A Poet and Commentary in the 15th Century: İlâhî and His Two Works
Büşra KaplanThere are two known people who used Ilâhî pseudonym in the Anatolian commentary literature of the 15th century. One of them is Abdullah Ilâhî and the other is Ahmed Ilâhî. Both are commentaries and naqxi. There are many works attributed to both in the sources. The works named Rûşenî-nâme (878/1473-74) and Müşkil-güşâ (884/1479- 1480) that we have were also attributed to someone with Ilâhî pseudonym according to the library records. However, the works to be discussed in our study are not among the works of other known Ilâhî's. This suggests the existence of a different person. In our study, it was concluded that this person, whose life was not found in the sources, was probably someone who was attached to Dede Omer Rûşenî or who followed his path, by trying to reveal who he was by looking at his works. In this study, the prose parts of the two works of Ilâhî that we have are compared. Thus, we tried to determine whether both works belong to the same person. When the poetic parts of the works discussed in this study are also examined, it is seen that the similarity in the prose parts is also in these parts. As a result, with this study, we tried to reveal the existence of a third Ilâhî who lived in the 15th century and who was different from Abdullah Ilâhî and Ahmed Ilâhî, to prove that the works named Rûşenî-name and Müşkil-güşâ belong to the same author and that this author is Ilâhî.
15. Yüzyılda Bir Şair ve Şârih: İlâhî ve İki Eseri
Büşra Kaplan15. yüzyılda Anadolu sahası şerh edebiyatı literatüründe İlâhî mahlası kullandığı bilinen iki kişi bulunmaktadır. Bunlardan biri Abdullah İlâhî, diğeri ise Ahmed İlâhî’dir. Her ikisi de şârih ve Nakşî’dir. Kaynaklarda her ikisine de atfedilen çok sayıda eser bulunmaktadır. Elimizde bulunan Rûşenî-nâme (878/1473-74) ve Müşkilgüşâ (884/1479-1480) isimli eserler de kütüphane kayıtlarına göre İlâhî mahlaslı birine atfedilmiştir. Ancak çalışmamızda ele alınacak olan bu eserler diğer bilinen İlâhî’lerin eserleri arasında geçmemektedir. Bu da farklı bir kişinin varlığını akla getirmektedir. Çalışmamızda, hayatı hakkında kaynaklarda bilgi bulunmayan bu kişinin kim olduğu eserleri üzerinden ortaya çıkarılmaya çalışılarak muhtemelen Dede Ömer Rûşenî’ye bağlı olan ya da onun yolundan giden biri olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu çalışmada, İlâhî’nin elimizde bulunan iki eserinin mensur kısımları karşılaştırılmıştır. Böylelikle her iki eserin de aynı kişiye ait olup olmadığı belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Bu çalışmada ele alınan eserlerin manzum kısımları da incelendiğinde mensur kısımlardaki benzerliğin bu kısımlarda da olduğu görülmüştür. Sonuç olarak; bu çalışma ile 15. yüzyılda yaşamış olan Abdullah İlâhî ve Ahmed İlâhî dışında üçüncü bir İlâhî’nin varlığı ortaya konulmaya, Rûşenî-nâme ile Müşkil-güşâ isimli eserlerin aynı yazara ait olduğu ve bu yazarın İlâhî olduğu ispatlanmaya çalışılmıştır.
It can be seen in the 15th-century commentary literature that there are two commentators which have Ilâhî pseudonym. One of them is Abdullah Ilâhî and the other one is Ahmed Ilâhî. As a result of both of them having lived in the same period, having the same pseudonym and being commentators, their works are confused from time to time. With this study, we tried to bring together the works concerning both İlâhî’s and put forward that there was another Ilâhî, who was the third one in that period. Also, evaluations will be made about his two works Rûşenî-nâme and Müşkil-güşâ, in terms of being a poet and commentator.
The first part of this study is about who is Ilâhî and his works. To understand correctly all Ilâhî’s, first, the focus is on the more known Ilâhî - Abdullah Ilâhî. His date of birth is not clear, but his birthplace is Simav which is in the district of Kütahya. He received his primary education there and then went to Zeyrek Madrasah which is in Istanbul. Afterwards, he went to Khorasan and Semerkant. In Semerkant he became the follower of Ubeydullah Ahrar who was the naqxi sheikh. He received permission from him and went to Bukhara. In Bukhara, he stayed next to Bahaeddin Nakşibend’s tomb for a year and then went back to Samarkand. After that, his hodja sent him to Simay,Anatolia, with the guiding mission. When he was in Simav, Fatih Sultan Mehmed Han invited him to Istanbul. He went to Zeyrek in İstanbul, and guided people around. After that, he went to Vardaryenicesi and died there in 896/1491 (Kara, 1988, s. 1-4). When looking at the sources, it can be seen that researchers do not agree with each other on the acceptance of Fatih’s invitation. Some researchers claim that he accepted the invitation, others disagree.
The other Ilâhî - Ahmed Ilâhî was from Bukhara. His date of birth is not clear. Naqxi, melami and halveti commentator, he stayed in seclusion in a dervish lodge in Halab. In Fatih’s period, he came to Yogurtlu Baba Dergâhı in Bursa and guided people around. Fatih invited him to İstanbul too. He accepted and went there. When he died is also uncertain. He is buried in the hazire of the Islamic monastery built by Derterdar Derviş Efendi (İlâhî, 2015, s. 12-13).
Both Ilâhî’s have lots of works which are discussed largely in this study. According to a general view, it can be said that possible works of Abdullah Ilâhî are Şerh-i Vâridât-ı Kübrâ Lişeyh Bedreddin Simavî or Keşfu’l Varidat li Talibi’l Kemâlât ve Gâyetü’d-Derecât, Meslekü’t Tâlibîn ve’l-Vâsilîn, Esrâr-nâme and Zâd ül Müştakîn; posible works of Ahmed İlâhî are Dîvân, Tasavvuf-nâme, Şerh-i Miftahu’l Gayb and Şerh-i Istılahât-ı Miftahu’l-Gayb.
In addition to the two mentioned above, there is one more Ilâhî in that period. His existence can be inferred from his works Rûşenî-nâme and Müşkil-güşâ. As it is put forward in the study, there are no works of other Ilâhî’s called Rûşenî-nâme and Müşkil-güşâ. In the sources no information about him can be found. The only way to recognize him is by looking at his works. When looking at his works it can be seen that he uses certain expressions about Dede Omer Rûşenî. Also, he named one of his works Rûşenî-nâme.
Ilâhî’s first works name is Rûşenî-nâme of which there are two copies in the libraries. One of them, which is dated 878 (1473-74), is in the Süleymaniye Library under the Reşid Efendi section with numbered 390. The other one is in the National Library under the Yazmalar section and numbered Yz A 637-3. The second work of Ilâhî is Müşkil-güşâ, which is dated 884 (1479-1480), can be found in Manisa State Public Library and numbered 2955/6. Both of his works are about a commentary about two poems of Dede Omer. With these works, he became the first Turkish commentator of a Turkish poem and Rûşenî-nâme became the first Turkish commentary made about a Turkish poetry.
In this study, these two works of Ilâhî are compared with each other by focusing on the prose and verse parts of them separately and it is concluded that Ilâhî’s commentary methods and the literary arts which he uses in his works are parallel to each other. He uses citations, references, rhymed prose, paronomasia, contradictions and derivations in his works.
In his works Ilâhî uses verses beside prose to explain himself in a catchier way. Technically, he uses mathnawi form and short meters with didactic language successfully . Also, in addition to citations, references, similes, metaphors, contradictions and paronomasia, he uses inlays, repititions and laff u nashr in his verses.
To sum up, Ilâhî who is a poet commentator of the 15th century, has two works, which are Rûşenî-nâme and Müşkil-güşâ. He might have been a follower of Dede Omer or a person who had ties of affection to Dede Omer. He is the first Turkish commentator of a Turkish poem and his works are the first Turkish commentaries made regarding Turkish poetry.
