Introduction
The SharafnÄma is a well-known history of Kurdish dynasties and ruling houses, several versions of which were written in Persian in 1004â7/1596â99 by AmÄ«r Sharaf KhÄn BidlÄ«sÄ«, prince of BidlÄ«s in northern Kurdistan. The historical account starts with the dynasty of the MarwÄnids in the 5th/11th century and includes, as is usually the case in Islamic historiography, many dynasties and events contemporaneous to the author. It comprises a muqaddima (prolegomena), four á¹£aḥīfas (books) and a khÄtima (epilogue). There are, to the best of our knowledge, forty-two extant manuscripts of the SharafnÄma, very few of which have so far been studied. Among these forty-two manuscripts, we find an autograph dated 29 Ẕū al-Ḥijja 1005/13 August 1597, containing a first version of the text and illustrated with twenty miniatures (Ms. Elliott 332, Bodleian Library, Oxford), as well as two copies revised by the author in Muḥarram 1007/Aug.âSept. 1598 (Ms. Hunt. Don. 13, Bodleian Library, Oxford) and ShavvÄl 1007/May 1599 (Ms. Dorn 306, National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg). After a widespread distribution in the 11th/17th century, with 16 extant manuscripts dated from this period, the book almost completely ceased to be copied in the 12th/18th century (we know of only one copy from that epoch). It was rediscovered in the 13th/19th century, which saw the production of 25 manuscripts of the work.1 Through this renewed interest on the part of Kurdish dynasts, it also drew the attention of Orientalists, and the text of the SharafnÄma was first published by Vladimir Veliaminov-Zernov (d. 1904) in St. Petersburg in 1860â62.2
In a previous publication, I have briefly described the history of the transmission of the SharafnÄma in BidlÄ«s in the century that followed its composition.3 Putting aside the short-lived rule of princes Å»iyÄâ al-DÄ«n KhÄn II (r. 1009â10/1601 and 1011â19/1602â10),4 Å»iyÄâ al-DÄ«n KhÄn III (r. 1065â66/1655â56) and Badr al-DÄ«n KhÄn (r. 1076â78/1665â67/8), the 11th/17th century was especially marked by the reigns of AbdÄl KhÄn (r. 1019â65/1610â55 and 1066â76/1656â65) and his son, Sharaf KhÄn III (r. 1078â1103/1668â91).5 AbdÄl KhÄn is certainly the Kurdish prince of the period that is best known in history, in large part because his colourful character was recorded in the SeyÄḥatnÄme, or âBook of travelsâ, by the celebrated globe-trotter EvliyÄ Ãelebi.6 The Ottoman traveller spent several months in BidlÄ«s in the years 1065â66/1655â66, in the context of an ongoing conflict between AbdÄl KhÄn and Melek Aḥmed PaÅa, beylerbeyi (governor) of Van, and he spoke highly of the khan.
Nonetheless, after an economically and culturally prosperous reign that lasted for more than half a century, AbdÄl KhÄnâs independent-mindedness finally seems to have cost him his position: in 1076/1665, he was demoted and exiled to Istanbul where he was executed in 1078/1667â68, on the order of the sultan Meḥmed IV (r. 1058â98/1648â87).7 The reasons for his execution are unknown, although it might be related to the ousting of AbdÄl KhÄnâs son, Badr al-DÄ«n KhÄn, nominated in his stead by the Porte in 1076/1665, and the coming to power of his other son, Sharaf KhÄn III, possibly as a result of a revolt against Badr al-DÄ«n KhÄn.8
Once he ruled BidlÄ«s, one of the very first decisions taken by Sharaf KhÄn III was to order his cousin, Muḥammad BÄg, son of a brother of AbdÄl KhÄn named Aḥmad BÄg, to produce a Turkish translation of the SharafnÄma. Muḥammad BÄg indicates that he started his work in 1078/1667â68, and he completed it in 1080/1669. This translation is known to us through four different manuscripts: manuscript Or. 1127, dated Wednesday 24 Rajab 1080/18 December 1669 and kept in the British Library (London);9 manuscript Muallim Cevdet O.29, dated Muḥarram 1188/March-April 1774 and kept in the Ä°stanbul BüyükÅehir Belediyesi Kütüphanesi;10 manuscript Tarih 364, dated 1296/1878â79 and kept in the Ali Emiri collection of the Millet Kütüphanesi (Istanbul);11 and manuscript Add. 7860, undated (British Library, London).12 Because it is the oldest, I will primarily use the manuscript Or. 1127 in this article, while always providing references to the other three copies and also quoting from them when relevant (however, the text is mostly identical in all four manuscripts).
Associated with two Persian copies of the SharafnÄma produced in 1083/ 1672, the existence of four manuscripts of Muḥammad BÄgâs Turkish translation suggests that the reign of Sharaf KhÄn III saw the advent of a new period of diffusion of the book from BidlÄ«s to outside audiences, mostly in the neighbouring principalities of Ottoman Kurdistan. Furthermore, the Turkish translation allowed for a better access to the work: Muḥammad BÄg himself mentions that, due to it being in Persian, the SharafnÄma was no longer understood, and facilitating access to this capital text for the DiyÄdÄ«nids was thus an explicit objective of the translation.
This was also the case for another Turkish translation of the SharafnÄma, produced in 1092/1681 in the Kurdish principality of PÄlÅ«, about 90 kilometres to the northwest of Diyarbekir. This translation was penned by a man named ShamâÄ«, presumably a munshÄ« (secretary) at the court of the MirdÄsid prince of PÄlÅ«, AmÄ«r Yanṣūr BÄg, whom he mentions as the patron of the work. While his translation is less complete and written in a simpler prose than Muḥammad BÄgâs, ShamâÄ« also supplemented it with a continuation of the chapter dedicated to the history of the princes of PÄlÅ« up to the time of writing. The autograph of this translation is kept at the library of the museum of the Topkapı Palace (Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi) under the call number Revan 1469. A second version of the translation was produced in 1095/1684 in PÄlÅ«âs sister principality, that of the MirdÄsid rulers of AgÄ«l, by an unknown scribe who made minor changes to ShamâÄ«âs translation and, most importantly, added a continuation on the history of the princes of AgÄ«l to supplement that on the princes of PÄlÅ«. This second version is included in a majmÅ«âa, or collection of texts, kept with the call number Add. 18547 in the British Library (London). The text of ShamâÄ«âs translation, including variants found in Add. 18547, was recently published by Adnan Oktay in Istanbul. In this paper, I will thus refer to the published edition as well as the two extant manuscripts.
In the first two parts of this article, I will present a comparative study of the two Turkish translations of the SharafnÄma. I will then strive to explain how they demonstrate a shift from Persian to Turkish as the official written language of Ottoman Kurdish courts in the 11th/17th century. While Persian was a high literary language enjoying great prestige among the learned elite of the Kurds, Ottoman Turkish was primarily seen as a bureaucratic idiom devoid of such status. In the third part, I will argue that the demise of Persian also allowed for the development of written literature in Kurdish, mostly consisting of texts inspired by the classical Persian works and didactic books to be used for teaching pupils in the medreses of Kurdistan. Thus, as Persian was replaced by Turkish as the administrative language in Ottoman Kurdistan, Kurdish became a primary language of literary production in the region.
1 History as an Instrument for the Legitimation of Dynastic Power: Muḥammad BÄgâs Turkish Translation of the SharafnÄma (BidlÄ«s, 1078â80/1667/8â69)
When Sharaf KhÄn III came to power, in 1078/1667â68, his first important act was apparently to commission an Ottoman Turkish translation of the SharafnÄma.13 Multiple family connections played a role in this process. The SharafnÄma had, of course, been written by Sharaf KhÄn IIIâs own great-grandfather, Sharaf KhÄn II, a little less than a century earlier, and the work was, already at the time of production, heavily centred around the DiyÄdÄ«nid dynasty of BidlÄ«s. It seems that one of the main objectives of this book was to bolster the DiyÄdÄ«nidsâ claim to primacy among the dynasts of Kurdistan, a claim they had maintained since at least the time of Sharaf KhÄn IIâs grandfather, Sharaf KhÄn I.14 With regards to this claim, the diffusion of the SharafnÄma played a role as significant as its composition. Thus, at the turn of the 11th/17th century, several versions of the work (at least four) were prepared under the supervision of the author, Sharaf KhÄn II, before being sent to various Kurdish princes, notably HalÅ KhÄn, ruler of the ArdalÄn and Ḥusayn JÄnbÅ«lÄd, ruler of KilÄ«s/Aleppo.15
Sharaf KhÄn IIâs grandson AbdÄl KhÄn also had an interest in the SharafnÄma. According to EvliyÄ Ãelebi (1990: 288â89), an autograph work of Sharaf KhÄn was in the khanâs library in 1065/1655.16 We also know of another manuscript of the SharafnÄma produced at the request of AbdÄl KhÄn,17 in which a panegyric to the DiyÄdÄ«nid ruler was added just before the colophon, at the end of the book.18 The text of this panegyric is remarkable because, aside from the usual eulogistic titles, the copyist also formulated wishes for the eternal prosperity of AbdÄl KhÄnâs âState and Powerâ (
In cultural and political terms, however, Abdal KhÄn was very much attached to an Ottoman perspective, contrasting with Sharaf KhÄn IIâs Persianate background and education.20 This distinction showed in every aspect of dynastic life, from the DiyÄdÄ«nidsâ reconstructed ancestry (nasab) to the princesâ matrimonial alliances. Thus, while Sharaf KhÄn II associated the DiyÄdÄ«nids with Sassanid royalty, styling himself âthe Khusrawidâ,21 AbdÄl KhÄn favoured an Abbasid story of origins, like several other dynasties in Ottoman Kurdistan.22 As for alliances, Sharaf KhÄn II had married into the Turkmen Mawá¹£illÅ« family, related to the Safavids, while Abdal KhÄn had wed a woman bearing the title KhÄnim Sulá¹Än, great-granddaughter of the Ottoman sultan SelÄ«m II (r. 974â82/1566â74).23
This cultural shift was most manifest in the language used at court and in administration. Already during the reign of AbdÄl KhÄn, Persian seems to have been on the decline as the written language of the DiyÄdÄ«nid court, a fact which is demonstrated through many examples. While EvliyÄ Ãelebi (1990: 96â97) notes that the khan himself was fluent in âPersian, Kurdish, Turkish and Arabicâ, AbdÄl KhÄn still commissioned several translations of Persian and maybe Arabic works into Turkish, some of which are extant. We can mention, for example, a translation of ḤamdallÄh QazvÄ«nÄ«âs Nużhat al-QulÅ«b (âPleasure of the Heartsâ),24 or that of an otherwise unknown treatise on various arts and crafts called MajmÅ«âa al-á¹¢anÄyiâ, or á¹¢anÄyiâ al-á¹¢anawâÄt (âThe Compendium of the Artsâ or âThe Arts of the Craftsâ).25 As for the languages spoken at court, it seems to have been both Kurdish and an Azeri Turkish dialect specific to the DiyÄdÄ«nids and RÅzhikids of the Lake Van region.26 In light of these developments, the production of a Turkish translation of the SharafnÄma was the next logical step, and it was taken by another scion of the dynasty, AbdÄl KhÄnâs son and the principalityâs new ruler Sharaf KhÄn III, who in 1078/1667â68 asked his first cousin Muḥammad BÄg b. Aḥmad BÄg to complete the project.27
In the passage of the translationâs preface (dÄ«bÄcha) where he explains the context of its production, Muḥammad BÄg b. Aḥmad BÄg subtly suggests his displeasure at having been asked to undertake this task, writing:
It shall not stay concealed from the sun-like brightness of the brilliant spirits of the noble companions that the honourable commander-in-chief, great among the great, protector of the weak and the destitute, support of the warriors of the holy faith, endowed with the favours of the Lord of the worlds and glory of state and religion, Sharaf KhÄn, source of justice and blessings, son of AbdÄl KhÄn, whose dwelling is in Paradise, may God Almighty and glorious extend the days of his state and increase the strength of his power, and may peace be upon his forefathers, gave in 1078 [1667â68] to the most despicable of Godâs creatures and the frailest of His servants, burdened by unruliness and lacking in virtue, Muḥammad BÄg, son of Aḥmad BÄg MÄ«rzÄ, in need of the divine mercy of the Eternal, the eminent request to translate the SharafnÄma from Persian into Turkish, so that anyone might benefit from its consultation. Even though this was not the duty of this miserable one to do so, we have put our trust into God Almightyâs grace and, asking for His backing, we have striven to accomplish the task at hand.28
Almost drowned in an ocean of praise to the new ruler Sharaf KhÄn III, Muḥammad BÄgâs laconic comment that it was ânot [his] dutyâ to do the translation is interesting. We would indeed expect such a work to be requested of a munshiâ, and not a member of the princely family, who presumably held a much higher position at court.29 Sharaf KhÄn II, the workâs author himself, does not seem to have written more than one specimen of his SharafnÄma, being content with supervising and occasionally correcting later versions reworked by one or several secretaries. Even by the end of the 11th/17th century, there must still have been many people capable of reading and understanding advanced Persian prose in BidlÄ«s, a commercial centre comparatively close to the border with the Safavids. It thus remains a mystery why Sharaf Khan III specifically asked his cousin to undertake this task.
Whatever his reluctance to fulfil it, Muḥammad BÄg was very thorough. No part of the work is missing from the translation, which even includes the khÄtima, an annalistic history of the Ottomans and the Safavids, despite it having virtually no bearing on the history of Kurdish dynasties, including the DiyÄdÄ«nids. As a result of this thoroughness, the translation is slightly longer than the original, varying between 350 and 400 folios in the different manuscripts, and it took two years to be completed, with Muḥammad BÄg finishing it on 25 RabÄ«â I 1080/23 August 1669.30 His translation includes the panegyric mentioned earlier, in the same spot before the colophon, but AbdÄl KhÄnâs name has been replaced in it by that of the translationâs patron, Sharaf KhÄn III.31 Muḥammad BÄg thus carried out his translation from the same *AbdÄl KhÄn manuscript, which later served as a model for the two Persian copies of the work produced in 1083/1672.32 Why the name of AbdÄl KhÄn was not replaced by that of Sharaf KhÄn III in these copies remains a mystery, although this might have to do with the greater liberty that Muḥammad BÄg had as a translator and member of the princely family.
The two Persian manuscripts of the SharafnÄma sponsored by Sharaf KhÄn III were completed at an interval of two days, on Friday 4 ShaâbÄn/25 November and Sunday 6 ShaâbÄn/27 November of the year 1083/1672, probably by two different copyists, only one of which is identified.33 Available evidence, based on our findings about their later circulation, suggests that these copies were destined to be circulated in Iranian Kurdish principalities, where knowledge of Persian of course remained current, whereas the bookâs Turkish translation was specifically produced with the intent of being distributed in the neighbouring principalities of BidlÄ«s.34 This tells us that, although Sharaf KhÄn IIIâs project contrasted with that of AbdÄl KhÄn in their uses of the work,35 he also clearly followed in the footsteps of his father and great-great-grandfather by using the SharafnÄma as a legitimizing tool for the power and standing of the DiyÄdÄ«nids of BidlÄ«s in Ottoman Kurdistan. However, the translationâs distribution seems to have been (voluntarily or not) restricted geographically, as the work apparently remained unknown outside of the Lake Van area. AmÄ«r Yanṣūr BÄg, MirdÄsid prince of PÄlÅ«, to the north of Diyarbekir, was thus unaware of its existence when, eleven years later (1092/1681), he sponsored the production of another Turkish translation of the SharafnÄma, to which we will now turn our attention.
2 Reading, Translating and Updating the SharafnÄma in the majlis: the Turkish Translation by ShamâÄ«, Court Secretary of the Prince of PÄlÅ« (1092/1681)
Like other Kurdish rulers, the MirdÄsid princes of PÄlÅ« and AgÄ«l, two sister principalities located to the north of Diyarbekir, also demonstrated their interest in their own dynastic histories through the production of copies, translations and continuations of the SharafnÄma.36 Their interest in Sharaf KhÄnâs work is attested by the existence of a manuscript of the SharafnÄma copied in 1070/1660 by a man named Ẕū al-NÅ«n al-PÄlÅ«yÄ«, or Ẕū al-NÅ«n of PÄlÅ«, kept with the call number Y-0561 in the library of the Turkish Historical Institute (Türk Tarih Kurumu) in Ankara, although this manuscript was not the model for ShamâÄ«âs translation.37 Furthermore, extant manuscripts of two early modern shajaras (genealogical trees) of the dynasty of AgÄ«l, including one dated to the early 12th/18th century, roughly the same period as ShamâÄ«âs translation, are indicative of a more general preoccupation with problematics of dynastic history and legitimacy.38
ShamâÄ«âs translation was realised in 1092/1681 at the request of the prince of PÄlÅ«, AmÄ«r Yanṣūr BÄg, and it also includes a ẕayl on the history of the princes of PÄlÅ« up to the time of writing.39 An anecdote related by ShamâÄ« in the dÄ«bÄcha (preface) of his translation sheds light on the way manuscripts of the SharafnÄma were used in the various Kurdish courts, while explaining the reason for his Turkish translation. He writes:
ShamâÄ«, this despicable one, full of defects (â¦) happened to be honoured with the attendance of the noble majlis [âassemblyâ] of our ruler, His Excellency the enlightened prince [Yanṣūr BÄg], when suddenly, in the course of conversation, mention was made of the government and lineage of his glorious ancestors and forefathers. To the best of their ability, some of those in attendance at the majlis told stories on this subject, but in the end, the History of the SharafnÄma was sought, for it had been clearly and extensively related in it. However, because it was in Persian, it was of little help. Afterwards, that mighty lord ordered this despicable one to translate this book in the Turkish language.40
From this passage and his presence at the princeâs majlis, we can gather that ShamâÄ« was probably a munshÄ« at Yanṣūr BÄgâs court. ShamâÄ«âs translation, which he calls the Terceme-i tevÄrīḫ-i Åeref ḪÄn or Terceme-i tevÄrīḫ-i ÅerefnÄme, is stylistically very different from the one made by Muḥammad BÄg in BidlÄ«s. Whereas Muḥammad BÄgâs translation, composed 12 years earlier, was written in an ornate and flowery language on par with the Persian text and the general standards of Ottoman Turkish historiography at the time, ShamâÄ«âs work exhibits a simpler prose, in terms of both structure and lexicon. Much of the Persian and Arabic learned vocabulary has thus been replaced by Turkish equivalents, in contradistinction with Muḥammad BÄgâs more literary writing style, associated with the formalised tenets of classical inshÄâ prevalent at the court in Istanbul. A quick comparison of a random passage in both texts, the beginning of the very first chapter on the MarwÄnid princes of DiyÄrbakr and JazÄ«ra, will suffice to illustrate this difference:
In addition to the stylistic differences mentioned above, although Muḥammad BÄg did tend to write in an increasingly simpler prose as he went along, it is also clear from this comparison that Muḥammad BÄgâs translation was much more literal than ShamâÄ«âs. These contrasting characteristics reflect the different uses that were intended for these two translations. As we have seen, the text sponsored by Sharaf KhÄn III was meant to be distributed to nearby principalities and, like the original opus, it was supposed to support the DiyÄdÄ«nidsâ claim to political greatness among the other houses of Kurdistan. As such, it was expected from Muḥammad BÄg to produce a work both faithful to the original style and content that would meet the standards of Ottoman historical writing. The expectations were very different for ShamâÄ«âs translation, only meant for the personal use of the prince of the smaller principality of PÄlÅ«, Yanṣūr BÄg, and other members of his court. The objective was to produce a rendition of the text in readable and intelligible Turkish, rather to adhere to any predefined standard of historiographical or stylistic greatness.
As a result of this different approach, ShamâÄ« also omitted the khÄtima from his translation: this was obviously a part of the SharafnÄma in which Yanṣūr BÄg had no interest. Furthermore, an accidental loss in the model manuscript forced him to skip a good bit of the chapters on the AyyÅ«bids and ḤakkÄrÄ« princes and the whole chapter on the ArdalÄn.41 Associated with ShamâÄ«âs simpler and more concise style, these voluntary or involuntary lacunae have contributed to the comparative brevity of the text, which is only 87 folios long, to be compared with the 372 folios of Muḥammad BÄgâs translation in the Or. 1127 manuscript. Even though they both produced Turkish translations of the SharafnÄma, Muḥammad BÄg and ShamâÄ« were thus in reality doing different work, with distinct objectives. They both seem to have succeeded in achieving these objectives. The number of extant copies of Muḥammad BÄgâs translation gives a measure of its favourable reception. Meanwhile, Yanṣūr BÄg, as well as the larger MirdÄsid circles, must also have been favourably impressed with ShamâÄ«âs work, notably with the ẕayl included in the translation, for Muá¹£á¹afa BÄg, the MirdÄsid prince of AgÄ«l, apparently had a second version of the text produced, presumably in 1095/1684.
This tentative dating is based on the latest date mentioned in that second versionâs sole extant manuscript, kept in the British Library with the call number Add. 18547/1. It is unknown if this is the original manuscript of the version produced in 1095/1684: it is now part of a majmÅ«Ê»a in which the translation is followed by the first part (jÅ«zʼ) of MasâÅ«dÄ«âs Golden Prairies.42 The absence of a colophon, presumably ripped away when the two texts were pieced together (see f. 132r), prevents us from reaching definite conclusions on the date of composition of this second version, as well as its authorship and patronage. The text is nearly exactly the same as that of the original version by ShamâÄ«, although the copyist also made a few corrections to ShamâÄ«âs text.43
However, what makes this a different version of the translation, rather than a mere copy of it, is the existence of a short but important addition: in supplement of the ẕayl on the princes of PÄlÅ«, there is also in this manuscript a ẕayl on the MirdÄsid princes of AgÄ«l, ending with the rule of Muá¹£á¹afa BÄg, in 1095/1684. The author of this zayl bestows wishes of prosperity upon Muá¹£á¹afa BÄg, and he writes in a markedly more ornate style than that found in the rest of the work. On the other hand, this ẕayl is a lot shorter than the ẕayl on the history of the princes of PÄlÅ«.44 The difference in style between both ẕayls suggests that ShamâÄ« was not the author of the ẕayl on the princes of AgÄ«l included in this second version of his translation. Rather, it is more probably Muá¹£á¹Äfa BÄgâs own secretary who copied ShamâÄ«âs work, supplementing it with a short ẕayl on the dynasty of his patron, although nothing can be asserted. Musá¹afa BÄgâs patronage of this work appears to have been directly inspired by Yanṣūr BÄgâs patronage of the original translation, demonstrating the SharafnÄmaâs continued relevance as an instrument of dynastic legitimacy for Kurdish princes everywhere, and not only in BidlÄ«s.
Moreover, both ShamâÄ«âs and Muḥammad BÄgâs translations explicitly point to the fading of Persian literacy in Ottoman Kurdistan in the later part of the 11th/17th century. Based on what we have seen so far, we would be inclined to believe that for all intents and purposes, Persian had then been replaced by Turkish as the dominant language in the region. In some respects, this was indeed the case, as the existence of these translations aptly demonstrates. However, the same period also corresponds to the rise of a written Kurdish literature, notably in the fields of poetry and didactic religious texts, in certain Kurdish principalities such as JazÄ«ra and âAmÄdiya.45 Can this phenomenon also be linked to the decline of Persian? If so, how can we reconcile it with the apparent prevalence of Turkish as the administrative and historiographical language of the Ottoman Kurdish courts? These are some of the questions we will now address in the third and final section of this article.
3 Persianate Culture, Ottoman Bureaucracy and Kurdish Scholarship: the Sociolinguistic Evolution of 11th/17th-Century Ottoman Kurdistan
What was the attitude of 11th/17th-century Kurdish speakers towards their own language and the other languages of the region, notably Arabic, Persian and Turkish? This question might seem impossible to answer, as the subject is mostly ignored in the relevant sources. We have no single work dedicated to this issue in the Kurdish context, no equivalent to the Timurid MuḥÄkamat al-Lughatayn (âThe Judgment of Two Languagesâ) by MÄ«r âAlÄ« ShÄ«r NavÄâÄ« (d. 906/1501), in which the famous writer from Herat vowed to demonstrate the literary superiority of Chagatai Turkish over Persian.46 Furthermore, as for any linguistic group, Kurdish speakers did not constitute a uniform and cohesive group. However, the Turkish translation of the SharafnÄma produced in PÄlÅ« in 1092/1681 does provide us with information on how one Kurdish speaker perceived the several languages he was presumably fluent and literate in. This speaker is none other than ShamâÄ« himself, the translator of the work and a munshiâ at the court of Yanṣūr BÄg. In the dÄ«bÄcha of his work, ShamâÄ« makes a passing remark on the different languages spoken in Kurdistan and elsewhere, the brevity of which is compensated by its unexpected candour. Using as a starting point the Quranic verse that says: âand of His signs is the creation of the Heavens and Earth and the variety of your tongues and huesâ,47 he then writes that:
It shall be known that, here, the variety of tongues refers to the various languages spoken among the creatures, some of which are Arabic, Persian, Kurdish, Turkish and Greek, Hindi, Afghan and, in addition to these, many more strange tongues and wonderful languages that cannot be counted. However, the most eminent and elegant of these tongues is Arabic, in which the noble Qurâan was revealed, and after it, Persian, the sweetest of languages. Then, each people has considered their own language to be the highest, but ImÄm Muḥammad BarqalâÄ«, MullÄ Muḥyiâ al-DÄ«n JazÄ«rÄ«, and many more great scholars and noble literati, have chosen the Kurdish language, making it the most agreeable. Furthermore, the bravest and most generous peoples of the aforementioned Islamic community are the Arabs, and then the Kurds.48
First, let us note that ShamâÄ« was most likely proficient in all the languages mentioned: as a translator of a Persian work into Turkish, he must have had extensive knowledge of both languages, and as a learned man of his time, he must also have known Arabic to some extent. As for Kurdish, his mention of works by Muḥammad BarqalâÄ«, and a man perhaps to be identified with Melayê Cizîrî, suggests that he could at least read the language and presumably speak it, though we do not know if he was capable of writing it. In any case, the opinion formulated is that of a multilingual and educated individual, presumably a Kurd, whether it can be said to accurately represent the approach of the munshÄ« at other Ottoman Kurdish courts, or even educated Kurds in general, is of course debatable.
ShamâÄ«âs description of Arabic, the language of the Qurâan, as the âmost eminentâ of languages is unsurprising, just like his view of Persian, the literary language par excellence, as second in the hierarchy of the worldâs tongues.49 However, he then makes a bolder claim by asserting the superiority of Kurdish over the rest of the worldâs languages, including Turkish, basing his rationale on the âmany (â¦) great scholars and noble literatiâ who chose to write in it. This linguistic prevalence of Kurdish is, in turn, linked by ShamâÄ« to a supposedly higher status of the Kurdish community, the âbravest and most generousâ after the Arabs in the Islamic world.
At this point, ShamâÄ« ends his aside and gets back to the translation, leaving us with the following question: if Kurdish was so prestigious as a literary language, second only to Arabic and Persian, why did ShamâÄ« translate the SharafnÄma into Turkish, and not into Kurdish? He might not have had a choice, as his translation was done at the request of Yanṣūr BÄg, his patron; however, this does not fundamentally change the matter. Since ShamâÄ« did not hesitate to clearly express his opinions on languages in the dÄ«bÄcha of the work, Yanṣūr BÄg must have shared them to a degree. Why, then, would he have requested a Turkish, rather than a Kurdish translation?
To make this issue even more interesting, ShamâÄ«âs Terceme-i tevÄrīḫ-i ÅerefnÄme was not the only Turkish translation of a Persian-language historical chronicle composed in the second half of the 11th/17th century in Ottoman Kurdistan. We have already discussed Muḥammad BÄgâs Turkish translation of the SharafnÄma, made in BidlÄ«s at the request of Sharaf KhÄn III in 1078â80/ 1667/8â69, as well as the Turkish translation of ḤamdallÄh MustawfÄ« QazvÄ«nÄ«âs Nuzhat al-QulÅ«b, produced at the request of another ruler of BidlÄ«s, Sharaf KhÄn IIIâs father AbdÄl KhÄn. We can thus assert that in at least some of the Ottoman Kurdish courts, historical chronicles were preferably translated into Turkish, rather than Kurdish.
We might be tempted to explain this phenomenon by the existence of a well-grounded tradition of historical writing in Turkish by the end of the 11th/17th century, including the production of numerous Turkish translations of Persian chronicles in the Ottoman Empire. However, such a tradition also existed for religious and literary texts; yet, from the turn of the 11th/17th century, at least some of these texts were increasingly being written in Kurdish in Ottoman Kurdistan, in addition to Turkish-language classics also produced in the region, such as the MaârifetnÄme by IbrÄhÄ«m ḤaqqÄ« ErzurumÄ« (d. 1194/1780).50 What reason can we give for this dichotomy between historical texts on the one hand, and literary and religious works on the other? Before trying to answer this question, let us focus for a moment on those Kurdish-language religious and literary texts produced in the 10th/16thâ11th/17th century and their authors.
Much has been written on the beginnings of classical Kurdish literature in both poetry and prose in that period, with studies and editions of the works of such figures as Melayê Cizîrî (d. 1050/1641), Feqiyê Teyran (d. 1041/1632), Åemseddînê Exlatî (d. 1085/1674), Ismaîlê Bayezîdî (d. 1121/1709), Mela Bateyî (d. 1168/1755), Selîmiyê Hîzanî (fl. 1168/1754), and, of course, Ehmedê Xanî (d. 1119/1707), author of the celebrated opus Mem û Zîn (âMem and Zinâ).51 In many ways, this development paralleled the âclassical ageâ of Ottoman Turkish divan literature.52 However, this should not be understood as meaning the complete disappearance of Persianate culture in Kurdistan and the Ottoman Empire at large. In a recent work, Michiel Leezenberg (2016: 259) has thus noted that even after Turkish âhad largely replaced Persian as the language of the Ottoman bureaucracy and emerged as a language of refined courtly poetry in its own right (â¦), [it] never wholly sidelined Persian as a language of learned lettersâ, especially since âofficial and literary uses of Turkish were and remained replete with Persian (and, of course, Arabic) loan words and loan constructions.â
The same could be said of classical Kurdish literature, as its most celebrated products were indeed modelled on, or at least inspired by, the earlier works of classical Persian authors such as NiáºÄmÄ« GanjavÄ« (d. 606/1209), FarÄ«d al-DÄ«n âAá¹á¹Är (d. 618/1221), ḤÄfiáº-i ShÄ«rÄzÄ« (d. 792/1390) and others. This allowed for the survival of Persianate culture in a localised form, as the decreasing knowledge and literary use of Persian in the Ottoman lands, including Kurdistan, created the need for these Kurdish and Turkish books inspired by the Persian greats. Ehmedê Xanîâs Mem û Zîn is a masterly executed example of this, as it shows a skilful integration of elements of Kurdish oral literature and folklore, the core story of Mem û Zîn comes from the Kurdish oral epic Memê Alan,53 with motifs common in classical Persian literature. A difference between Kurdish and Turkish is that, in the principalities of Ottoman Kurdistan, a distinction remained between the language of bureaucracy and official correspondence, Ottoman Turkish, and that of the literati and court poets, some of whom chose to work in Kurdish. Such a distinction did not exist in the central lands of the Ottoman Empire, where there was a much longer tradition of using Turkish in the administration: there, Turkish was the language of both bureaucracy and literature.54
All the well-known Kurdish literati of the period under scrutiny were also, without exception, religious scholars, having both studied and taught in some of Kurdistanâs numerous and prestigious medreses.55 Thus, they also produced didactic works for use by the medresesâ pupils. Ehmedê Xanî, who had himself studied in many different medreses, including in BidlÄ«s,56 is again the most well-known author of such books in this period. We can mention his Nûbihara biçûkan (âThe Childrenâs Fruits of Springâ), a Kurdish-Arabic rhymed dictionary designed to help Kurdish pupils learn Arabic, and his Eqîdeya îmanê (âThe Tenets of Faithâ), a primary-level book on the core principles of the Islamic creed. It is around these didactic works in Kurdish that the medrese curriculum probably crystallised at the turn of the 12th/18th century, as far as we can gather from 20th-century accounts such as those of Zeynelabidîn Zinar and Sadreddin Ãztoprak.57
This standard curriculum, given with minor differences in both Zinar (1998: 12â17) and Ãztoprakâs (2003: 185â89) accounts, included Ehmedê Xanîâs two books, as well as other Kurdish works such as Elî Teremaxîâs Serfa kurmancî, a work on Kurdish, Persian and Arabic grammar, to which Leezenberg (2014) has devoted a detailed article. A quick glance at the list of books and the order in which they were studied allows us to understand quite well the role given to these Kurdish books in the educational system of the medrese.58 For example, Zinar (1998: 11) writes that âthe standard curriculum (rêz) included around twenty books that the feqî [pupil] had to learn entirely by heartâ. In this curriculum, apart from the early tasks of learning the Arabic alphabet and memorizing the Qurâan, the first four books studied were in Kurdish. These were the Mewlûd (âLife of the Prophetâ) by Mela Bateyî, Xanîâs Nûbihara biçûkan, the Nehcûâl-Enam (âThe Path of the Creaturesâ) by Mela Xelîlê Sêrtî (d. 1259/1843), described by Zinar (1998: 12â13) as âa brief text in Kurmanci verse on Muslim doctrineâ and, on the same subject, Ehmedê Xanîâs Eqîde.59 Only upon completion of the study of these four books did the students start reading Arabic works on Shafiâi fiqh.
Next, the feqî moved to the study of the Arabic verb (sarf) and that of Arabic syntax (nahw). In both cases, pupils again started with Kurdish texts (Elî Teremaxîâs Serfa kurmancî, called Tesrîfa kurmancî by Zinar, and two books by Mele Ãnisê Erqetênî called Zurûf and Terkîb), before moving on to the classical Arabic works on the subject, but even these were explained in Kurdish by the teachers (Zinar, 1998: 4, 13â14). Thus, out of 23 books in Zinarâs list, 7 are in Kurdish and 16 in Arabic.60 Although we cannot project these accounts from the 20th-century into the past, it seems that at least in the early stages of study, the curriculum of Kurdish medreses did not differ significantly from that of state-sponsored Ottoman medreses, save for the use of these Kurdish books.61 When approaching a new topic, the educational method thus consisted in first studying Kurdish books on the subject, presumably as a means to acquire its core vocabulary and principles, and then advancing through Arabic texts of increasing difficulty.
From this short summary, we can clearly see that Kurdish authors of historical chronicles, or translations thereof, and the Kurdish literati who produced both literary works and didactic works for use in the medreses, belonged to two different classes of people. The former represented the traditional category of the munshÄ«, or court secretaries, usually also the authors of most of the Ottoman and Persian chronicles,62 whereas the latter were scholars and literati (âulÄmaâ va fużalÄâ). While they were all men of letters, they did not practice the same work and were not associated with the same milieus. The munshÄ«, as in the example of ShamâÄ«, evolved in court circles and their day-to-day occupation mostly consisted in writing official correspondence in Ottoman Turkish, while the âulÄma taught in Kurdish medreses, in Kurdish, to mostly Kurdish pupils. This differentiated use of languages in 11th/17th-century Ottoman Kurdistan explains why Muḥammad BÄg and ShamâÄ« both translated the SharafnÄma into Turkish rather than Kurdish, which did not stop ShamâÄ« from hailing the literary superiority of Kurdish, exemplified by the writings of the epochâs great literati and scholars.
Conclusion
In the closing decades of the 11th/17th century, two Turkish translations of the SharafnÄma were produced in the Kurdish princely courts of BidlÄ«s and PÄlÅ« by Muḥammad BÄg b. Aḥmad BÄg, a great-great-grandson of the author of the work, and ShamâÄ«, a munshiâ at the court of AmÄ«r Yanṣūr BÄg. These works contrasted in some ways. Written in an ornate and flowery style in line with Ottoman chancery prose of the time, Muḥammad BÄgâs translation was meant to be circulated in neighbouring principalities as a token of the political prestige and power of the house of the DiyÄdÄ«nids of BidlÄ«s. Meanwhile, ShamâÄ« wrote in a simpler Turkish prose for the occasional perusal of the prince and other members of his divan.
Yet, the translations were also both written at the request of the princes themselves, and the use of history and genealogy as elements of dynastic legitimation is manifest in both cases. Furthermore, Muḥammad BÄg and ShamâÄ« both explicitly stated that these translations into Turkish were rendered necessary by the fact that the Persian-language original was not understood any more. The partial demise of Persian and increasing use of Turkish in Ottoman Kurdistan throughout the 11th/17th century was following a larger trend in the whole of the empire. By this process, the âPersianate worldâ ceased to include the regions located west of the Safavid border and mostly became restricted to Iran proper and the lands further east. However, in the case of Ottoman Kurdistan, this linguistic shift brought about a differentiation in the language uses formerly covered by Persian: while the domain of the munshiâ, including the writing of historical chronicles, was heavily influenced by Ottoman chancery practices and thus developed in Turkish, the circles of scholars and literati associated with the medrese environment started composing some of their literary and didactic texts in Kurdish.
This linguistic dichotomy between the court and the medrese might also have reflected a nascent political rivalry: while the Kurdish scholars, like the common people, were exhausted by the never-ending imperial wars for control of the border region, a fact most eloquently described by Ehmedê Xanî in his lament on the prejudice the wars brought about on the Kurds,63 the ruling dynasts actually had much to gain by playing these power games in which they were major contestants. The fact that the SharafnÄma, a text which was more than anything the expression of the political aspirations of these Kurdish dynasts, almost completely ceased to be copied in the 12th/18th century might be an indication of their decreasing influence in Kurdistan.
Furthermore, the vast network of the medreses, allowing the circulation of both teachers and students all over Kurdistan and beyond, was probably a far greater unifying factor than the constantly warring and mostly self-serving dynastic principalities. This political rivalry between princes and scholars would resolve in the 13th/19th century with the end of the autonomy of the Kurdish emirates, after which the political space was completely filled by religious leaders, who would spearhead most of the important Kurdish nationalist revolts of the late Ottoman and early Republican era.
References
Manuscripts
Abdal KhÄn, á¹¢anÄyiâ al-á¹¢anawâÄt, Cod. Mixt 211aâd, Library of the University of Vienna.
MustawfÄ« QazvÄ«nÄ«, ḤamdallÄh. Nużhat al-QulÅ«b, anonymous translation into Turkish. A 957, Milli Kütüphane, Ankara.
MustawfÄ« QazvÄ«nÄ«, ḤamdallÄh. Nużhat al-QulÅ«b, anonymous translation into Turkish. A 979, Milli Kütüphane, Ankara.
Sharaf KhÄn, SharafnÄma. Elliott 332 and Hunt. Don. 13, Bodleian Library, Oxford; Dorn 306, National Library of Russia, St. Petersburg; Y-0561, Türk Tarih Kurumu Kütüphanesi, Ankara; Add. 23531, British Library, London; Or. 12, Biblioteca Reale, Turin; Suppl. Persan 238, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris.
Sharaf KhÄn, SharafnÄma, translated into Turkish by Muḥammad BÄg b. Aḥmad BÄg. Or. 1127 and Add. 7860, British Library, London; Ali Emiri Tarih 364, Millet Kütüphanesi, Istanbul; Muallim Cevdet O.29, Ä°stanbul BüyükÅehir Belediyesi Kütüphanesi, Istanbul.
Sharaf KhÄn, SharafnÄma, translated into Turkish by ShamâÄ«. Revan 1469, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi, Istanbul; Add. 18547, British Library, London.
Books and Articles
Adak, A. (2013). Destpêka Edebiyata Kurdî ya Klasîk. Istanbul: Nûbihar.
Alsancakli, S. (2015). From BidlÄ«s to ArdabÄ«l via Aleppo and Iá¹£fahÄn: On the Circulation of a Manuscript of Å araf ḪÄn BidlÄ«sÄ«âs Å arafnÄma Revised by the Author (1007/1599). Eurasian Studies, 13(1â2), 133â152.
Alsancakli, S. (2017a). Whatâs Old Is New Again: A Study of Sources in the Å arafnÄma of Å araf XÄn BidlÄ«sÄ« (1005â7/1596â99). Kurdish Studies, 5(1), 11â31.
Alsancakli, S. (2017b). Matrimonial Alliances and the Transmission of Dynastic Power in Kurdistan: The Case of the DiyÄdÄ«nids of BidlÄ«s in the Fifteenth to Seventeenth Centuries. Eurasian Studies, 15(2), 222â249.
Amir-Moezzi, M. A. (2006). Remarques sur le persan, seconde langue sacrée de lâislam. Annali dellâUniversità degli Studi di Napoli âLâOrientaleâ, 66(1â4), 69â82.
Arberry, A. J. (1996). The Koran Interpreted. A Translation by A. J. Arberry. New York: Touchstone.
AteÅ, S. (2013). Ottoman-Iranian Borderlands. Making a Boundary, 1843â1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Aydın, N. (2003). Diyarbakır â EÄil Hükümdarları Tarihi. Istanbul: Avesta.
Aydın, N. (2012). Diyarbekir ve Mırdasiler Tarihi. Piran, Gîl, Ãermog, Pale. Istanbul: Avesta.
Baltacı, C. (1976). XVâXVI. Asırlarda Osmanlı Medreseleri: TeÅkilât, Tarih. Istanbul: Ä°rfan matbaası.
Bianquis, Th. (1993). MirdÄs, BanÅ« or MirdÄsids. In Bosworth, C. E., van Donzel, E., Heinrichs, W. P. and Pellat, Ch. (eds.), The Encyclopædia of Islam, New Edition. Volume 7, 115â123. Leiden: Brill.
Bolelli, N. (2015). Kürt Bilginlerin Yazdıkları Bazı Eserlerin Tanıtımı. Bingöl Ãniversitesi YaÅayan Diller Enstitüsü Dergisi, 1(1), 67â82.
Bozkurt, N. (2010). Åecere. Ä°slam Ansiklopedisi, 38, 403.
Chyet, M. L. (1991). âAnd a Thornbush Sprang Up Between Themâ: Studies on âMem u Zinâ, a Kurdish Romance. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation.) University of California, Berkeley.
Dehqan, M. (2008). The FatwÄ of MalÄ á¹¢Äliḥ al-KurdÄ« al-ḤakkÄrÄ«: An Arabic Manuscript on the Yezidi Religion. The Journal of Kurdish Studies, 6, 140â162.
Dehqan, M. (2015). A Yezidi Commentary by MawlÄnÄ Muḥammad al-BarqalâÄ«. Nûbihar Akademî, 1(3), 137â151.
Dehqan, M., Genç, V. (2015a). Reflections on Sharaf KhÄnâs Autobiography. Manuscripta Orientalia, 21(1), 46â61.
Dehqan, M., Genç, V. (2015b). Why Was S̲h̲araf K̲h̲Än Killed? Manuscripta Orientalia, 21(2), 13â19.
Demir, A. (2008). 16. Yüzyılda Safevi ve Osmanlı Hakimiyetinde ArÅiv Belgeleri IÅıÄında Bitlis Beyleri. In M. Bilen, V. Gürhan and E. GümüŠ(eds.), I. Uluslararası Dünden Bugüne Tatvan ve Ãevresi Sempozyumu Bildirileri, 253â283. Istanbul: Beyan Yayınları.
DemirtaÅ, F. (2005). Mirdasi Hükümdarları. âPalu ve EÄil Hükümetleriâ ve Ãermik BeyliÄi. Istanbul: Sena.
Erkinov, A. (2004). Les copies des anthologies poétiques persan-ÄaÄ¡atÄy de la Bibliothèque nationale de France. Contribution à lâétude des bayÄż de lâAsie centrale (XVeâXIXe siècles). Studia Iranica, 33, 221â242.
Erkinov, A. (2008). Persian-Chaghatay Bilingualism in the Intellectual Circles of Central Asia during the 15thâ18th Centuries (the case of poetical anthologies, bayÄz). International Journal of Central Asian Studies, 12, 57â82.
Erzurumlu, İbrahim Hakkı. (2014). Mârifetnâme, ed. and translated into modern Turkish by Faruk Meyan. Istanbul: Bedir Yayınevi.
EvliyÄ Ãelebi. (1988). Evliya Ãelebi in Diyarbekir. The Relevant Section of the Seyahatname, ed. H. Boeschoten and M. van Bruinessen. Leiden: Brill.
EvliyÄ Ãelebi. (1990). Evliya Ãelebi in Bitlis. The Relevant Section of the Seyahatname, ed. R. Dankoff. Leiden: Brill.
Fodor, P. (2011). Telhis. Ä°slam Ansiklopedisi, 40, 402â404.
Glassen, E. (1989). BedlÄ«sÄ«, Å araf-Al-DÄ«n Khan. Encyclopaedia Iranica, IV(1), 76â77. Available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/bedlisi-saraf-al-din-khan-b (last accessed on 2/2/2018).
Gördük, Y. E. (2014). EÄil EmirliÄiânin Kısa Tarihçesi ve EÄil Emirlerine Ait Åecere Metninin Tercümesi. Ankara Ãniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi AraÅtırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi, 35, 89â120.
IÅıkdoÄan, D. (2012). GüneydoÄu Medreselerinde EÄitim-ÃÄretim Faaliyetleri: Mardin ÃrneÄi. Ankara Ãniversitesi Ä°lahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 53(2), 43â83.
Kılıç, O. (1997). 18. Yüzyılın Ä°lk Yarısında Osmanlı Devletinin Ä°darî Taksimatı. Eyalet ve Sancak Tevcihatı. ElazıÄ: Åark Pazarlama.
Köhler, W. (1989). Evliya Ãelebi Seyahatnamesinde Bitlis ve Halkı, transl. from German by Haydar IÅık. Istanbul: Alan.
Kurdo, Q. (1983). Tarîxa Edebiyata Kurdî, vol. I. Stockholm: Roja nû.
Leezenberg, M. (2014). Elî Teremaxî and the Vernacularization of Medrese Learning in Kurdistan. Iranian Studies, 47(5), 713â733.
Leezenberg, M. (2016). The Vernacular Revolution: Reclaiming Early Modern Grammatical Traditions in the Ottoman Empire. History of Humanities, 1(2), 251â275.
Markiewicz, C. (2015). The Crisis of Rule in Late Medieval Islam: A Study of IdrÄ«s BidlÄ«sÄ« (861â926/1457â1520) and Kingship at the Turn of the Sixteenth Century. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Chicago.
McLachlan, K. (2013). Boundaries i. With the Ottoman Empire. Encyclopaedia Iranica, IV/4, 401â403. Available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/boundaries-i (last accessed on 2/2/2018).
MustawfÄ« QazvÄ«nÄ«, ḤamdallÄh. (1915). The Geographical Part of the âNuzhat al-QulÅ«bâ, ed. Guy Le Strange. Leiden: Brill.
NevÄyÄ«, âAlÄ« ÅÄ«r. (1996). MuḥÄkemetüâl-LuÄ¡ateyn: Ä°ki Dilin Muhakemesi, edited by Faruk Sema Barutçu Ãzönder. Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu.
NawÄâÄ«, MÄ«r âAlÄ« ShÄ«r. (1966). Judgment of Two Languages; Muhakamat al-lughatayn, translated by Robert Devereux. Leiden.
OluŠArık, M. (1971). Bitlis Yapılarında Selçuklu Rönesansı. Ankara: Selçuklu Tarih ve Medeniyeti Enstitüsü.
Ãzok-GündoÄan, N. (2014). Ruling the Periphery, Governing the Land. The Making of the Modern Ottoman State in Kurdistan, 1840â70. Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, 34(1), 160â175.
Ãztoprak, S. (2003). Åark Medreselerinde bir Ãmür. Istanbul: Beyan.
Pala, Ä°. (2007). Osmanlılar. 2. Edebiyat. Ä°slam Ansiklopedisi, 33, 556â558.
PektaÅ, K. (2001). Bitlis Tarihi Mezarlıkları ve Mezar TaÅları. Ankara: Kültür BakanlıÄı yayınları.
de Planhol, X. (1990). Boundaries ii. With Russia. Encyclopedia Iranica, IV/4, 403â406. Available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/boundaries-ii (last accessed on 2/2/2018).
SaÄnıç, F. H. (2002). Dîroka Wêjeya Kurdî. Istanbul: WeÅanên Enstîtûya Kurdî ya Stenbolê.
Scheref, prince de Bidlis. (1860â62). Scheref-Nameh ou Histoire des Kourdes, ed. V. Veliaminov-Zernov. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences.
Sinclair, T. A. (1987). Eastern Turkey: An Architectural and Archaeological Survey. Volume 1. London: The Pindar Press.
Soltanî, A. (2005). Du Zeylî Åerefnamey Bitlîsî (deqî farsî wa turkî wa wergêrawî kurdî). Silêmanî: Jîn.
Åemâî. (2017). Terceme-i Tevârîh-i Åeref Hân, ed. A. Oktay. Istanbul: Nûbihar.
Toutant, M. (2016). Un empire de mots. Pouvoir, culture et soufisme à lâépoque des derniers Timourides au miroir de la Khamsa de MÄ«r âAlÄ« ShÄ«r NawÄâÄ«. Paris: Peeters.
Ulugana, S. (2015). Bitlis MirliÄi Tarihinde Abdal Han Dönemi (1618â1664). Kürt Tarihi, 20, 52â57.
Uzun, M. (1992). Destpêka Edebiyata Kurdî: Lêkolîn. Ankara: WeÅanên Beybûnê.
Uzun, M. (2003). Antolojiya Edebiyata Kurdî. Istanbul: Aram.
Ãnan, F. (1999). Osmanlılarda Medrese EÄitimi. Osmanlı, 5, 149â160.
van Bruinessen, M. (1988). Les Kurdes et leur langue au XVIIème siècle : Notes dâEvliya Ãelebi sur les dialectes kurdes. Studia Kurdica, 5, 13â34.
van Bruinessen, M. (2000). Kurdistan in the 16th and 17th Centuries, as Reflected in Evliya Ãelebiâs Seyahatname. The Journal of Kurdish Studies, 3, 1â11.
Xanî, Ehmedê. (2010). Mem û Zîn, ed. H. Åemrexî. Istanbul: Nûbihar.
Yıldırım, K. (2011). Ehmedê Xanîânin Fikir Dünyası. Istanbul: AÄrı Kültür YardımlaÅma ve DayanıÅma DerneÄi Yayınları.
Zinar, Z. (1993). Xwendina Medresê. Stockholm: Pencînar.
Zinar, Z. (1998). Medrese Education in Northern Kurdistan, translated and annotated by Martin van Bruinessen. Les Annales de lâAutre Islam, 5, 39â58.
Sharaf KhÄn II (r. ca. 986â1009/1578â1600) was the leader of the RÅzhikÄ« tribe and DiyÄdÄ«nid prince of BidlÄ«s, southwest of Lake Van (the name DiyÄdÄ«nid supposedly came from a man named Å»iyÄâ al-DÄ«n, founder of the dynasty; see Scheref, 1860â62: I, 364). Very few things are known of his life outside of what he himself says in his autobiography, added as a zayl (continuation) at the end of the fourth á¹£aḥīfa (book) of the Kurdish chronicle, devoted to the DiyÄdÄ«nids. For more information on Sharaf KhÄnâs biography, see Glassen (1989), and the more recent and detailed studies by Dehqan and Genç (2015a and 2015b). See my forthcoming PhD dissertation for an in-depth study of the different SharafnÄma manuscripts.
Later editions and translations are all based on this edition, in which V. Veliaminov-Zernov used the manuscript Dorn 306 as a base text (he did not have knowledge of either Elliott 332 or Hunt. Don. 13).
See Alsancakli (2016); on the sources used by Sharaf KhÄn II in composing the work, see also Alsancakli (2017a).
See Dehqan and Genç (2015b: 13).
See Demir (2008: 282).
The passages of the SeyÄḥatnÄme devoted to BidlÄ«s were edited, translated and published by Robert Dankoff in 1990. In view of the cityâs size, the number of folios devoted by EvliyÄ to this account is rather important: R. Dankoff estimates it at nearly 2.5% of the narrative content, noting that âmuch more space is devoted to Bitlis than to hundreds of places of equal or greater significance â Vienna, for example, or, closer to our subject, Van, Erzurum, and Diyarbekir.â See EvliyÄ (1990: 6).
See Köhler (1989: 39â40); also Dankoff in EvliyÄ (1990: 11, note 2).
Some support for this assumption is provided by the inscription on Badr al-DÄ«n KhÄnâs tombstone, in which the word shahÄ«d (âmartyrâ) has been written next to the princeâs name. Badr al-DÄ«n KhÄn died in 1084/1674 in unknown circumstances, and he was buried in a grave (turba) on BidlÄ«sâ Gökmeydan, to the south of the IkhlÄá¹£iyya madrasa (see Ulugana (2015: 53â54); PektaÅ (2001: 40â41); OluÅ Arık (1971: 64) and Sinclair (1987: 302â4). Badr al-DÄ«n KhÄn and Sharaf KhÄn III were half-brothers; for more details, see Figure 2 of the DiyÄdÄ«nid family tree in Alsancakli (2017b).
This is indicated in the manuscriptâs colophon (f. 372v, ll. 2â6), which reads: âCopied by the slave and sinner, the weak and lowly âAlÄâ al-DÄ«n b. Muá¹£á¹afa, on a Wednesday at the end of the honoured month of Rajab in the year 1080â (
This manuscript ends with the fourth á¹£aḥīfa of the SharafnÄma and lacks its khÄtima, as well as a colophon. However, the date of its copy is known through a note written on folio 1r, which states: âThis is an elegant history devoted to the events of the princes of Kurdistan and dedicated to the conqueror of Eger [a city in the north of Hungary], Sulá¹Än Meḥmed III. It was written in 1005 [1596â97] in the common tongue by an Iranian, grandson of AmÄ«r KhÄn [Mawá¹£illÅ«], and it narrates the glorious deeds of the Ottoman sultans and some of their renowned viziers. The objective of the translation was that the text might be understood by anyone who would like to study it: this is why this discourse was written by the bay-coloured ink of the pen in Muḥarram 1188 [MarchâApril 1774].â (âBiñ beÅ tÄrīḫi ḫilÄlında EgrÄ« fÄtiḥi Sulá¹Än Meḥmed nÄmına EmÄ«r ḪÄn duḫterzÄdesi bir ĪrÄnÄ« Ädem lisÄnında KurdistÄn ümerÄsınıñ eḥvÄlini mutażamınn güzelce tÄrīḫdir, münÄsebetle mulÅ«k-i âosmÄnÄ« ve vüzerÄâ-i Åöhret-âunvÄnlardan baâżılarınıñ nÄm u ÅÄnÄ« mezkÅ«r ve mesá¹Å«rdur resÄ«de-i nazar olur, yaânÄ« maâlÅ«m ve icmÄl-i tercemesi negÄh konandegÄne mafhÅ«m olmaḳ īçün bu maḳÄle icÄle-i kümeyt-i ḳalem olmuÅdur fÄ« m sene 1188.â)
This is known thanks to a note by the copyist dated 1296/1878â79 and written on the first page of the manuscript.
This manuscript unfortunately lacks a colophon or any other indication about its date of production.
Sharaf KhÄn III was the great-grandson of Sharaf KhÄn II, author of the SharafnÄma, himself the grandson of Sharaf KhÄn I (r. 906â13/1500â7 and 920â40/1514â33), one of the most powerful Kurdish princes of the early 10th/16th century.
See Scheref (1860â62: I, 361â62, 412, 415â16), etc.
See Alsancakli (2015) and my forthcoming PhD dissertation.
This was possibly the manuscript Elliott 332.
This manuscript is unfortunately not extant. However, its text is known from two later copies, produced in 1083/1672 during the reign of AbdÄl KhÄnâs son Sharaf KhÄn III, in which this passage is also reproduced. One of these copies, dated 4 ShaâbÄn 1083/ 25 November 1672, is kept in the Biblioteca reale of Turin with the call number Or. 12, while the other, manuscript Supplément Persan 238 of the Bibliothèque nationale de France (Paris), was completed on 6 ShaâbÄn 1083/27 November 1672 by a copyist named YasÄ«n b. MullÄ IsmaâÄ«l.
The panegyric reads as follows (abbreviated for clarity): âThe book was finished, with the help of God (â¦), may its author (â¦) Sharaf KhÄn, whose elegance is reminiscent of Paradise, rest in Peace, during the blossoming of the garden of virtue and the grove of the rose garden of knowledge, that is the rule of the occupant of the throne of the spiritual path and traveler of the way of the religious law, meaning (â¦) AbdÄl KhÄn the glorious Khan and AnÅ«shÄ«rwÄn, source of generosity and justice, may God Almighty extend the days of his State and Power until the Day of Judgement and the coming of the end of times (â¦).â (
Thus, much of EvliyÄâs account of his time in BidlÄ«s is devoted to the conflict between his patron, the governor of Van Melek Aḥmed PaÅa, and AbdÄl KhÄn.
For Sharaf KhÄn IIâs own account of his formative years in the Safavid royal palace of ShÄh ṬahmÄsp (r. 930â84/1524â76) in QazvÄ«n, see Scheref (1860â62: I, 449â50).
The khan claimed to be descended from an Abbasid dignitary named Sulá¹Än AwḥadahullÄh, otherwise unknown; see EvliyÄ (1990: 46â47, 56â57, 64â65, 72â73, 80â81, 142â43, 174â75, 342â43 and 356â57). Other Kurdish dynasties claiming Abbasid origins included the houses of ḤakkÄrÄ«, âAmÄdiya, KilÄ«s and the MirdÄsid rulers of AgÄ«l, PÄlÅ« and CharmÅ«g. See Scheref (1860â62: I, 89, 106, 175â76 and 220â21).
KhÄnim Sulá¹Än appears at several points in EvliyÄâs story; see EvliyÄ (1990: 76â77, 154â55, 162â63, 304â13, 318â19, 326â27, 336â39, 342â45 and 352â55). On the matrimonial alliances of the DiyÄdÄ«nids, see Alsancakli (2017b), notably pp. 238â40.
A geographical work on Iran and Mesopotamia, written ca. 740/1340 by ḤamdallÄh MustawfÄ« QazvÄ«nÄ« (d. ca. 744/1344) and including passages on Kurdistan that were used by Sharaf KhÄn II in the SharafnÄma. Compare Scheref (1860â62: I, 83, 335), and MustawfÄ« QazvÄ«nÄ« (1915: 106â8, 214). Two manuscripts of this undated and anonymous Turkish translation are kept in Ankaraâs Milli Kütüphane, with the call numbers A 957 and A 979. In the bookâs dÄ«bÄcha, the translator relates how he carried out this work on the instructions of AbdÄl KhÄn, because âsince it [the book] was in Persian, persons who did not speak Persian could not benefit from [reading it]â (âlÄkin fÄrsÄ« olduÄ¡i ecelden fÄrsÄ« dilini bilmeyen andan maḥżūẠve mütemettiâ olmaz idiâ; A 957, f. 1v, ll. 7â8 ; A 979, f. 1r, ll. 12â13).
The manuscript of the Turkish translation of the MajmÅ«âa al-á¹¢anÄyiâ that we possess is a mixed codex, kept in the library of the University of Vienna with the call number Cod. Mixt 211aâd, and it is not the workâs original manuscript, as we are told by the textâs colophon: âThe book was finished with the help of God, the munificent sovereign, and copied in the holy month of ZÅ« al-Qaâda 1112 [April-May 1701].â (
On this topic, see EvliyÄ (1990: 84â85), and Dankoffâs introduction, pp. 18â26; see also Hendrik Boeschoten in EvliyÄ (1988: 81â106) and Martin van Bruinessen (2000 and 1988: 20â21), where the author postulates that âthe Rojikî, or at least their urban elite, spoke a mixed language, a Turkish dialect infused with numerous Arabo-Persian and Armenian expressionsâ. Van Bruinessen is probably right in pointing out that the use of this Turkish dialect was restricted to the urban elite, as in EvliyÄ Ãelebiâs narrative, most of the interactions with tribal soldiers of the khan are conducted in Kurdish (see, for example, EvliyÄ (1990: 196â97 and 210â11); see also Scheref (1860â62: I, 441)). He further suggests that the peculiar linguistic situation in BidlÄ«s had to do with the cityâs location on the road from TabrÄ«z to Aleppo, writing that âno other Kurdish emirate maintained as much international relations as Bitlis, which made it necessary to know Turkish and Persianâ. To this, we can add the fact that Sharaf KhÄn II, AbdÄl KhÄnâs grandfather, had mostly grown up in an Azeri Turkish-speaking environment. His mother was a Mawá¹£illÅ« and so was his maternal uncle, Muḥammad BÄg, governor of HamadÄn, who was like a âsecond fatherâ (
Aḥmad BÄg was a (probably younger) brother of AbdÄl KhÄn, and thus a paternal uncle of Sharaf KhÄn III.
âAṣḥÄb-i kirÄmuñ żamÄ«r-i münÄ«r-i mihr-tenvÄ«rlerine ḫafi ve nihÄn buyurulmaya ki emirüâl-ümerÄâüâl-kirÄm kebirüâl-küberÄâüâl-âiáºáºÄm âavnüâż-żüâefÄ veâl-mesÄkÄ«n nÄṣırüâl- Ä¡uzÄt veâl-cÄhidÄ«n el-müâeyyed bi âinÄyet rabbiâl-âÄlemÄ«n celÄlüâd-devlet veâd-dÄ«n aâni Åeref ḪÄn maâdenüâl-cÅ«d veâl-iḥsÄn ibn-i AbdÄl ḪÄn cennet-mekÄn ḥaḳḳ sübḥÄnehü ve teâÄla ḥażretleri devletün dÄâim ve salá¹anatün ḳÄâim ḳılsun. Ve ebÄ Ã¼ ecdÄdına raḥmet ḳılsun. Bu aḥḳar-ı ḫalḳuâl-lÄh ve eżâaf-ı âibÄduâl-lÄh kesÄ«rüâl-âiá¹£yÄn ve ḳalÄ«lüâl-iḥsÄn el-muḥtÄc ilà raḥmetiâl-lÄhiâl-malikiâá¹£-á¹£amed Muḥammad Beg ibn-i Aḥmad Beg MÄ«rzÄ fÄ« tÄriḫ-i sene samÄna ve sebâÄ«ne ve elf der iÅÄret-i âÄlÄ« buyuruldı ki ÅerefnÄme fÄrsÄ« zebÄndan türkÄ«ye terceme edün, tÄ kim muá¹aâÄlaya muvaffaḳ olÄ. Egerçe bu żaâÄ«füñ vaáºÄ«fesÄ« deÄil-idi ammÄ AllÄh teâÄlanuñ dergÄhına ṣıġınub andan istiâÄnet á¹aleb eyleyüb iḳdÄm eyledik.â; see ms. Or. 1127, ff. 8r, l. 8â8v, l. 3; also the same passage in the other manuscripts of the translation: MC O.29, ff. 6v, l. 15â7r, l. 6; AE Tarih 364, p. 7, ll. 9â15 and Add. 7860, f. 6v, ll. 3â11.
In this regard, the use of the expression nihÄn ve ḫÄfi buyurulmaya ki â¦, generally found in the telḫīs produced by the Ottoman chancery (documents sent to the Sultan by the Grand Vizier), is an indication of Muḥammad BÄgâs background and occupation: he probably held a high-ranking position in the court of Sharaf KhÄn III, maybe that of vizier, which explains why he thought this translation work should not have been asked of him. This also suggests that Muḥammad BÄg only devoted a fraction of his time to the task, hence why it took him as long as two years to complete it. On telḫīṣ, see Pál Fodor (2011).
This date is found in the colophon of the AE Tarih 364 manuscript, which reproduces the autographâs colophon. This has led the writers of the manuscriptâs notice in the online catalogue of the Institute of Manuscripts of Turkey (Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu) to describe it as an autograph (âmütercimin el yazısıâ, see http://www.yazmalar.gov.tr/eser/serefname-tercumesi-kurdistan-tarihi/191804). However, in addition to the note already mentioned and bearing the date of 1296/1878â79, the modern hand and paper, as well as a map of Kurdistan drawn by the copyist on the manuscriptâs last page (pp. 698â99) and showing the borders between Russia, Iran and the Ottoman empire as they were after the signature of the Treaty of TurkmÄnchÄy (24 Rajab 1243/10 February 1828) and the second Treaty of Erzurum (15 JumÄdà II 1263/31 May 1847), make a clear case for the dating of this manuscript to the later part of the 13th/19th century. It might have been copied in Diyarbekir and acquired there by the renowned intellectual âAlÄ« EmÄ«rÄ«, native of that city, who later founded the Millet library by donating his collection of around 16 000 manuscripts and early printed documents. âAlÄ« EmÄ«rÄ«âs seal is found on pages 1, 695 and 698 of the manuscript. On the treaty of TurkmÄnchÄy, see Xavier de Planhol (1990), and on the second Treaty of Erzurum, see Sabri AteÅ (2013: 129â38) and Keith McLachlan (2013).
See Or. 1127, ff. 372r, l. 8â372v, l. 2; also AE Tarih 364, p. 695, ll. 1â8 and Add. 7860, f. 332v, ll. 5â17 (this passage is missing from the manuscript MC O.29). Sharaf KhÄn III is called by his cousin Muḥammad BÄg âSharaf KhÄn the Secondâ (
Written here with an asterisk, as this is a reconstructed manuscript (see supra, note 18). This was probably the sole manuscript of the SharafnÄma remaining in BidlÄ«s, after most of AbdÄl KhÄnâs library had been auctioned off by the governor of Van, Melek Aḥmed PaÅa, in 1065/1655, following the khanâs defeat and flight from the city (he came back the next year, only a day after Melek Aḥmed PaÅaâs destitution was made known in BidlÄ«s). EvliyÄ Ãelebi was put in charge of this auction, and he thus provides us with a detailed description of the contents of the khanâs library. See EvliyÄ (1990: 280â301).
On these two manuscripts, see supra, note 18.
Thus, the manuscript Or. 1127 was copied only a few months after the autograph, in 24 Rajab 1080/18 December 1669, by a man named âAlÄâ al-DÄ«n Muá¹£á¹afa (see f. 372v, ll. 2â6), and it was later circulated in the principality of ḤazzÅ, as demonstrated by several notes to the name of its ruler, NÅ«shÄ«rvÄn BÄg b. Xiżr BÄg of Ä arzan, bearing the dates of 1129/1716â17 and 1147/1734â35 (see ff. 1r and 372v). The âIzizÄnid princes of ḤazzÅ/á¹¢Äṣūn were âcousinsâ of the DiyÄdÄ«nids according to the dynastiesâ mythical origins, and related to them by strong matrimonial links. What is more interesting is that, in two of these notes, this copy of the Turkish translation of the SharafnÄma is called âTÄrÄ«kh-i NÅ«shÄ«rvÄnâ, or âHistory of NÅ«shÄ«rvÄnâ, showing how other dynasties also appropriated the work. On the common origins of the DiyÄdÄ«nids of BidlÄ«s and the âIzÄ«zÄnids of ḤazzÅ, see Scheref (1860â62: 191, 357â65), and for the mention of NÅ«shÄ«rvÄn BÄg as ruler of ḤazzÅ in Ottoman archives, see Orhan Kılıç (1997: 159â60).
AbdÄl KhÄnâs copy had apparently been made for conservation purposes, as attested by the fact that it never left BidlÄ«s. Furthermore, the manuscript Elliott 332 also features informative notes and bookmarks dating from the reign of AbdÄl KhÄn, suggesting it was also kept in AbdÄl KhÄnâs library for perusal.
The MirdÄsids of PÄlÅ«, AgÄ«l and CharmÅ«g were thus called because the tribal confederation over which they ruled claimed descent from members of the Arabic tribe of the BanÅ« KilÄb that had fled after the killing of their chief á¹¢Äliḥ b. MirdÄs (r. 416â20/1025â29), founder of the MirdÄsid principality of Aleppo; see Scheref (1860â62: I, 178) and Thierry Bianquis (1993: 115â23). On their history, see notably Nusret Aydın (2003 and 2012), Feyzullah DemirtaÅ (2005) and Nilay Ãzok-GündoÄan (2014).
Indeed, it includes the end of the chapter on the AyyÅ«bids, the chapter on the ArdalÄn and the beginning of the chapter on the ḤakkÄrÄ« of the SharafnÄma, which are missing in ShamâÄ«âs translation. However, the translation also contains, in many places, variants associated with the Y-0561 manuscript, suggesting ShamâÄ«âs model might have been copied from it (compare for example Y-0561, f. 4v, ll. 3â6 with R. 1469, f. 4r, ll. 11â15). I wish to thank here Yusuf Baluken, who kindly shared with me a copy of parts of the Y-0561 manuscript. Another SharafnÄma manuscript also exhibits signs of a connection with the MirdÄsids. This is the manuscript Add. 23531 of the British Library (London), which includes a rubricated âbookmarkâ by the copyist, ḤÄjÄ« ShÄrwÄn, who wrote âAbout the history of the MirdÄsidsâ (
These two shajaras have been studied by Yunus Emre Gördük (2014). They establish a link between PÄ«r Manṣūr, ancestor of the MirdÄsid rulers, and Ê»AbbÄs, uncle of the Prophet, via the latterâs grandson Ê»AlÄ« b. Ê»AbdallÄh. This genealogy is also given by Sharaf KhÄn, on the basis of âthe genealogical tree still in the hands of his [PÄ«r Manṣūrâs] descendantsâ (
The date of the translation is given in the textâs colophon, as well as at the end of the zayl on the history of the princes of PÄlÅ«, which is concluded by wishes of prosperity and success for AmÄ«r Yanṣūr BÄg. There are also verses of poetry dedicated to that ruler in the dÄ«bÄcha and before the colophon. See Åemâî, ed. A. Oktay (2017: 49â51 (dÄ«bÄcha), 156â66 (zayl on PÄlÅ«), 271â72 (colophon)); also manuscript R. 1469, ff. 2r, ll. 1â10, 39r, l. 4â42r, l. 17 and 87r, ll. 3â12.
â[B]u ḥakÄ«r-i pür-taḳṣīr, aânÄ« ÅemâÄ« (â¦) ittifÄḳen ḥÄkimimüz olan (â¦) emÄ«r-i rÅ«Åen-żamÄ«r ḥażretlerinüñ meclis-i ÅerÄ«fleri ile Åeref-yÄb olup nÄ-gÄh esnÄ-yı muá¹£Äḥabetde ÄbÄ ve ecdÄd-ı âiáºÄmınuñ semt-i ḥükÅ«met ve tertÄ«b-i neseblerinüñ zikr-i cemÄ«li vÄḳiâ oldı. ḤużżÄr-ı meclisden niçe kimseler âalÄ-ḳadriâl-imkÄn naḳl eylediler. âÄḳıbetüâl-emr, Åeref-nÄme TevÄrīḫine mürÄcaâÄt idüp anda âalaât-tafṣīl âayÄn ü beyÄn olmıÅdı. AmmÄ, FÄrisÄ« olduġı [i]çün ol deñli müfÄ«d olmadı. Baâdehu, ol á¹£Äḥib-i devlet, bu kitÄbı, zebÄn-i TürkÄ«ye terceme eylemege bu ḥakÄ«re emr eyledi.â (Åemâî, 2017: 50â51; R. 1469, f. 2r, ll. 1â7.)
The translator explains this omission with the following note: âHere [the manuscript] does not follow the plan, because some folios were missing from [our] modelâ (âbunda tertÄ«bâden düÅmüÅdür zÄ«rÄ ki nüsḫaâdan evrÄḳ żÄyiâ olmuÅdiâ; see ms. R. 1469, lower margin of folio 17v; also Åemâî (2017: 95â96)).
The text of ShamâÄ«âs translation runs on ff. 1vâ132r, and that of the first part of MasâÅ«dÄ«âs Golden Prairies on ff. 133vâ183r. It is followed by a short text attributed to Shaykh IsmaâÄ«l MuqrÄ« (MokrÄ«), written by the same copyist (ff. 183vâ184v). If we are to believe its colophon (f. 183r, ll. 5â23), the manuscript of the Golden Prairies was written earlier than the composition of the SharafnÄma translation, in Ẕū al-Ḥijja 1062/November 1652 (f. 183r, ll. 17â23). The majmÅ«âa also features an acquisition note dated 6 Rajab 1161/2 July 1748 (f. 133r). See also Åemâî (2017: 31â32).
See Adnan Oktay in Åemâî (2017: 32â33).
See the text of the zayl on the princes of AgÄ«l in Åemâî (2017: 150â52); Add. 18547, ff. 59r, l. 4â60v, l. 3. Both zayls were the object of an earlier publication by Anwar Soltanî (2005). However, he had only worked on the later Add. 18547 manuscript, which led him to describe ShamâÄ« as the secretary of Muá¹£á¹afa BÄg, and attribute sponsorship of the whole project to the prince of AgÄ«l.
Already in the text of the SharafnÄma, âAmÄdiya is hailed by Sharaf KhÄn II as Kurdistanâs greatest centre of learning, albeit with no mention of Kurdish-language works; see Scheref (1860â62: I, 15). In JazÄ«ra, the Medreseya Sor (Red Medrese) was also an important centre of scholarship; it is there that the renowned Kurdish author Melayê Cizîrî taught. In BidlÄ«s, the scholar Muḥammad BarqalâÄ« apparently wrote in Kurdish, although no works of his in this language are extant. A great number of authors of Kurdish-language works also originated from the greater Lake Van area, for example Åêx Åemseddînê Qutbê Exlatî from AkhlÄá¹, Feqiyê Teyran and Ehmedê Xanî from ḤakkÄrÄ«, Elî Teremaxî from Miks, etc. Nothing is known of literary production in the relatively minor MirdÄsid principalities of PÄlÅ« and AgÄ«l, and the existence of literature in Kurdish at this time should not be generalised to all Ottoman Kurdish principalities a priori.
See the edition by Faruk Sema Barutçu Ãzönder (1996) and the English translation by Robert Devereux (1966). On the question of Turko-Persian diglossia in the Centrasiatic context, also see the works by Marc Toutant (notably 2016), and Aftandil Erkinov (2004 and 2008).
Qurâan, âThe Greeksâ, 30/22; see A. J. Arberry (1996: 107).
âMaâlÅ«m ola ki, bu maḳÄmda iḫtilÄf-ı elsineden murÄd maḫlūḳÄt mÄbeyninde olan elsine-i muḫtelifdür ki, baâżısı âArabÄ« ve baâżısı FÄrisÄ« ve baâżısı KürdÄ« ve baâżısı TürkÄ« ve RÅ«mÄ« ve HindÄ« ve AvÄ¡ÄnÄ«dür ve bunlardan mÄ-âadÄ niçe niçe Ä¡arÄâib diller ve âÄcÄâib luÄ¡atler vardur kim, âadd ü iá¸¥á¹£Ä olınmaz. AmmÄ, cümle dillerden aâlÄ ve efá¹£aḥ âArab dilidür kim, ḲurâÄn-ı âaáºÄ«muâÅ-ÅÄn ol luÄ¡at ile nÄzil olmıÅdur ve bundan á¹£oñra FÄrisÄ« dilidür kim emlaḥ-ı elsinedür ve bundan á¹£oñra her bir ḳavim kendü dillerin aâlÄ á¹utmıÅlar, ammÄ Ä°mÄm Muḥammed BerḳalâÄ« ve MellÄ Muḥyiâd-dÄ«n CızÄ«rÄ« ve niçe niçe âulemÄ-i âiáºÄm ve fużalÄ-i kirÄm, Kürd dilini iḫtiyÄr idüp maḳbÅ«l á¹Å«tmıÅlar ve bu zikr olan millet-i Ä°slÄmiyyenüñ ziyÄde ÅecÄâatlisi ve á¹£Äḥib-i seḫÄsı âArab ḳabÄ«lesidür, ve bunlardan á¹£oñra Kürd ḳabÄ«lesidür.â (Åemâî (2017: 50); R. 1469, ff. 1v, l. 11â2r, l. 1; Add. 18547, ff. 1v, l. 16â2r, l. 6.) MawlÄnÄ Muḥammad BarqalâÄ« was a religious scholar native from BidlÄ«s; active during the reign of Sharaf KhÄn I (early 10th/16th century), to whom he dedicated ḥÄshiyas (commentaries) on various books, he was also a resident at the court of the prince of BokhtÄn, Badr BÄg b. ShÄh âAlÄ« BÄg, as noted by Sharaf KhÄn II in the SharafnÄma (see Scheref (1860â62: 128, 341â42); also mention of an anti-Yezidi fatwÄ by the same Muḥammad BarqalâÄ« in the manuscript Hunt. Don. 13, f. 6r, ll. 1â2). The only extant text by Muḥammad BarqalâÄ« is a commentary on another anti-Yezidi work by a Kurdish scholar, the fatwÄ of MalÄ á¹¢Äliḥ al-KurdÄ« al-ḤakkÄrÄ«. However, like MalÄ á¹¢Äliḥâs fatwÄ, Muḥammad BarqalâÄ«âs commentary is written in Arabic, not Kurdish; see Mustafa Dehqan (2008 and 2015). It is unclear who is meant by the name MullÄ MuḥyÄ« al-DÄ«n JazÄ«rÄ« â perhaps it is the famous Kurdish poet Shaykh Aḥmad JazÄ«rÄ«, (d. 1050/1640), better known as Melayê Cizîrî?
The high status of Persian was, however, not only associated with its literary qualities, but also to its place as âthe second sacred language of Islamâ; see Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi (2006).
A native of Pasîn (Pasinler), to the east of Erzurum, IbrÄhÄ«m ḤaqqÄ« travelled to Tillo, a village on the outskirts of Sêrt (Siirt), where he became a follower of the Kurdish QadirÄ« shaykh IsmaâÄ«l FaqÄ«rullÄh. He completed his MaârifetnÄme in 1170/1757; see the edition by Faruk Meyan (2014).
See the classic but dated study by Qanatê Kurdo (1983), and, more recently, Mehmed Uzun (1992, 2003), Feqî Huseyn SaÄnıç (2002), and Abdurrahman Adak (2013), among others. Most of the works of the classical authors have been published in more or less satisfactory editions; for a recent review of these publications, see Bolelli (2015).
See Ä°skender Pala (2007).
On Memê Alan, see Michael L. Chyet (1991).
For an insightful discussion of this topic, see Christopher Markiewicz (2015: 140â45).
See Zeynelabidîn Zinar (1998: 1â4). This is an abridged English translation by Martin van Bruinessen of the authorâs earlier Xwendina medresê (Stockholm: Pencînar, 1993), which I could unfortunately not consult.
See Kadri Yıldırım (2011: 23).
Both Zeynelabidîn Zinar and Sadreddin Ãztoprak were former students of Kurdish medreses. Indeed, the traditional medrese system remained in use in Kurdistan well into the 20th century, even after it was banned in Republican Turkey in 1924. See Zinar (1993 and 1998), and Ãztoprak (2003). Extensive information on these two sources is also given in Leezenberg (2014). Even now, there are still medreses in Kurdistan, functioning as a supplement to the regular school system; see Davut IÅıkdoÄan (2012).
The importance of books in the medrese educational system has been highlighted by Fahri Ãnan (1999), who writes that â[t]he lessons were fundamentally linked with the books, and, with time, this link meant that the names of books and those of the lessons were mentioned in the same breath. Thus, most of the time, the books studied were also understood as the âlessonâs nameâ.â In this system, books were the curriculum, and the completion of a book allowed the student to progress by moving on to the next one, regardless of the time it had taken them. This is best explained by one of the teachers interviewed by IÅıkdoÄan (2012: 48â49) in his article on contemporary Kurdish medreses: âWe donât have the same programmatic approach that is found in formal education. You have a specific book to study, and you already know the next book you will study when you finish it. But the time and duration of study devoted to each book depends on the student. (â¦) There is no obligation to finish a certain number of books in a given amount of time. (â¦) In this way, medrese education shows similarities with student-centred approaches in modern education.â
Emedê Xanîâs Eqîde is not included in Ãztoprakâs list, and the Nûbihar is incorrectly described in it as an âArabic-Turkishâ dictionary. However, it is accurately referred to as an Arabic-Kurdish dictionary in the body of the work (2003: 46). For Ãztoprakâs description of the general situation of Kurdistanâs medreses and his own student years, see Ãztoprak (2003: 42â51).
The proportions are similar in Ãztoprakâs list. What is interesting here is the complete absence of books in both Persian and Turkish. Although books in Persian appear in the curriculum given by Zinar, they were only read by students advancing as far as âuniversity-levelâ studies, who were presumably going to make a career in the religious sciences. Ãztoprakâs book also shows ample evidence of the knowledge of Persian among medrese teachers and religious scholars in general, but it was very likely not the case for the bulk of the students who had left the medrese earlier to pursue other occupations.
The Arabic books studied in Ottoman and Kurdish medreses were mostly the same; compare Câhid Baltacı (1976: 35â43, notably p. 37), with the lists in Zinar (1998: 12â17) and Ãztoprak (2003: 185â89). One major exception to this was of course the domain of fiqh, as in Kurdish medreses, Shafiâi fiqh was predominantly studied, while in state-sponsored medreses, the official Hanafi school of thought prevailed.
Sharaf KhÄn II is, of course, one of a few exceptions to this general rule, to which we can also add, for example, the author of the AḥsÄn al-TawÄrÄ«kh, Ḥasan BÄg RÅ«mlÅ« (fl. late 10th/16th century).
âSee, from the land of the Arabs to that of the Georgians, how the Kurds have become like fortresses! The Turks and the Iranians have built for themselves, on all sides, a Kurdish rampart, using the Kurds as targets for the arrow of destiny. As if they were the key to the frontiers, each of their clan stands as a solid dam, against which the roaring waves of the Turkish and Tajik sea splatter the Kurds with blood, splitting them in two like an isthmus.â (Bifikir ji âEreb heta ve Gurcan / Kurmanc çi bûyne Åubhê burcan / Ev Rom û âEcem bi wan âhesarin / Kurmanc hemî li çar kenarin / Herdû terefan qebîlê kurmanc / Bo tîrê qeza kirîne armanc / Goya ku li serâhedan kilîdin / Her tayife seddekî sedîdin / Ev qulzumê Rûm û beâhrê Tacîk / Gava ku dikin xurûc û teâhrîk / Kurmanc dibin bi xûn mulettex / Wan jêk vedikin misalê berzex.) See Ehmedê Xanî (2010: 214â17).