Diskussion:Türkische Literatur

Eine Frage? "(...) 70.000 Türken, die regelmäßig Bücher lesen." Worauf basiert denn diese Zahl? Tilo Mieth 85.177.106.158 21:59, 30. Mär. 2009 (CEST)

Die Legende von "Alp Er Tunga" ist nicht identisch mit der iranischen Sage vom Krieg zwischen Iran und Turan. Diese Theorie wird zwar von einigen türkischen Historikern vertreten, ist aber außerhalb der Türkei nicht anerkannt. Die türkischen Forscher gehen davon aus, dass "Alp Er Tunga" mit dem Afrasiab der iranischen Volkssage identisch ist. Das kann jedoch nicht sein, da die iranische Legende um den Turanier Afrasiab bis auf Zarathustra zurückgeht und Kontakte zwischen Indogermanen und Altaier aus jener Zeit nicht bekannt sind und - aufgrund sprachwissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen - auch sehr unwahrscheinlich sind. Gemäß der Avesta war Afrasiab ein dunkler Iranier, d.h. dass er nicht der Religion Zarathustras folgte. Zudem waren die Saken keine Altaier oder Türken, sondern ein iranisches Volk, dass eine iranische Sprache sprach und verwandt war mit den Skythen. Ich werde daher diesen Satz etwas umändern, die Legende jedoch weiterhin im Artikel belassen. -Phoenix2 19:34, 5. Dez 2005 (CET)

Im Abschnitt "Siehe auch" findet man Links zur tibetischen oder mongolischen Literatur. Ich verstehe es wirklich nicht, warum man sie da reinschreiben musste.Eray 18:20, 26. Jan 2006 (CET)

Hier http://www.bpb.de/popup/popup_lemmata.html?guid=XBOBD6
und aus: Dewald, Jonathan (Hrsg.): Europe, 1450 to 1789: Encyclopedia of the Early Modern World. Charles Scribner's Sons: 2004.

TURKISH LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE.

The term Turkish literature refers tothe literature produced in the Asian and EasternEuropean lands of the Ottoman Empire and composedin the Western Turkic, Oghuz-Turcomandialects, of which the literary languages were Ottomanand Azeri Turkish. Ottoman literature hererefers to the high-culture literature of the Ottomanperiod (c. 1326–1860). During early moderntimes, the Eastern Turkic, Kipchak-Chaghatai dialectsproduced their own distinctive literature,which flourished in Central Asia and the easternparts of the Middle East. This literature is conventionallyreferred to by the general term Turkic literature,of which the predominant high-culture manifestationis called Chaghatai literature.

OTTOMAN ORIGINSLate in the eleventh century, Muslim Oghuz-Turcoman armies coming from the East had driventhe Byzantines out of much of Asia Minor andestablished the Persianized sultanate of the Seljuks.In the aftermath of the Mongol invasions of thethirteenth century, Seljuk hegemony ended, andAsia Minor disintegrated into a hodge-podge offiefdoms headed by local dynasts who favored theTurkish culture of their nomadic power base ratherthan the Persian high-culture focus of their Seljukpredecessors. The early Ottoman state originated inwestern Anatolia on the borders of Byzantium duringthe late thirteenth century as an assemblage ofTurcoman seminomads under the command of achieftain named Osman (Arabic ‘Uthma¯n, fromwhich the name ‘‘Ottoman’’ derives). Successful incursionsinto Byzantine territory brought a flood ofrecruits into the Ottoman army and expanded Ottomandomination throughout western Asia Minorand into eastern Europe. With the capture of Constantinople(Turkish, Istanbul) in 1453, the Ottomansstood poised on the threshold of becomingthe largest and arguably the most powerful empireof early modern times.

LITERARY CURRENTSImplicit in the origins of the Ottoman state arelinguistic, literary, and cultural currents that resonatethrough almost six hundred years of Turkishliterary history. The Turkic peoples who entered theMiddle East in migratory military waves from CentralAsia brought with them traditional literaryforms, which had taken on an Islamic overlay. Theterritories they entered were dominated by a Perso-Arabic high culture that had developed in concertwith the expansion of Islam. Legitimacy for anyambitious ruler depended upon his being perceivedas the defender of the Islamic community and itstraditions, which included Islamic high culture andits canonical languages—Persian and Arabic. Thus,the early Turkish rulers of Asia Minor drew theirmilitary support from the nomadic Turcoman tribesand therefore needed to speak their language andrespect their traditions. However, as their domainsextended, successful Turkish rulers came under increasingpressure to conform to the cultural normsassociated with Islamic monarchical models.As a result, Western Turkish literature divergedearly onto two main trajectories. The leadership—the court, the court-dependent elites, the educated,educating, and administrative classes—adopted thegenres, forms, themes, and rhetoric of the IslamicPerso-Arab tradition. Educated people were oftentrilingual and tended to think of the elite literaryculture of what they called ‘‘the three languages’’(Arabic, Persian, Turkish) as a single global culturewith three voices. Ottoman poets wrote verses inPersian and Arabic as well as in Turkish, and theOttoman court was lavish in its support of visitingPersian poets. Elite literature extensively employedArabic and Persian vocabulary and elements ofsyntax within an overall Turkish grammaticalscheme. As the Ottomans expanded into the Balkansand Greece, Turkish became a European languageand imported some vocabulary from themany languages of the empire. Although a numberof conquered Europeans adopted Ottoman languageand culture, and former captives becamenoted Ottoman poets and authors, literary influencescoming directly from Europe are impossibleto trace with any certainty. The common people—villagers, nomads, urban non-elites, low-level military—continued a popular tradition of CentralAsian Turkic literatures that was generally monolingual(Turkish), largely oral, most often sung, conservative,and local or tribal. However, despite thedifferences between these two trajectories, differencesexaggerated by the tendency of academic institutionsto distinguish between ‘‘literature’’ and‘‘folklore,’’ there was continual commerce betweenthem, as exemplified by poet-musicians (as¸ik,‘lover’), who performed in both villages and urbanareas, composing relatively accessible verses thatmoved easily between the forms, styles, themes, andbase vocabulary of both traditions.

THE POPULAR TRADITIONThe literature of the village, the countryside, andthe lower classes was based on a long tradition ofTurkic poetry predating Islam. Popular poetry employed‘‘syllable counting’’ rhythms (in Turkish,parmak hesabi, or ‘finger counting’), which identifiedgroups of syllables separated by minor caesuras(for example, the pattern 4�4�3 syllables). Thefolk poet (as¸ik, or ozan) most commonly composedin stanza forms, which were sung to the accompanimentof the ‘‘long lute’’ or saz and were often extemporized.The elite poetry of the Turks was urbanand set in private gardens, parks, and taverns, whilethe popular poetry sang of mountains, forests, andfields, where a wandering minstrel sought his dreambeloved and flirted with enticing village maids orsought mystical union with the Divine, who wasimagined as a coy and inaccessible beauty. Popularliterature included love songs, folk songs particularto various regions, poems about military heroism,religious verses reflecting the popular mysticism ofvillagers and nomads, songs of passages such asweddings and death, and a host of oral prose tales.The folk poet’s verses had a counterpart in the proseof the meddah or ‘storyteller’, who enthralled audiencesin villages, coffeehouses, bazaars, and tavernswith a repertoire of tales in a variety of rhetoricalstyles. Although it is possible to discern when theelite early modern Ottoman literary tradition gaveway to a distinctly modern literature, much of thepopular tradition persisted substantially unchangedinto the modern period, where it had a profoundinfluence on the language, style, and themes ofmodern authors and poets who turned from theelite tradition.

THE ELITE TRADITION:OTTOMAN LITERATURETo the Ottoman elites, ‘‘literature’’ was, first andforemost, poetry. The elite literature adopted thegenres of the Perso-Arab poetic tradition, includingthe rhythmical scheme, called aruz, which, via Persian,depended on metrical feet formed by the regularalternation of ‘‘long’’ and ‘‘short’’ syllables,which do not exist naturally in Turkish. A ‘‘long’’syllable consists of either a consonant and a longvowel or a ‘‘closed’’ syllable (consonant-vowelconsonant);a ‘‘short’’ syllable is an ‘‘open syllable,’’a consonant, and a short vowel. The metrical feetare conventionally expressed as mnemonic wordforms derived from the Arabic root meaning ‘‘todo.’’ For example, one common metrical foot issymbolized by the word fa¯ila¯tun (fa¯’i-la¯-tun, long,short, long, long). The basic formal unit of elitepoetry is the couplet (beyt), which is composed oftwo hemistiches (misra), based on set patterns ofmetrical feet. The most common rhyme scheme forlyric poetry and its relatives is a monorhyme with arhyming first couplet (aa, ba, ca, da, etc.). Therealso exist stanzaic forms, which are thought of asexpansions of couplets created by adding hemistichesto a base couplet. Longer narrative poemswere written in rhyming couplets (aa, bb, cc, etc.).It was the custom for a poet’s work, exclusive ofnarrative poems, to be collected into a single volumecalled a divan, which would contain hundredsand often thousands of poems. For this reason, eliteOttoman poetry is often referred to, especially inmodern Turkey, as ‘‘Divan Poetry.’’The dominant poetic genre of Ottoman literaturewas the short, approximately sonnet length(most often ten or fourteen hemistiches, five orseven couplets), erotic (and erotic-mystical) lovepoem called the gazel (Arabic, ghazal ). A respectedpoet’s collected works (divan) would commonlycontain from a few hundred to thousands of gazels.Rooted in a generic Islamic mysticism expressed inthe Neoplatonic imagery and understanding oflove—differing only in minor details from what onewould find, for example, in Ficino’s De Amore—gazel poetry features a love-crazed, melancholiclover tormented by desire for a cruel and indifferentbeloved who is at times a beautiful boy or (far lessoften) a beautiful girl, at times a beloved patron orruler, at times God in the form of the mysticalDivine, and many times a conflation of all three. Theinteractions of lover and beloved are carried out andreflected in conventional settings with a conventionalcast of characters. Typically, there is a wineparty, attended by a group of close friends whoshare an esoteric understanding of the universal,mystical meaning of the intoxications of passionatelove and wine, which are misunderstood by ignorantand censorious outsiders. In the party, the carouseris served wine by an attractive boy in a tavernor in a secluded garden where each flower and tree,bird and animal also acts out the drama of lover andbeloved. Beneath the esoteric and mystical pretensesof gazel poetry, however, lay direct connectionsto the actual erotic lives and entertainments ofeducated urban elites. Many gazels were composedto honor or attract famous beautiful boys. Poetscaroused in taverns run by Jews or Europeans, whowere not bound by Islamic prohibitions againstwine.The kaside (Arabic, qası¯dah) is a long (oftenrunning to more than one hundred couplets), monorhyming,occasional poem, usually in praise ofGod, the Prophet Muhammad, the monarch, ahighly placed official, or a patron. In addition, somekasides were composed to commemorate holidays,festivals, military victories, weddings, circumcisions,deaths, or buildings and monuments. A kaside usuallybegins with a prelude referencing a theme fromerotic love poetry: love, a garden, a wine party, theheavens, a festival, and so forth. It then makes atransition linking the prelude to praise, which isfollowed by mention of the poet and, in many cases,by a specific request for favors. The kaside wasexpected to be a tour de force and kasides formedthe second largest section in a poet’s divan.The narrative poem is known generically asmesnevıˆ (Arabic, mathnawıˆ), which means ‘‘rhym-ing couplets’’ and distinguishes this kind of poemfrom the monorhyming genres. Narrative poems inrhyming couplets told and retold the classical romantictales of the Perso-Arab tradition, most ofwhich, by Ottoman times, had taken on a distinctmystical, theosophical overlay. Poets also composedworks such as verse histories, mystical and theologicaltreatises, Islamic legends and tales of theProphet, didactic works, and advice for princes inmesnevıˆ form.The minor genres of poetry included satire andinvective, religious verse, riddles and enigmas, warpoetry, and chronograms (verses in which the numericalvalues of Arabic script letters add up to atarget date). Prose genres, like the poetry, containeda heavy burden of Persian and Arabic vocabularyand were generously larded with poetic interpolations.Some of the prominent prose genres werehistorical works, biobibliographical compendia,travel literature, legendary tales, interpretation ofthe Koran, essays, manuals on style, and treatises onreligious, scientific, ethical, political, geographical,grammatical, and philological topics.HISTORICAL TRENDSMehmed II (the Conqueror, ruled 1451–1481) initiateda practice of lavish support for poets and litterateurs.He not only supported Ottoman poets butalso is known to have patronized the master poets ofthe Timurid court in Herat: the Persian poet Djamiand the famed Chaghatai poet Mir Ali S¸ ir Nevayıˆ.Through the early glory years of the reign of Suleiman(the Magnificent, 1520–1566), support for literaryart remained high and literary talent was a key toupward mobility. For example, Necatıˆ (d. 1509),considered the first great voice of Ottoman gazelpoetry, began as a slave. One of Necatıˆ’s contemporarieswas a woman named Mihrıˆ (d. 1512), whosepoems—delivered to the court by male intermediaries—won substantial cash rewards from the royaltreasury. Bakıˆ (d. 1600), the sixteenth century‘‘sultan of poets’’ and model of rhetorical complexityfor subsequent generations, was a low-level mosquefunctionary’s son who became a chief magistrate.Hayalıˆ (d. 1557), whose gazels married mysticism,eroticism, and libertinism, started as a mendicantdervish youth and ended a provincial governor. Thereach of Ottoman literature is attested to by the caseof Fuzulıˆ (d. 1556), an attendant of a shrine in Iraq,who is considered today as one of the greatest Ottomanpoets. Fuzulıˆ compiled major poetry collectionsin Persian and Arabic and wrote in the Azeri dialect ofWestern Turkish.The latter half of the sixteenth century and theearly years of the seventeenth saw extensive regularizationof appointments to the bureaucracy, economiccrises, and social unrest, all of which served tolessen opportunities for literary talents from outsidethe educated and bureaucratic classes. This was theage of the greatest of the Ottoman court panegyrists,Nef’ıˆ (d. 1635), whose magnificent kasidescould not save him from being executed for indulgingin the vicious lampooning of powerful courtiers.During the seventeenth century, the center of literaryproduction moved from the court in the directionof the dervish lodges and the educated elites.High-culture poetry tended toward the complexmystical esotericism of the Persian ‘‘Indian Style,’’exemplified by the poetry of Na’ilıˆ (d. 1666) andaway from the cultural synthesis and public entertainmentsof the fifteenth and sixteenth centuriesthat had seen beloved shop boys and young soldiersas the recipients of rhetorically refined love poems.The synthesis was left to the burgeoning number ofpopular as¸iks who performed in coffeehouses andtaverns in both the elite and folk styles. During theso-called Tulip Era of the early eighteenth century—named after the tulip craze that swept theEmpire—the court attempted to recapture the earliersynthesis and the support of a growing class ofwealthy entrepreneurs by patronizing lavish entertainments,pleasure parks, and the work of suchpoets as the brilliant Nedim (d. 1730), who movedeasily between the elite style and genres that reflectedpopular verses in simpler Turkish. The latteryears of the eighteenth century saw the last greatoriginal mystical narrative poem Beauty and Love bySheyh Galip, a Sufi master extensively patronized bythe court. For the Turkish literature of the elites theearly modern period does not end until the middleof the nineteenth century, when Ottoman intellectualsbegin to adapt to European modernism.

See also Ottoman Empire; Suleiman I; Tulip Era (OttomanEmpire).

B I B L I O G R A P H Y

• Andrews, Walter G. An Introduction to Ottoman Poetry.

Minneapolis, 1976.

• —. Poetry’s Voice, Society’s Song. Seattle, 1985.
• Andrews, Walter G., Najaat Black, Mehmet Kalpakli, eds. and trans. Ottoman Lyric Poetry: An Anthology. Austin, Tex., 1997.
• Deny, Jean, et al. Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta. Wiesbaden, 1965. Contains articles in several languages on Turkish and Turkic literatures. See especially the introductory chapter, ‘‘The Turkic Literatures. Introductory Notes on the History and Style’’ by Alessio Bombaci.
• Gibb, E. J. W. A History of Ottoman Poetry. Vols 1–6. London, 1900–1909. The most comprehensive history but marred by nineteenth-century British imperial attitudes.
• Holbrook, Victoria Rowe. The Unreadable Shores of Love: Turkish Modernity and Mystic Romance. Austin, Tex., 1994.
• Silay, Kemal, ed. An Anthology of Turkish Literature. Bloomington, Ind., 1996.

WALTER G. ANDREWS

Ich habe die Kamphoevener in das Kapitel mündliche Literatur aufgenommen, weil ihre Geschichten dem deutschen Leser präsent sein dürften. Die berechtigten Zweifel an der Authentizität kann er im verlinkten Artikel Elsa Sophia von Kamphoevener nachlesen. --Dr. 91.41 09:25, 12. Aug. 2008 (CEST)

• Überschrift ist irreführend: Nur der erste Satz erwähnt die Buchmesse, der Rest ist Beschreibung des Buchmarkts
• Die Angabe, dass 70000 von 71 Mio Türken regelmäßig lesen, ist unbequellt und unglaubwürdig.
• Die Behauptung, der Büchermarkt entstehe erst allmählich, ist bei 30000 Neuerscheinungen und u.a. 5000 Buchhandlungen in Istanbul unglaubwürdig
• 160 an türkische Verlage verkaufte Lizenzen sind angeblich 1,7 Prozent des Gesamtvolumens? Wovon? Gesamtvolumen aller deutschen Lizenzverkäufe? Aller türkischen Lizenzeinkäufe? Solche sinnfreien Prozentzahlen täuschen Genauigkeit vor, wo ein Mindestmaß an Autorensorgfalt fehlt. Besonders eindrücklich beweist der Autor seine Rechenkünste bei den genannten Prozentanteile der Literaturgattungen (57 + 36 + 24 + 33 = 150%).

Leider sind die meisten Angaben nicht bequellt und lassen sich somit nicht nachprüfen. Die vorgenannten Punkte nähren Zweifel am Wahrheitsgehalt des ganzen Abschnitts. Einschlägige Erfahrungen mit statistschen Angaben in Buchmarkt-/Literatur-Artikeln lassen überdies befürchten, dass evtl. richtige Quellen inhaltlich falsch wiedergegeben wurden.

Darüber hinaus ist dieses Literatur(!)-Artikelabschnitts unenzyklopädisch ("nicht mehr nur als Einbahnstraße", "bei Bedarf manchmal schnell") und sprachlich grenzwertig. Es ist zu hoffen, dass das bei der ohnehin notwendigen Überarbeitung des Inhalts "von selbst" erledigt wird.--84.158.97.47 07:25, 9. Okt. 2009 (CEST).

Allgemein ist der Artikel stark verbesserungswürdig, sowohl was Inhalt als auch was die Struktur betrifft. Die Abschnitte Vorislamische Zeit und Frühislamische Zeit sind aber nur schlecht und falsch. Es gibt eine umfangreiche erhaltene vorislamische Literatur in alttürkischer Sprache mit einem hohen Anteil an religiöser Literatur, die dem Buddhismus, dem nestorianischen Christentum und dem Manichäismus zuzurechnen ist. Die Ergenekon-legende war in der türkischen Literatur bis ins 19. Jahrhundert unbekannt, sie geht auf ein Werk eines persischen Wesirs eines Mongolen-Khans zurück, dessen spätere Überarbeitung im 19. Jahrhundert ins Osmanische übersetzt wurde. Ergenekon ist dementsprechend auch ein mongolisches Wort. Alp Er Tunga ist nach der Wikipedia eine karachanidische Adaption der iranischen Sagen von Afrasiab, inhaltlich ist davon anscheinend außer der Erwähnung bei Kaschgari nichts überliefert. Gesser Chan soll - ebenfalls nach Wikipedia - tibetisch sein und von Kaschgari und dem Kutadgu Bilig im 11. Jahrhundert geht's husch husch zu den Timuriden ins 15. Jahrhundert zu Ali Schir Nevai und ins 16. Jahrhundert zu Babur, um dann ins rumseldschukische Anatolien zurückzukehren. Irgendwelche Entwicklungslinien werden dabei nicht aufgezeigt, und der wenig vorbefasste Leser erhält auch keine Aufklärung, dass die zentralasiatischen Literaturen in ganz anderen Turksprachen abgefasst sind und die literarische Abhängigkeit der frühen anatolischen Literatur von zentralasiatischen Vorbildern ein Gegenstand des Diskurses ist. Die Gegner der Oghusen im Dede Korkut sollen nicht die Byzantiner, sondern die Georgier mit ihren (nicht islamisierten) kiptschakischen Söldnern sein, den alten Gegnern der Oghusen noch aus zentralasiatischer Zeit. Insgesamt stark verbesserungswürdig. --Hajo-Muc (Diskussion) 01:01, 26. Feb. 2014 (CET)

... wird auch ... gestreift."

- so ist in der Einleitung zu lesen. Das klingt nach einer übriggebliebenen Passage aus einer Seminararbeit. Es wird überhaupt nicht deutlich, worauf sich das bezieht und wessen Verständnis für was wo erforderlich sein soll. --Josy (Diskussion) 16:31, 17. Jun. 2015 (CEST)

Einleitung neu verfasst. Die Diskussion der Entwicklung der türkischen Sprache ist in Türkische Sprache exzellent und ausführlich dargestellt und muß hier nicht noch einmal (IMHO auch sachlich nicht völlig korrekt) diskutiert werden. Nationalistische Usurpation der Sagen um den „Grauen Wolf“ (Bozkurt) und der Ergenekon-Legende ist für das Thema irrelevant und war in der alten Version auch nicht durch Nachweise belegt, daher ausgeschieden. Abschnitte zur Literatur ab dem 16. Jahrhundert sind in Arbeit.

Dank an Benutzer:Hukukçu für die wertvollen Beiträge zu verschiedenen einzelnen Artikeln, die letztlich in Kultur des Osmanischen Reichs zusammenlaufen. --HajjiBaba (Diskussion) 09:31, 2. Dez. 2015 (CET)