‘Mücadele’den ‘Münazara’ya: Türk Edebiyatında Münazaranın Kaynağına Dair İçtimai Bir Bakış
Münazara, gerek Doğu gerekse Batı edebiyatlarında çok eskiden beri yaygın kullanılan bir tarzın adıdır. Dolayısıyla bu tarzın kaynağına dair çok farklı görüşler mevcuttur. Batılılar münazaranın eski Önasya uygarlıklarından, Yunan ve Latin edebiyatları vasıtasıyla kendilerine ulaştığını kabul etmektedir. Bizde başta M. Fuad Köprülü olmak üzere Meserret Diriöz ve Orhan Şaik Gökyay gibi araştırmacılar ise münazara tarzının ilk olarak Türklerin sözlü edebiyat geleneğinde teşekkül ettiğini, daha sonra Arap ve İran edebiyatlarına geçtiğini ve yakın zamanlara kadar da müstakil bir yapı ve zengin konu çeşitliliği ile geldiğini iddia etmişlerdir. Gerçekten de Türk, İran, Arap ve Batı edebiyatlarında münazara tarzının yapı, icrâ ve icrâ bağlamı arasında ortaklıklar ve çok yakın benzerlikler vardır. Biz de yazımızda bu ortaklık ve benzerliklerden de yola çıkarak Türk edebiyatında münazaranın kaynağına toplumsal yönden bakmaya çalışacağız. Zira Türklerin içtimai yaşamının en önemli tarafını teşkil eden üstünlük mücadelesi, yani savaşlar münazara tarzının da esasını oluşturmaktadır. Türklerin sahip oldukları ‘sağ kol’ ve ‘sol kol’ şeklindeki yapılanma, bir taraftan münazara tarzının belirginleşmesinde etkili olurken diğer taraftan bu tarzın günümüze kadar gelmesini sağlamıştır. Dolayısıyla Türklerde münazara tarzının vücut bulmasında ‘savaş’ların doğrudan tesiri vardır. Bu bağlamda yazıda Türklerin daha ziyade savaşlara dönük mücadele yeteneği ve anlayışının münazara tarzı için de kaynaklık teşkil ettiği ortaya konmaya çalışılmıştır.
From ‘Struggle’ to ‘Debate’: A Conventional Look at the Source of Debate in Turkish Literature
The debate is a style that has been used extensively both in eastern and western literature. Hence, there are many, very different considerations about the source of this style. Westerners accept that the debate has reached them from ancient pre-Asian civilizations through Greek and Latin literatures. Notably, Fuad Köprülü, researchers such as Meserret Diriöz and Orhan Şaik Gökyay claimed that the debate style first took shape in oral literature traditions of the Turks, and was passed onto Arab and Persian literature. It has recently come up with a distinctive structure and a rich variety of subjects. However, in Turkish, Iranian, Arabic, and western literatures, the debate style closely-shares similarities and common features between the structure, performance, and performance context. Based on these similarities and common features, we examine the source of the debate in Turkish literature from a conventional point of view. Likewise, the struggle for superiority, namely the wars, which constitutes the most important part of the Turks social life, forms the basis of the debate style. On the one hand, the “right arm” and the “left arm” structure of the Turks has become effective in the development of the debate style and on the other hand, provided this style to survive till date. Therefore, the “wars” have a direct effect on the embodiment of the debate in the Turks. In this context, the study has suggested that the ability and understanding of the Turks toward wars constitute a source for debate style.
Debate means to exchange opinions on a scientific issue. It is a style widely in literary tradition, and is a type of writing personifying two or more opposite concepts related to each other in the literary tradition by the language of the language. Its use in “to fight” in the Divânu Lugâti’t-Turk belonging to Kashgarli Mahmud shows that this type has a long history in Turks. Debate is commonly used in divan literature and folk literature. On the other hand, the fact that debate is very popular both in eastern and western literature has brought discussions about the origin of this style. The first view about the origin of the argument is that it takes place in Sumerian and Acadian texts. In Europe during the Middle Ages, even though it was believed that the first monuments were created from influences by the Arabian debates, it is accepted that the originated from the ancient Balkans through today’s Greek and Latin literature. Fuad Köprülü belongs to the other important opinion on the argument. Köprülü argues that the reason debate style was born by the influence of Turkish folk literature, and then it passed to Iran and Arabic literatures. Meserret Diriöz and Orhan Şaik Gökyay have the same opinion on this subject. However, according to the results we have obtained, the debate style in Turkish literature, or Arab literature originated in an oral culture and later became a separate literary structure. For this reason it is difficult to perceive which culture and literature it geographically originated from. The findings of Western writer Ethe prove that the nature of eastern and western debates are quite similar in both form and manner of thinking. The information revealed by Köprülü shows that the debates of Turkish literature can also be included in this circle. In this respect, these similarities have also been examined in the literature and life of the Turks as a source of debate in Turkish literature. The lives and struggles of the Turks form important grounds for debate. On the other hand, the views that Ziya Gökalp put forth in the winter and summer debate of the Divânu Lugâti’t-Turk has important clues about the origin of the debate. The “right arm” and “left arm” constructions that were valid until recently for the Turks directly influenced the formation of the debate style and till date. The military organization in which this structure is specifically formed constitutes the “reference context” of reasoning as seen in the debate of the summer and winter in Divânu Lugâti’t-Turk. There is also a dialectical relationship between “social life” and “narrative tradition” in the Turks. Thus, the reference context is conveyed through the texts being performed. In this respect, there are traces of the reference context in the creation myth, Oguz Kagan epic, Dede Korkut stories, and other Turkish heroic epics. On the other hand, as the context area changed, the nature of the struggle changed. The earth and sky epics clearly depict that the struggle forms the basis for reference context. The traces of this struggle are also present in animal struggle scenes showing the iconographic scheme of the Turks. In fact, the basic nature of the Turks that distinguishes them from other natioans is the military feeling and the ability to revive strengthen the arguments of Köprülü and other researchers. For the Turks, the formation of the debate style is a struggle, which is the direct effect of the wars. The “right arm” and the “left arm” structure that the Turks possess have made it possible for the debate style to come to a close. In this process, without a doubt, the contribution of the minstrels is great.
