In this study, the ambiguous narrative style in Safâyî’s work titled Fetihnâme-i İnebahtı ve Moton and Adlî’s work titled Manzûme-i Feth-i Şirvan ve Demirkapı are analyzed and discussed. Written in the 16th century, these fetihnames in verse have a vague narrative style compared to other fetihnames in verse, making their content challenging to understand.

Safâyî obscured the subject matter of his fetihname mainly through narrative techniques and partly through ta‘kîd practices that violate eloquence. The poet states that he aims to make his narratives not easily understood by the reader, and recommends that they be read over and over again to understand them. In terms of method, he generally narrates the events in a spiral manner and jumps back and forth in time; he makes it challenging to understand the identity of some individuals by mentioning their names, nicknames or ranks in different places; and sometimes he makes his own statements ambiguous. Therefore, to understand the subject matter of the fetihname as a whole, it is necessary to determine the chain of events, the order of persons, places and chronology, establish the connection between the information given, and reflect on ambiguous expressions.

Safâyî, who made the subject matter of his fetihname challenging to understand in the aforementioned ways, opened some channels for the reader to overcome this difficulty. At this point, he first partially mentions some topics, then states that he will explain them later, and then explains them in a later section. In the same case, sometimes he explains a subject or person that he mentions but does not state that he will explain in another section. The poet’s explanations and statements about this activity have traces of the commentary tradition in classical Turkish literature. Some subjects or persons that are not fully comprehensible at the beginning become more comprehensible through the aforementioned ways.

Adlî’s ambiguous narrative style is mostly characterized by the lafzî ta‘kîd, partly by manevî ta‘kîd, and sometimes by the use of figurative and ambiguous expressions. The poet’s abrupt transitions between subjects and the omission of details are another factor that makes comprehensibility of the main subject challenging. The poet emphasizes the significance of muamma, ta‘miye, remiz (symbol), îmâ (suggestion), ibhâm, îhâm and applies some of them in his work. He also states that he has read some works on the commentaries on muammas and that some of his protégés are also interested in the science of muammas. All these points reveal Adlî’s interest in the ambiguous narrative style. On the other hand, the meter, rhyme, repeated voice, language and rhetorical features of the poet’s work reflect the influence of Sebk-i Hindî.

It is understood that the two fetihnames in verse analyzed were written in a deliberately ambiguous narrative style. Ambiguity is not seen much in the narrative style of the other  fetihnames in verse, and their authors did not refer to terms, such as remiz, îmâ and ibhâm, related to ambiguity in poetry. When we look at the main difference in the two poets’ practices to make their works ambiguous, we see that Safâyî uses narrative techniques to make it challenging to understand the context between the subject and the people and to obscure the main subject. Adlî, on the other hand, uses metaphorical or ambiguous expressions by using the power of rhetoric in addition to ta‘kîd practices.

In the tradition of classical Turkish literature, in the century in which the aforementioned fetihnames were written or in the following centuries, lügaz and muamma were written in which a name was concealed through the veiled utterance of the word. In the same periods, in some books or poems, veiled expressions were made by using figurative language, metaphorical expression, literary arts, such as telmih (reference), tevriye (double-entendre) kinaye (innuendo) or elements, such as lügaz, muamma and ta‘miye. In addition, in the periods in which the two fetihname poets lived, the effects of the Sebk-i Hindî movement, characterized by the closeness of meaning in poetry, began to be seen. In this framework, it is seen that the ambiguous narrative style adopted by Adlî was nourished by the same tradition, while Safâyî followed a path that we could call relatively unique with the narrative techniques he applied together with the tradition. Consequently, both authors’ fetihnames are texts that require commentary due to their characteristics, and it is noteworthy in this context that Safayi commented on some of his phrases.