Mehmed Çorûmî'nin Mecâz ve Kinâye ile İlgili Risâlesi
Şükran FazlıoğluKlasik eserlerimizde "dil, vazʻ ve istiʻmâldir." cümlesi ile sıklıkla karşılaşılır. Kelimenin hakikî anlamını veren vazʻ ile mecâzî ve kinâî anlamını veren istiʻmâl arasındaki fark kolaylıkla tespit edilirken mecâzî ve kinâî anlam arasındaki farklar üzerinde onlarca tartışma mevcuttur. Özellikle belâgat ilmi içinde sürdürülen bu tartışmalar tefsir, hadis, fıkıh gibi ilimler ile de yakından alakalıdır. Bu nedenlerle ilmî geleneğimizde mecâz ve kinâye hakkında bağımsız bir literatür oluşmuş ve pek çok alim bu konuda çeşitli gerekçelerle kitaplar ve risaleler kaleme almışlardır. Bu çalışmada XVIII. yüzyılda yaşadığını tahmin ettiğimiz Muhammed el-Çorûmî'nin öğrencilerinin talebi üzerine kaleme aldığı Risâle fi'l-fark beyne'l-kinâye ve'l-mecâz adlı eseri incelenmiş, içeriği tahlil edilmiş, Arapça metni neşredilerek (editio princeps) Türkçe çevirisi ile birlikte verilmiştir. Çorûmî bu çalışmasında Osmanlı belâgat ilmî geleneğinde çok önemli bir yere sahip olan Sekkâkî'nin Miftâhu'l-ulûm adlı eseri, bu eser üzerine Kazvînî'nin kaleme aldığı Telhîs, Telhîs üzerine Teftâzânî'nin yazdığı Mutavvel isimli şerh ve bu şerh üzerine Seyyid Şerif Cürcânî'nin telif ettiği Hâşiye ile Kazvînî'nin belagat ilmindeki el-Îzâh adlı çalışmasındaki fikirleri takip etmiştir. Özellikle bu alimlerin konu hakkındaki görüşlerini ve fikir ayrılıklarını serdetmiş, daha sonra da gerekçeleriyle birlikte tercihlerini de zikretmiştir.
Mehmed Chorûmî’s Treatise on Metaphor and Allegory
Şükran Fazlıoğlu“Language is wazʻ and istiʻmâl” is a sentence frequently encountered in our classic texts. Despite the ease of identifying the difference between the waz, which gives truth to the meaning of a word, and isti’mâl, which gives metaphorical and allegorical meaning to it, the differences between metaphorical and allegorical meanings are still subject to many debates. Although these debates mostly persist in the discipline of rhetoric, they are also closely linked to the disciplines of tafsir, fıkh and hadith. The independent literature about metaphors and allegory in our scientific culture has been shaped in accordance with this and many scholars have written books and commentaries on this topic for a variety of reasons. In this study, we examine the work written upon the request of the students of Muhammad al-Chorûmî, whom we assume lived in the 18th century. This work is called Risâla fi al-farq bayna al-kinâya wa al-majâz and its content was analyzed and presented with the Turkish translation by scrutinizing the Arabic text. In his study, Chorumî followed the ideas of Miftâh al-ulûm, a text by Sakkâkî who had an important significance in Ottoman rhetoric disipline, and Talkhîs was overbuilt on this text by Qazwînî. He also followed Taftâzânî’s commentary, called Mutawwal about Talkhîs, and Sayyid Sharîf Jurjanî’s Hâshiya was compiled based on this commentary and on Qazwînî’s study on the disipline of rhetoric called al-Îdhâh. Chorûmî especially propounded the ideas and disagreements of these scholars about the topic, mentioning their reasons as well as their choices.
Throughout the establishment and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, activities of compilation (texts, commentary, super-commentary, margin, abbreviation, abridgement, treatise etc.) and translation continued uninterrupted within the field of Arabic Language and Literature. The discipline of rhetoric is one of the most important areas which Ottoman scientific experience, in its connection with the activities of the above-mentioned linguistic disciplines, concentrate on. Three of these topics are mostly processed by metaphor (majâz), analogy-based metaphor (istiʻâra), and allusion (kinâya).
Abû al-Qâsim al-Samarqandî’s (d. after 888/1483) analogy-based metaphor treatise Farâid al-fawâid and Mahmud al-Antakî's (d. 1160/1747) work on the relations of metonymy (al-majâz al-mursal) Risâlat al-istiâra, which is also known as al-Alâqa, are at the center of all these works produced within the process which was also pursued during the 18th century. Within this century alone, scholars such as Khalil Fâiz (d. 1134/1714), Musannifak Bakir al-Mantashawî (d. 1149/1736), Mastchizâdah Abdallah (d. 1150/1737), Waliy al-Din Jarullah (d. 1151/1738), Ismat Mehmed (d. 1160/1747), Ahmad al-Kâzâbâdî (d. 1163/1749), Yusuf Afandi-zâdah Abdullah Hilmi (d. 1167/1754), Zaynî-zâdah Husayn al-Burûsawî (d. 1167/1754), Mehmed al-Kafawî (d. 1168/1754), Mehmed Belîgh (d. 1170/1756), Abd al-Wahhâb al-Âmidî (d. 1190/1776), Ibn Qaratepeli Husayn (d. 1191/1777), Hasan İslimyeli (d. 1196/1782) and Muhammad Sâdiq (d. 1223/1808) wrote works of varying lengths about these two works which only focused on rhetoric topics such as metaphor (majâz), analogy-based metaphor (istiʻâra), and allusion (kinâya). Different studies of this century should no doubt be carried out in order to determine the reasons for such an occurrence.
One of the scholars who studied metaphor (majâz), analogy-based metaphor (istiʻâra), and allusion (kinâya) during the same century and who has not yet been a topic of analysis –as far as we know- is Muhammad b. Muhammad el-Chorûmî (18th century). Although there is very little information regarding his life, deducted from the content of his works it is assumed that he might have been a scholar of the 18th century. Through our research we have only identified two of Chorumî’s works which have survived up until today and both of them are about language, more specifically, about metaphor (majâz), and allusion (kinâya).
1. Sharh al-masâlik
2. Risâla fî al-farq bayn al-kinâya wa al-majâz
While examining the difference between allegories and metaphors in Risâla fî al-farq bayn al-kinâya wa al-majâz, Chorûmî took into account the remarks of Sakkâkî, Qazwînî, Taftâzânî and Sayyid Sharîf. During the Ottoman Period, studies on Arabic rhetoric were substantially maintained through these four names to whom Chorûmî has also referred frequently in his study. In fact, to study and teach the works of Sakkâkî, Qazwînî, Taftâzânî and Sayyid Sharîf became a tradition. When analyzing this tradition, it can be seen that it emanated from these three schemas:
Name Schema: Sakkâkî (ö. 1228) → Qazwînî (ö. 1336) → Taftâzânî (1390) → Sayyid Sharîf (ö. 1412)
Works Schema 1: Miftâh(S) → Talkhîs(K) → Mutawwal ve Mukhtasar(T) → Khâshiya ala al-mutawwal(SŞ)
Works Schema 2: Miftâh(S) → Talkhîs(K) → Îdhâh(K)
Works Schema 3: Miftâh(S) → Misbâh(SŞ)
Particularly after the 16th century, Abû al-Qâsım Samarqandî's (d. after 888/1483) figure of speech treatise Farâid al-fawâid was also articulated to this line and it only became more pervasive during the following centuries. Thus, as pointed out above, in the introduction of his Risâla, Chorûmî fulfilled the wishes of his pupils for him to write a work which would point to the differences between allusion (kinâya), and metaphor (majâz) while teaching Samarqandî’s work known as al-İstiʻârât to the students.
As can be seen in the schema, Sakkâkî’s work called Miftâh al-ulûm has been used as a source for many studies and the topics have been discussed mostly through the principles he established. Essentially Chorûmî also preached the subject through two of the main issues put forth, focusing mainly on the first one, as explored in the article extensively. While doing this, he also mentioned the opinions and included the disputes put forth by Qazwînî, Taftâzânî and Sayyid Sharîf. He also expressed his own opinions on the subject with his own reasoning.
It can be said that Chorumî utilized the schema created by Sakkâkî in his work Miftâh alulûm in order to explain the difference between metaphor (majâz), and allusion (kinâya) and that he supported the opinions of Sakkâkî while also criticizing Taftâzânî. Consequently, it is possible to follow Chorûmî’s narrative through Taftâzânî. In his work Chorûmî mainly focused on expressing the opinions of the above-mentioned scholars more clearly, mediating between the scholars’ opinions when they differ and opting for the most suitable opinion between the scholars. Chorûmî defined the fundamental difference between metaphor (majâz), and allusion (kinâya) by asking whether the true meaning is implied or not. Through his deduction there has to be a presumption enabling the implication of the true meaning in metaphor (majâz), but with
