "Kutadgu Bilig" page or the (as yet non-existent) "Divan-i Lugat-it Turk" (which you are welcome to create if you like).
A mention of the "Divan-i Lugat-it Turk" may (or may not) be in order in the article (though I personally think it would be much more appropriate to mention it in the Turkish language article than in an article dealing with literature), but it certainly does not need an entire paragraph in the introductory section, which is already integral as is. And the new version of the paragraph that you provide is still not your own words, but a quote with bits added here and there. —Saposcat 15:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi
Sorry if I'm not applying to the rules correctly, I'm new to Wiki so please excuse me.
I understand the point about Kutadgu Bilig and there is a page for this which is linked so the information is accessable.
However, the "Divan-i Lugat-it Turk" is a very important work, there is so much information in it regarding Turks society, food recipies, words, games etc
Kâshgharî's dictionary is a rich source for Turkic views of their position within Islamic history and society. Based in broad fieldwork among Central Asian Turkic peoples and written in Arabic, Kâshgharî's work is a key source for Turkic linguistic and cultural history. He makes his dictionary a canon or "container" for Turkic culture, assessing words, practices, oral tradition and beliefs in terms of his own carefully worked out ethnic ideology. Amidst the complex ethnic interactions of the Islamic world, Kâshgharî makes his dictionary into a vehicle for defining what it is to be Türk, and explaining why it matters. He is a Türk nationalist from a Qarakhanid ruling family, and directs his definitional statement at an audience of Arab scholars and officials. His methods of collection and presentation fit within an accepted school of Arabic lexicography, but he uses this scholarly form to pursue highly politicized goals.
Kâshgharî gives the Türks a high place in the Muslim moral cosmos. He writes that the Türks are Allah's own army, named by him, and settled "in the most exalted spot and in the finest air on Earth. . . . [with virtues] such as beauty, elegance, refinement, politeness, reverence, respect for elders, loyalty, modesty, dignity and courage. . . ." (DLT 1 and 177). He writes that Muhammad said to his followers, "Learn the language of the Turks, because their rule will last a long time" (DLT 2). Kâshgharî does not personally attest to the validity of this hadith, but he says that if it is sound, "then learning [the language of the Türks] is a religious duty; and if it is not sound, still wisdom demands it" (DLT 3).
By collecting and recontextualizing the verbal materials of daily life Kâshgharî creates a monumental canon of Turkic culture organized according to his ethnic ideology and political program. Whereas al-Jâhiz emphasized the characteristics of Türks as independent and resourceful warriors, and Kai Kâ'ûs described how to judge their characteristics as slaves or servants, Kâshgharî uses the broadest possible description of Turkic oral and material culture to display the Türks' excellence and comparability to the Arabs in all aspects of cultural life. For his Arab audience to have a comprehensive understanding of who the Türks are, they must be given the fullest possible description of what Türks do and say, what these practices mean and how they reflect on Türk character
His dictionary has two systems for organizing the disparate information he includes within it: lists of lexical items, and two lengthy grammatical discussions. Almost all of the cultural texts appear as examples within the lexical entries, and are highly decontextualized. In particular, his couplets and quatrains seem to be parts of roughly fifty longer songs, but he uses separately according at importance to explaining the practical skills of daily living. He particularly emphasizes the details of preparing foods,(43) while he tends to simply translate into Arabic the terms for medicine, clothing, housewares, tools, and weapons, and describe them in more general functional terms. He seems to give cooking skills a special place in Türk culture, or he feels foods are the most difficult cultural terms to translate accurately into Arabic. But the details given for at least twenty dishes, with roughly another forty food items described, suggest a great deal of pride in the care and effort that goes into this cultural focus. It seems to be reflected as well in his many proverbs stressing the values of hospitality and the feeding of guests.
In addition to food, Kâshgharî describes a few children's games in sufficient detail to actually play them. Boys are said to play a word game in which the leader names animals with horns and they are repeated by the other players until the leader slips in the name of an animal without horns and defeats those who repeat it after him (DLT 603, 609-610).
Kâshgharî's dictionary clearly manifests his theory that the substance of Türk culture distinguishes it from other cultures. He stresses the ordinary activities of daily life, and completely neglects history except as it is represented in shared cultural knowledge such as legends and songs. The dictionary enables him to present a cultural canon of typical Türk behavior and everyday beliefs framed around the medium of the most commonplace of all shared daily social activity, talk. He frames this collection of words, cultural texts and practices within a statement of cultural identity: these are all the cultural practices that distinguish Türks from surrounding peoples, and make them worthy of great respect. In the body of his collection, he makes repeated clarifications of the cultural identity of the users of each practice or word.
Yazmas atim bolmas,
yangilmas bilgä bolmas.
There is no marksman who does not miss,
there is no counselor who does not err (DLT 470. I would suggest "Without missing one will not became a marksman, without error one will not become wise").
The songs and legends present shared ideas about the past and the natural and social world, while the proverbs are shared ways to think about the present and shape the future: they are guides to behavior, standards for dealing with situations that might come up. They are not given in terms of what was done with them in the past, but what can and should be done with them in the future. They are generative ways to creatively apply Türk culture to preserve the Türk essence of behavior.
Kâshgharî felt that recording pure Türk culture was the best way to preserve and protect it, creating standards for distinguishing genuine Turkic tradition from spurious. His contemporary, Yûsuf Khâss Hâjib, was the first of a series of Turkic authors who used Turkic oral cultural resources to create a tradition of written literature that was like Iranian and Arabic literature in form, while maintaining distinctively Turkic style and content. Turkic authors after Kâshgharî created literature that combined Turkic language and its concepts and poetic principles of proverbial composition with Arabo-Persian rhyme schemes and generic frame and an Islamic orientation.
TURKIC LITERATURE AND THE POLITICS OF CULTURE IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD © 1998 Nathan Light[/quote]
—User:Johnstevens5
Hey, no need to apologize for being new to Wikipedia; it takes time to get used to.
Again, you obviously have some great resources regarding "Divan-i Lugat-it Turk"; but again, the work doesn't need more than a brief mention in this article (and I still think it might fit better into the Turkish language article or—given the information above—the Culture of Turkey article or some such thing), in that this article is a general summary. Look at this article, for instance, and you'll notice that very few single works receive anything more than a sentence or two.
Keep in mind, however, that—although the "Divan-i Lugat-it Turk" page does not currently exist (as far as I know)—you can easily create it. If you do so, however, be very careful about copyright and properly citing sources. —Saposcat 21:46, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

I think this is one of the best Turkey-related articles in Wikipedia. I congratulate and thank everyone who were involved in editing it. Metb82 15:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rifat or Rıfat?

According to tr:Oktay Rifat Horozcu and de:Oktay Rifat, his name is spelled with the Turkish dotted I. However, the article on the English Wikipedia (Oktay Rıfat) uses the dotless I. Which one is correct? Khoikhoi 08:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It uses the dotted i; it's definitely "Oktay Rifat". —Saposcat 09:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Khoikhoi 09:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Heavily influenced

...is used twice in the introduction, in practically identical contexts, in the first paragraph and the third paragraph. Since this is a featured article, I think we should avoid repetitive expressions.

Regarding the footnoted comment coming after Karamanoğlu Mehmet Bey's declaration of Turkish as the official language of the state, I am not sure that we would add an observation like "Interestingly, the text of Arizona's State Official English Law[1] contains five words from Latin and that many Hebrew words". All the cited words are part of the Turkish language in this context, unless we are looking through a extremely narrow Öztürkçeci objective or if we want to stress the "heavily influenced" part yet a third time. Cretanforever 14:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Once I find a better way to phrase "heavily influenced", I'll probably change it, since you have a point. However, the second occurrence of the phrase shouldn't just be stricken out, as you did before, since it links to Persian and Arabic literature (as opposed to language, which the first occurrence does).
You also have a point about the footnote; I've changed the wording (I actually put the "Interestingly" in there originally as a sort of sarcastic swipe against the Öztürkçeciler and their ilk, who were pressuring the article a bit at the time, but I have now revised it). Again, though, I think it would be good not to just delete the information about the words, since it gives a concrete example that would make the language issue more tangible for people not knowledgeable in the relevant languages. Cheers. —Saposcat 15:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The repetition of "heavily influenced" in the intro has been reworded now. Cheers. —Saposcat 16:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Refer to National Library of Turkey, Millî Kütüphane??

You can also find some very nice 'treasures' of this library at http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/Turkey/treasures_en.xml Shall we include it here? Fleurstigter 16:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Elif Shafak

Why isn't she mentioned in the article? Is that because she isn't considered significant enough? She is one my favourite writers. Tauphon 08:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Lots of my favorites aren't mentioned in the article, either. However, she may well be significant enough in terms of contemporary literature, and I'd be happy to work her into the article if you give me a bit of time. —Saposcat 10:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No Turkish sci-fi?

Since the FA is supposed to be comprehensive, I am assuming that there is no Turkish science fiction literature, nor fantasy literature?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, there have only been a few very recent novels in the sci-fi genre, and none that I know of in the fantasy genre. Whether or not that rather miniscule output needs to be put into the article or not, I don't know; but there certainly is not any sort of sci-fi or fantasy tradition in Turkish literature.
There are, of course, readers in Turkey who enjoy both genres, but essentially that taste is entirely fed by translations rather than original Turkish material. —Saposcat 04:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this is quite interesting. Why the tastes of Turkish readers - and authors - are different from the 'West' where sci-fi is so popular? Not only West has sci-fi authors, Poland, Russia and Japan also have many authors and fans, just to name few examples I know rather well. So if this is not the case in Turkey it would represent a significant difference.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
A friend pointed me to an interesting reading: [2]. Unfortunately this is just an abstract :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There are few Turkish Sci-fi writers like K. Murat Güney, Mehmet Emin Arı or Müfit Özdeş and some fantasy writers like Barış Müstecaplıoğlu but i think they are not very popular. (especially outside of Turkey)

yeah but science fiction came late rin the 19th century.-Vmrgrsergr 20:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

True, there were some late Ottoman sci-fi works (some of them very interesting and even somewhat dystopian, from what I've heard), but none of them have been transcribed yet (though some transcriptions are in process at the moment), and so access to them—and hence the amount of referenceable texts concerning them—is extremely limited (for the nonce). —Saposcat 12:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with turkish literature is mostly academic, an elitist group of academicians monopolized the literature faculties who favor divan poems over anything else, and due to language difficulties(Ottoman is impossible to understand by Turkish speakers) these academicians are the only source who even tend to deny existence of non poetry literature safe for some very significant historical names(eg Omer Seyfettin). Even if Ottoman had science or fantasy fictions, there wouldnt be enough effort to find them out. New ones are usually too primitive due to cultural demolition of post 50s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.224.167 (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Major mistakes

Although this article is an FA, it has some major mistakes. For example, it does not differenciate between the Turkish language and the Turkic languages. It also does not differenciate between Turkish literature (the literature composed in the Turkish language) and literature in Turkic languages. The article also claims that Non-Turkish peoples, such as the Karakhanids, were "Turkish". While the Karakhanids were indeed Turkic, they were not Turkish. Someone needs to fix these problems. Tājik 21:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The language barrier among major Turkic people occurred after the change of alphabets(latin in turkey and balkans, cyrilic in soviet union, arabic elsewhere) in early 20th century. till that time except for tatars and azeri(were called tatar also) all other were called turks(uygurs still call themseves turks although their language is hardest to understand for west-turkish speakers), so dividing literature, only can be geographically(even that causes problems due to nomadic nature eg koroglu and nasreddin are known to almost all with minor differences)

You confused Karakhanids with Karamanid, an Anatolian Turkish Beylik. :) I see what you mean, but there aren't major mistakes I think. The article makes the distinction where neccessary, if there is a small mistake somewhere, it was unintentional. Baristarim 03:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
No, he was right about the Karakhanid reference; I've cleared that up.
Apart from that, there is no major distinction being made between Turkic and Turkish because, for the vast majority of the article, it is an irrelevant distinction: the focus is on literature in the Ottoman Turkish and Turkish languages. The only place where subjects Turkic have any relevance are in the bits of early history (epic and folk traditions, etc.); in that regard, it is clearly stated that—to give one example—the Book of Dede Korkut is not Turkish, but Turkic. If you claim there are any other "major mistakes", fine—but detail them and point them out so that, if necessary, they can be corrected. Cheers. —Saposcat 08:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits. Article looks better now. Tājik 12:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Towering point",is told to be Yunus Emre, while name of the greatest Turkish poet Fuzuli isnt mentioned. May it be because he was alevi? Or the most significant poem collection, "Köroğlu destanı-Epic of Koroglu" is also skipped, may it be because he was a rebel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.224.167 (talk) 11:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, now that I'm just starting to edit again after a two-plus-year break, I am reminded of one of the reasons why I left Wikipedia in the first place. Read the article, 85.100.224.167: Fuzuli is mentioned, thus negating the sad attempt at introducing politics ("Alevi miydi? Aman Allahım, böyle bir kâfirden katiyyen bahsetmemeliyiz!"); and the Köroğlu epic is also mentioned, thus negating another sad attempt at introducing politics (not to mention the fact that "Köroğlu" was not strictly a rebel because he was never just one single person). Saposcat (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not a venue for establishing truth or giving voice to partisanship- nor for addressing the rantings of trolls and flamers... let alone the ill conceived words of an anonymous agitator from 20 months ago.Mavigogun (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
'Kay. Saposcat (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Objective Writing

The article is good but not objective at it is learly seen that writers from religious backgrounds have been excluded. Like Necip Fazıl Kısakürek, a poet well-known by the Turkish nation. There are also the writers from the Mavera Magazine; Cahit Zarifoğlu, Rasim Özdenören are the two of the seven main writers who are also considered great witers as you could see Cahit Zarifoğlu's poems written in the books provided for students to learn about Turkish literature. There are many others aswell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.49.90 (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Turkish literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Turkish literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Name of the Article?

I have read that the first book in "Turkish" language was written in 1890. It was in a text of the UNESCO to laud Atatürk in 1981 (p.12). I don't know how relative this work is, but I am open to discussions. Also the Turkish language went through a profound revolution in the years after the foundation of Turkey. Sufi poets and Bektashi writers from 15th to 17th century just didn't speak Turkish as it is known today, not possible. Should we maybe split the article in Turkic literature, Osmanic/Ottoman Literature and Turkish literature? Or do you have other ideas? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Any comments, suggestions? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature#Article_review. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake


Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 08:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Misleading introduction

The article is clearly focused on Turkey, or, at least, in "oghuz turk", but its confusing when not stated so, the mention of Orhan inscriptions or Uyghur literature may mislead someone to think the article is about all Turkic literature. 201.22.168.192 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_literature/Archive_1&oldid=1178823699"