Was Osmanzâde Tâ’ib Re’îs-i Şâ’irân?Muhammed Duman
Osmanzâde Tâ’ib Ahmed (d.1136), one of the leading poets of the Ahmed III era, is called melikü’ş-şu’arâ/re’îs-i şâ’irân based on a hatt-i humayun quoted by Safâyî. However, a document review in the Ottoman archives of a hatt-i humayun manuscript belonging to Ahmet III revealed that Safâyî’s transmission regarding Tâ’ib was incorrect. Thus, it is evident that Osmanzâde Tâ’ib was praised; however, he was neither referred to as melikü’ş-şu’arâ nor was he assigned such a mission. The recent discovery necessitates a reassessment of Osmanzâde Tâ’ib. In this study, the personal and professional life of Osmanzâde Tâ’ib as well as his patronage relations and approach to other poets were summarized. Furthermore, prominent poets of the Istanbul literary structures of 1133/1721 are introduced by emphasizing their situation in that era to clarify their positions in literary circles. After stating the positions of these poets at the state levels and describing their patronage relations, the views of Sâlim, Safâyî, and other poets concerning these poets are presented. Hence, after sampling the text of Ahmed III’s hatt-i humayun regarding poetry and poets, the complete and original text about Osmanzâde Tâ’ib is presented. The views of the biographical sources of the era of Tâ’ib are introduced, and Tâ’ib’s relations with other poets are explained. Therefore, it was stated that Osmanzâde Tâ’ib was not a melikü’ş-şu’arâ/re’îs-i şâ’irân; however, he was a great poet who gained the appreciation of Ahmed III and Damat Ibrahim Pasha.
Osmanzâde Tâ’ib Re’îs-i Şâ’irân mıydı?Muhammed Duman
III. Ahmed Dönemi’nin önde gelen şairlerinden olan Osmanzâde Tâ’ib Ahmed (ö.1136), Safâyî’nin aktardığı bir hatt-ı hümayun metninden hareketle “melikü’ş-şu’arâ/ re’îs-i şâ’irân” olarak anılmıştır. Osmanlı Arşivi’nde yapılan taramalarda rastlanan III. Ahmed’e ait bir hatt-ı hümayun metni, Safâyî’nin Tâ’ib’le ilgili aktarımının yanlış olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu hatt-ı hümayunda Osmanzâde Tâ’ib’in övüldüğü ancak melikü’ş-şu’arâ olarak anılmadığı veya ona böyle bir görev verilmediği görülmüştür. Bu yeni bilgi Osmanzâde Tâ’ib’i yeniden değerlendirme gerekliliğini ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu çalışmada Osmanzâde Tâ’ib’in hayatı; meslek hayatı, himaye ilişkileri ve diğer şairlere yaklaşımı göz önünde tutularak özetlenmiş, edebî muhitteki yerinin belirginleşebilmesi için 1133/1721 yılı İstanbul edebî muhitinin önemli şairleri, o günkü durumları vurgulanarak tanıtılmıştır. Bu şairlerin devlet kademelerindeki konumları ve himaye ilişkileri belirtildikten sonra Sâlim ve Safâyî ile diğer şairlerin bu şairler hakkındaki görüşlerine yer verilmiştir. III. Ahmed’in şiir ve şairler hakkındaki hatt-ı hümayunlarının metinleri örneklendikten sonra Osmanzâde Tâ’ib hakkındaki hatt-ı hümayunun tam ve asıl metni sunulmuştur. Dönemin biyografik kaynaklarının Tâ’ib’le ilgili görüşlerine yer verilmiş, Tâ’ib’in diğer şairlerle ilişkileri açıklanmıştır. Sonuç olarak Osmanzâde Tâ’ib’in “re’îs-i şâ’irân” olmadığı, bununla birlikte III. Ahmed ve Damat İbrahim Paşa’nın takdirini kazanmış büyük bir şair olduğu belirtilmiştir.
There are notable poets known as melikü’ş-şu’arâ in the history of literature. Melikü’şşu’arâ/sultânu’ş-şu’arâ are Safâyî Efendi’s inclusion of a hatt-i humayun text, which he claimed belonged to Ahmed III, in his Tezkire concerning Osmanzâde Tâ’ib Ahmed (d.1136 / 1723), one of the best poets of Ahmed III era, made him to be known as melikü’ş-şu’arâ/ re’îs-i şâ’irân. A hatt-i humayun text related to Osmanzâde, which was revealed because of document reviews in the Ottoman archives, showed that Safâyî Efendi’s transmission about Osmanzâde Tâ’ib was incorrect. However, it is evident in hatt-I humayun that Osmanzâde Tâ’ib was praised but he was neither referred to as melikü’ş-şu’arâ/re’îs-i şâ’irân nor was he assigned such a mission. This recent discovery revealed the necessity of reassessment of Osmanzâde Tâ’ib. While making this reassessment, the life of Osmanzâde Tâ’ib is discussed in the first section. Nevertheless, to clarify his personality thoroughly, his professional life, patronage relations, and his approach to other poets are presented in chronological order. In the second section, the important poets of the literary circles of 1133/1721 are introduced, since it is claimed that he was appointed as the melikü’ş-şu’arâ/re’îs-i şâ’irân within the same era. The positions of eminent poets, such as Dürrî Ahmed Efendi (d.1135/1723), Arpaeminizâde Mustafa Sâmî Efendi (d.1146/1734), İzzet Ali Paşa (d.1147/1734), Mirzazâde Sâlim Mehmed Efendi (d.1156/1743), Şeyhülislam İshak Efendi (d.1147/1734), Edirneli Kâmî Mehmed Efendi (d.1136/1724), Neylî Ahmed Efendi (d.1161/1748), Abdürrahim Fâ’iz Efendi (d.1138/1726), Vakanüvis Râşid Mehmed Efendi (ö.1148/1735), Seyyid Hüseyin Vehbî Efendi (d.1149/1736) and Nedîm Ahmed Efendi (d.1143/1730) in 1133 are evaluated by considering their patronage relations and the views of other poets about them. Thus, we attempted to clarify the status of Osmanzâde Tâ’ib in the literary circles of Istanbul in 1133. In the third section, after mentioning the interest of Ahmed III in poetry, it is stated that he sometimes shared his poems through his hatt-i humayun and conducted evaluations of various poets. In addition, extractions from hatt-i humayun with concerning Dürrî Ahmed Efendi and Seyyid Hüseyin Vehbî are presented. In the fourth section, the process that brought about Osmanzâde Tâ’ib to be called the head of poets is explained in detail. After touching on the birth of Sultan’s son Ibrahim, the poes presents the dates and evaluations of these poems by Ahmed III, Safâyî Efendi’s incorrect transmission of Ahmed III’s hatt-i humayun is accentuated. The full and original text of the hatt-i humayun of Ahmed III is provided, and the evaluations arising from the incorrect transfer are mentioned. In the fifth section, after mentioning patronage relations, the position of Osmanzâde Tâ’ib related to his colleagues is explained. In addition to the inclusion of biographical sources of that era, the quality of their assessments is scrutinized. In conclusion, it is emphasized that Osmanzâde Tâ’ib claimed to be the greatest poet throughout his poetic adventure and used Ahmed III’s hatt-i humayun as means to turn this claim into reality. For the first time, the falsity of the claim that a poet is titled as melikü’ş-şu’arâ/re’îs-i şâ’irân through hatt-i humayun is mentioned, and it is stated that he was not melikü’ş-şu’arâ/re’îs-i şâ’irân, but one of the prominent poets of his era because of his poetry and patronage relations he developed.