Görüntüleme
93
İndirme
42
Mesnevî Anadolu sahasında Türk edebiyatını etkilemiş en önemli metinlerdendir. Eserin tesiri dolayısıyla onu anlamak ve anlamlandırmak adına tercüme ve şerhler yazılmıştır. Mesnevî’nin Türk edebiyatındaki yeri, Gülşehrî’nin (öl. 838/1435) hikâye çevirileri ile başlamıştır. Bir süre sonra Mesnevî’nin mana derinliği ve birçok yere atfı dolayısıyla çevriler yeterli olmamaya başlar. Bu yüzden onu anlayabilmek için çevrileri şerhler takip etmiştir. Bu geleneğin başlangıcı ise Mui-nüddin Mustafa’nın Mesnevî’nin ilk cildini manzum olarak şerh ettiği Mesnevî-i Murâdiye ile 15. yy.’da başlar ve günümüze dek devam eder. Mesnevî şerhleri manzum ve mensur olarak ikiye ayrılabileceği gibi, Cezîre-i Mesnevî yahut bu tarzda oluşturulmuş derlemelerin de şerh edildiği görülmüştür. İlk iki beyit, ilk on sekiz beyit, birinci cilt yahut herhangi bir cilt ve altı cildin tamamına yazılmış şerhler mevcuttur. Şerhlerde Farsça diline dair gramerle ilgili bilgiler verilmiş, hikâyelerle beyitlere örnekler getirilmiş, beytin işaret ettiği mazmunlar açıklanmış, beytin iktibas ettiği ayetler gösterilmiş ve neye delalet ettiği belirtilmiş ve Mesnevî içerisinden veya diğer eserlerden Farsça ve Türkçe mısra, beyit, gazel, rubai alıntılanarak Mesnevî beytinin kültür içerisindeki yeri örneklendirilmiştir. Şerhlerin dilinin Türkçe olması, şârihlerin benzer mekânlarda bulunmaları ve buralarda yetişme-leri, aynı kültür içerisinde, benzer kitaplarla iştigal etmeleri yorumlarının birbirinin misli yahut yaklaşığı olmasına sebebiyet vermiştir. Ayrıca, Mesnevî metinleri birbirinden çok farklı değildi ve Mesnevî’yi çözümleme adına bir gelenek mevcuttu. Bundan ötürü yorumlarda ister istemez an-lamda koşutluklar mevcut olagelmiştir. Bazı metinlerdeki yakınlık ise cümle düzeyine çıkabilmek-tedir. Şifâî Mehmed Dede 17. yy.’da yaşamış Mesnevî’yi kısa ve sade bir şekilde şerh etmek isteyen şârih-lerdendir. Ondan sonra onun tarzında şerh yazan XVIII. yy.’da Muhammed Murad Molla (öl. 1264/1848)’yı görüyoruz. Öncesinde ise Hacı Pîrî (öl. 1049/1640) ve Ebu’s-Suud Sâdullah (öl. 16. yy.) bu tarzda eserler ortaya koymuşlardır. Yalnız onlarda bazı yerlerde Farsça şiir alıntılarının, beyti açıklamak için kullanıldığına rastlanılır. Şârihlerin çoğu Mesnevî’yi Farsça şeklinde okuyup anlayamayan Türklere hizmet etmeyi iddia etse de bu tarz alıntıların anlamı verilmemiştir. Dola-yısıyla bu şerhleri okurken dahi belli bir alet ilmine sahip olmak zaruridir. Şifâî’nin çok az olan alıntıları ayet ve hadislerdir ve onları bazı yerlerde açıklamıştır. Şifâî’nin şerhinin muhtasar olma-sı, bir yandan okuyucuyu sıkmamak adına bir üstünlük sağlar, öte yandansa meseleleri açıklamak-ta çoğu yerde eksik kalır. Onun etkilendiği şârihler Mustafa Muslihüddin Surûrî (öl. 969/1562) ile İsmâil Rusûhî Ankaravî’dir (öl. 1041/1631-2). Bunu şerhin girişinde söylemektedir. Şifâî’nin, tesiri altında olduğunu belirttiği şârihlerin hangi yönünü beğenmediğini söylemesi, bize doğrudan bu şerhlerle Şifâî’nin şerhini karşılaştırma imkânı sağlıyor. Şifâî şerhini karşılaştırmak adına Surûrî ve Ankaravî şerhlerine göz gezdirdiğimizde aynı Mesnevî beyitlerinde Mesnevî metninde geçmeyen kelimeler, ıstılahlar, ifadeler, cümleler ve alıntı nevin-den noktaların örtüştüğü yerlere rastladık. Bunun yanısıra kısmen benzer ve özgün yorumların varlığına da şahit olduk. Bunun üzerine Şifâî Mehmed Dede öncesinde acaba herhangi bir yazarın başka bir yazardan ifade, kelime, ıstılah… gibi benzerlikleri, aktarımları olup olmadığı sorusunu sorduk. Bu soruyu, Mesnevî’yi yorumlamak adına ‘Şifâî’nin, acaba ne gibi bir özel katkısı vardır, diğer şârihlerden farklı ne söylemiştir ve öncesinde kim kimden nasıl etkilenmiştir’ soruları takip etti. Bütün bu sorulara cevap verebilmek için Şifâî Mehmed Dede’ye değin yazılmış şerhlerin yazılış tarihlerine göre bir sıralama yaptık ve karşılaştırmak adına birinci beyti kendimize örnek aldık. Muînüddin Mustafa, Dede Ömer Rûşenî (öl. 892/1486-87), Surûrî, İlmî Dede (öl. 1019/1611), Ebu’s-Suûd Sâdullâh (öl. 16. yy.), Hacı Pîrî (öl. 1049/1640), Mustafa Şem’î Efendi (öl. 1011/1602-03), Abdülmecid Sivâsî (öl. 1048/1639), Sabûhî Ahmed Dede (öl. 1057/1647), İsmâil Rusûhî Anka-ravî, Hacı İlyas-zâde (öl. 1034/1625), Abdullâh Bosnevî (öl. 1053/1644), Sarı Abdullah Efendi (öl. 1071/1661), İbrâhîm Cevrî Efendi (öl. 1064/1654), Ağa-zâde Mehmed Efendi (öl. 1063/1652-53) ve Şifâî Mehmed Dede (öl. 1081/1671) gibi şârihlerin şerhlerini sıralayarak karşılaştırdık. Birinci beyitteki ney, ‘cudāyīhā’/ayrılıklar, dinle gibi sözcüklerle ile birlikte şârihlerin dile getirdiği Mesnevî’nin yazılış hikâyesine, ilk beytin gramerine ve nüsha farklılıklarına dair bilgileri başlıklar altında inceledik ve karşılaştırdık. Yorumlar sıralamaya göre okunduğunda kimin yorumu kimle örtüşüyor, kim kimden önce ne demiş ve anlam aynı mı kalmış, yoksa değişmiş mi, şârihin kendine has yorumu nedir gibi noktalara cevap verilebildi. Bir yorumun metin içerisinde yer alması anla-tımı bozuyor ise o zaman dipnota yazıldı. Birinci beyit için yapılmış yorumlarda ney istiaresinin karşılığında üç şey vardır. Bunlar Mevlânâ’nın kendisi, arif veya evliya ve Hz. Peygamber’dir. Bu yorumlardan ilkinin öncelikle kastedildiği düşünülebilir. Zira elimizdeki ilk nüshada ‘īn ney/bu ney’ ile Mevlânâ neyin anlamını kendine yöneltiyor. Diğer yorumlardan arif ve evliya da bizce muteberdir, Mevlânâ ile ifade edilen anlam böylece başkalarına doğru genişler. Çünkü onlar peygamberin varisleridir. Üçüncü yorum olan Hz. Peygamber’i ney istiaresine yaklaştırmak için şârihlerin oldukça uğraştığını düşünüyo-ruz. Uzak anlamı yakınlaştırmak için ebced vesile edilmiştir. Bu tarz yorumlar kanımızca ney istiaresiyle örtüşmez. Ney’in karşıladığı iddia edilen Hz. Peygamber anlamının yine veliye dönme-si ve onu anlatması bunun bir göstergesidir. Mesnevî’ye neden ‘biş’nev/dinle’ ile başlanılmıştır sorusunun cevabı da peygamber ve varisi evliyaya işaret eder. Onlar Kur’ân’ın ‘oku’ emrine ilişik iken, diğerleri onları dinlemekle yükümlüdür. Bu silsilenin Mesnevî mantığı ile paralel olduğunu, yine Mesnevî’den alıntıladığımız beyitlerle örneklendirdik ve ikinci beyitle ilişkisini vermeye çalıştık.
It is one of the important texts that influenced the Turkish literature in the field of Mesnevî Anadolu. It is written and translated for the purpose of understanding and understanding it. The place of Mesnevî in the Turkish literature, Smileheri (dead. 838/1435) began with translations of the story. After a while, the depth of the man of Mesnevî and the attachment to many places, the surroundings begin to be not enough. So they followed the surroundings to understand it. The beginning of this tradition is Mui-Nuddin Mustafa's first skin of Mesnevî as manzum with Mesnevî-i Murâdiye. YY .It starts and continues until today. It is also known that the two of them are divided into mankind and mankind, and that the mankind is divided into mankind and mankind, and that the mankind is divided into mankind. The first two beats, the first eighteen beats, the first skin or any skin and the six skin are listed on the whole. In the sherh information about the grammar of the Persian language was given, stories and examples were brought to the beiths, the mazmunes marked by the beiths were explained, the verses shown by the beiths were shown and what was deleted and from Mesnevî or from other works the place in the culture of the beiths was shown by the beiths, the beiths, the gazel, the rubai, the beiths, the beiths, the beiths, the beiths, the beiths, the beiths, the beiths, and the beiths. The fact that the Arabic language is Turkish, that the Arabic are in similar places and that they grow here, in the same culture, that they work with similar books, that their interpretations are similar to each other or closer to each other. Furthermore, the Mesnevian texts were not very different from each other and there was a tradition in the name of the Mesnevian solution. Whether or not, there is a lot of trouble. Some of the texts are close to the level of the phrase. The Grandfather Mahmoud 17. YY .He is the one who wishes to make a short and straight-to-ear life. After that, he wrote the XVIII in his style. YY .Muhammad Murad Molla (Muhammad Murad Molla) We see 1264/1848. before the death of the dead. 1049/1640) and Abu’s-Suud Sâdullah (dead. 16 is. and y) They showed the works in this way. Only in them in some places it is found that Persian poetry quotes are used to explain the beiti. The majority of the sharihs claim to serve the Turks who read Mesnevî in the form of Persian, but this kind of quotation has not been given meaning. It’s hard to read these words, even when it comes to a certain instrument of knowledge. There are a few signs of the Qur’an, and there are a few signs of the Qur’an, and there are some signs of the Qur’an. The fact that he is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one. He is the one who has made his death, the one who has made his death, the one who has made his death. 969-1562) and Ismael is the Rusûhî Ankaravî (dead. 1041 and 1631-2 He says this at the entrance. The fact that he says that he does not like the direction of the sheriffs he says that he is under his assertion, makes it possible for us to compare the sheriffs of the sheriffs directly with these sheriffs. When we look at the surreli and Ankarawi surreli in the same Mesnevî beits; in the Mesnevî text, words, suffering, expressions, sentences and quotes of the point of the point of the point of the point. In addition, we witnessed the existence of some similar and original comments. Then, before the Sifâi Mehmed Dede, we asked whether any writer had any similarities, translations, words, and other words from another writer. This question, in the name of the interpretation of Mesnevî, followed the questions 'What is the special contribution of the Shifaî, what has he said differently from the other shariah and who has been influenced by who's before.' In order to answer all these questions, we made a ranking according to the writing dates of the charges written to the Sifâi Mehmed Dede and we took the first beiti for us to compare. He is the Father, the Father, the Father, the Father. 892/1486-87), Surûrî, Sûrî, Sûrî, Sûrî, Sûrî, Sûrî 1019/1611), Abu’s-Sûd Sâdullâh (dead. 16 is. YY .and the death of the wicked, 1049/1640), the Lord of Mustafa Shem (dead. 1011/1602-03), Abdülmecid Sivâsî (dead. 1048/1639), Sabûhî Ahmed Dede (dead. [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] [25] 1034/1625), Abdullâh Bosnevî (dead. 1053/1644), Yellow Abdullah Efendi (dead. 1071/1661), Abraham Gevri Lord (dead. 1064/1654), Ağa-zâde Mehmed Efendi (dead. 1063/1652-53) and Sifâi Mehmed Dede (dead. We compare the charities of the sheriffs as 1081/1671. In the first verse of the Qur’an, the Qur’an was revealed, and the Qur’an was revealed, and the Qur’an was revealed, and the Qur’an was revealed, and the Qur’an was revealed, and the Qur’an was revealed. When the comments were read according to the rankings, who’s the explanation with who, who said what before, and whether the meaning remained the same, or changed, what is the explanation of the poet’s own. If a comment is broken in the text, then the dipnotation is written. There are three things in exchange for the first bidding. These are the same of Mevlânâ, arif or marriage and Hz. It is the Prophet. You can think that the first point of view is first. The first thing that we have in our hands is that we have the first thing that we have in our hands is that we have the first thing that we have in our hands. The other words and the marriage are the same as the other words and the other words are the same as the other words and the other words. They are the successors of the Prophet. This is the third comment of Hz. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and the Prophet (peace be upon him). Ebced has been given the opportunity to close the meaning. This kind of expression does not coincide with our blood. He said that Neil was welcomed. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is a sign of his return to the Lord. The answer to the question is why the messenger and his legacy are married. They have to listen to the Qur’an, while others have to listen to them. This silsilen was parallel with the Mesnevî logic, again with the beits we cited from Mesnevî and we tried to give the relationship with the second beit.
Mathnawi is one of the most important texts that influenced Turkish literature in Anatolia, such that many translations and commentaries have been written to understand it better due to its reputation. The journey of Mathnawi in Turkish literature begins with story translations by Gol-shahri (d. 838/1435). However, since Mathnawi's depth of meaning and highly sophisticated frame of reference, several commentaries followed. Therefore, in order to understand it, commentaries followed translations. The beginning of this tradition goes back as early as the 15th century poet-ic commentary Mathnawi-i Muradiya by Mu‘īn al-Dīn Mustafa (15th c.) which is on the first volume of Mathnawi. Commentaries of Mathnawi can be divided into poetry and prose. In addition, there are commen-taries on compilations like Jazira al-Mathnawi. There are commentaries written on the first two couplets, the first eighteen couplets, the first volume or any volume and all of six volumes of Mathnawi. In these commentaries, information about the Persian grammar has been given, exam-ples have been brought to couplets with stories, the symbols pointed by the couplets have been explained, the verses quoted by the couplets have been shown, what it means have been ex-plained. In addition, the place of the couplet of Mathnawi in culture have been exemplified by quoting verses, couplets, ghazals and rubais from Persian and Turkish works. The language of the commentaries was Turkish, the commentators were living in similar places, growing in a similar culture, and reading the same books. This is why their comments are close and similar. Also, the Mathnawi texts are not very different from each other and there was a tradi-tion to analyze Mathnawi. For this reason, there is an inevitably parallelism in the comments. In some texts, similarity can go up to the sentence level. Shifaī Mehmed Dede is one of the commentators who want to explain the Mathnawi in brief and simple way in the 17th century. Later, we see Muhammed Murad Molla (d. 1264/1848) who wrote a commentary in his style in the 19th century. Previously, by Haji Pirī (d. 1049/1640) and Abu Su‘ud Sa‘dullāh (d. 16th) were written commentaries similar in style. In their works, it is seen that in some places Persian poetry quotes are used to explain the couplet. Even though most of the commentators claimed to serve the Turks who cannot read and understand Mathnawi in Persian, but the meaning of such quotations was not provided. Therefore, it is essential to have a certain knowledge of the language even when reading these commentaries. The small quotations of Shifaī are verses and hadiths and he occasionally provided some explanations for them. On one hand, Shifaī's concise commentary provides an advantage not to bore the reader, on the other hand, it is often missing in explaining issues. As he acknowledges at the beginning of his com-mentary, he was influenced by Mustafa Muslih al-Dīn Surūrī (d. 969/1562) and Ismail Rusuhi Ankaravī (d. 1041/1631-2). The fact that Shifaī explicitly states what he does not approve of com-mentators whom he was influenced, we are able to more clearly compare them with the com-mentary of Shifaī. When we compare commentaries of the same Mathnawi couplets of Surūrī and Ankaravī with Shifaī’s, we have seen places where words, idioms, sentences, and quotations that are not in the Mathnawi text overlap. Furthermore, we have seen the existence of partially similar and unique commentaries. After that, we asked the question of whether any author had similar words, ex-pressions, idioms, or sentences with another author before Shifaī Mehmed Dede. This question was followed by following questions: In order to comment Mathnawi, Shifaī what kind of original meaning he had contributed, what did he say different from other commentaries and who was affected by whom and how. In order to answer all these questions, we not only made a ranking according to the written dates of the commentaries written until Shifaī Mehmed Dede but also for the sake of comparison we limited ourselves with the first couplet of Mathnawi. Sorting is as follows: Mu‘īn al-Dīn Mustafa, Dede Omar Rushanī (d. 892/1486-87), Muslih al-Dīn Surūrī, Ilmī Dede (d. 1019/1611), Abu Su‘ud Sa‘dullāh, Haji Pirī, Shami Shamullāh (d. 1011/1602-03), Abd al-Majīd Sivasī (d. 1048/1639), Sabuhi Ahmed Dede (d. 1057/1647), Isma‘il Rusūhī Anka-ravī, Haji Ilyas-zāda (d. 1034/1625), ‘Abd Allāh Bosnavī (d. 1053/1644), Sarī ‘Abd Allah Afandī (d. 1071/1661), Ibrahīm Javrī Afandi (d. 1064/1654), Aga-zāda Mehmed Afandi (d. 1063/1652-53) and Shifaī Mehmed Dede (d. 1081/1671). We compared the commentaries after sorting them by their commentators. In the first couplet, we examined the key terms like ‘nay’, ‘separations (judāyīhā’)’, ‘listen’ as well as the story of Mathnawi’s creation, the grammar of the first couplet, and information about copy differences. We compared and analyzed them under titles. When the commentaries were read in order, the following questions could be answered: Whose interpreta-tion is similar to whose, who said what before whom, has the meaning remained the same or has it changed, and what is the commentator's own commentary. If the inclusion of a comment in the text disrupted the narration, then it was written in the footnote. In the comments for the first couplet, there are three things in exchange for the nay metaphor. These are Mawlānā himself, saints, and the Prophet. It can be thought that the first of these is meant primarily. Because in the first copy we have, Mawlānā calls himself ‘īn nay/this nay’. Use of saint and wise are also proper, in my opinion. The meaning expressed with Mawlānā thus ex-pands towards others because they are the heirs of the prophet. On the other hand, we think that commentators are trying very hard to establish a relationship between the Prophet and nay. Here ‘abjad’ was used to bring the distant meaning closer. This kind of comments do not coincide with the metaphor of nay. The meaning of Prophet, who is claimed to be the equivalent of the nay metaphor, returns to the saints. This is an indication of it. The answer to the question of why the Mathnawi was started with ‘bish’nov/listen’ points to the prophet and his successor, saint. While they are obliged to fulfill the ‘read’ order of the Quran, the others are obliged to listen to them. We exemplified that this relationship is parallel to the Mathnawi style with the couplets we quote from Mathnawi and we tried to provide the relationship with the second couplet.
Alan : İlahiyat; Sosyal, Beşeri ve İdari Bilimler
Dergi Türü : Ulusal
Makale Detay 
Benzer Makaleler
PDF Görüntüle
Dergi Bilgisi
Eseri Dinleyin
Alıntı Yap
Bu Sayfayı Yazdırın
Paylaş
Mendeley
