578

 NEFSÜ’L-EMR LITERATURE
AND ITS MEANING FOR
THE EARLY MODERN OTTOMAN SOCIETY

ABSTRACT
This thesis is a contextual study of nefsü’l-emrnâmes, a group of humorous texts that
inventory and curse a wide variety of infringers of social, moral, and religious norms
and hierarchies in the early modern Ottoman Empire. Written between the
seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, the eleven manuscripts analyzed in this thesis,
ridicule anonymous groups of people for their ill-manners and impudent behaviors,
freezing them in their most humiliating moments. For their derisions, all versions and
copies use different literary tactics, such as maledictions or a petition form, and the
authors appropriate the style and content of the genre to their different social realities
and agendas.
Focusing on religious matters and the city as two distinct yet interrelated
categories, this thesis aims to contextualize the genre of nefsü’l-emrnâmes within the
transformations, movements, and dynamics that shaped Ottoman society from the
sixteenth century on. Increasing urban population, changing modes of urban life, and
new regimes of visuality are offered as phenomena that challenge the existing
hierarchies in the early modern city, forming the backbone of nefsü’l-emr criticisms
directed at city-dwellers. Likewise, sixteenth and seventeenth-century trends in
religion, e.g. Kadızadeli movement and the popularization of Sufism, play a central
role in the nefsü’l-emr approach to religious matters and groups.
v
ÖZET
Bu tez erken modern Osmanlı edebiyatında nefsü’l-emrnâme olarak adlandırılan bir
grup mizahi, toplumsal hiciv metnini odağına almaktadır. Bu tez içinde incelenen en
erken onaltıncı ve en geç ondokuzuncu yüzyılda yazılmış on bir el yazması geniş ve
anonim bir şehirli kitleyi edepsizlikleri ve ahlaksız davranışları dolayısıyla alaya alır,
onları en utanç verici anlarında dondurur. Tüm nüshalar alay ve hiciv için beddua ve
fetva formu gibi farklı edebi sanatlar ve değişik formlar uygular, yazarlar janr
içeriğini ve tarzını kendi toplumsal gerçekliklerine ve gündemlerine tahsis ederler.
Dini meselelere ve kente farklı ama bağımsız olmayan iki kategori olarak
odaklanan bu tez nefsü’l-emrnâme janrını erken modern Osmanlı toplumuna
onaltıncı yüzyıl itibariyle şekil vermiş olan dönüşüm, hareket ve dinamikler içinde
doğru bağlama oturtmayı hedefler. Artan kentli nüfus, dönüşen kentli hayat biçimleri
ve yeni görsellik rejimleri var olan norm ve hiyerarşilere muhalefet eden toplumsal
fenomenler olarak ele alınır ve nefsü’l-emrnâme metinlerinin kentli nüfusa
getirdikleri eleştirinin temelinde yattıkları iddia edilir. Keza, Kadızadeli hareketi ve
tasavvufun popülerleşmesi gibi onaltıncı ve onyedinci yüzyılda ön planda olan dinitoplumsal
akımlar nefsü’l-emr janrının dini meselelere ve gruplara yaklaşımında
önemli bir rol oynar.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Firstly, I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Derin Terzioğlu for having accepted
me to her highly advanced and very “historian” graduate courses, and for not letting
my unhistorical voice go unheard in the crowd of the classroom. I also thank her for
having introduced Risâle-i Garîbe to me back in 2018. Without her interest in my
findings, assiduous encouragement, and constructive feedback, neither this thesis
would be possible nor would I feel confident on the path to becoming a historian
during this pandemic, where things feel as though they irrevocably fall apart.
Secondly, I would like to thank Çiğdem Kafescioğlu for having provided me
with various readings on early modern urban life, which contributed much to my
thesis, adding new and interesting dimensions.
And lastly, I would like to thank Cemal Kafadar and İpek Hüner-Cora for
accepting to be my jury members, and for their interest in what I have got to say.
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1
1.1 Humor and invective in Ottoman historiography .............................................. 3
1.2 The nefsü’l-emr authors and manuscript sources .............................................. 9
1.3 The concept of nefsü’l-emr .............................................................................. 16
1.4 Thesis structure ................................................................................................ 18
CHAPTER 2: COMPARISON OF SOURCES AND TEXTUAL STRUCTURE .... 20
2.1 Defining the Lâmiî Corpus and structure ........................................................ 21
2.2 Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi and his version .................................................. 43
CHAPTER 3: PIOUS GROUPS AND RELIGIOUS MATTERS ............................. 52
3.1 Sufism and dervishes in nefsü’l-emrnâmes ..................................................... 53
3.2 Kızılbaş and the non-Muslim in nefsü’l-emrnâmes ......................................... 64
3.3 Kadızadelis and innovation (bid’at) in nefsü’l-emrnâmes .............................. 71
3.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 80
CHAPTER 4: URBAN SPACE IN NEFSÜ’L-EMRNÂMES .................................... 83
4.1 Representation in nefsü’l-emrnâmes - nefsü’l-emrnâmes as urban
representations ........................................................................................................ 84
4.2 Public and private in nefsü’l-emrnâmes .......................................................... 92
4.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 113
ix
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 115
APPENDIX A: ABBREVIATIONS OF MANUSCRIPTS ..................................... 121
APPENDIX B: TRANSCRIPTIONS ...................................................................... 122
APPENDIX C: FACSIMILES OF MANUSCRIPTS .............................................. 188
APPENDIX D: TRANSLATED REFERENCES .................................................... 205
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 214
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In the Fall term of 2018/19, Derin Terzioğlu pointed me, among some other early
modern Ottoman texts, to a hilarious source for the term paper of her graduate course
on religion, power, and authority in the early modern Ottoman Empire. The text was
a long satirical inventory of maledictions and curses from which no one in the city
was spared. I burst out laughing in the middle of the university library and knew at
that moment that I wanted to write my paper on it. The book was called Risâle-i
Garîbe and was published by Hayati Develi, who transcribed an untitled and
anonymous manuscript he found in the Nuruosmaniye Manuscript Library into
modern Turkish.1
When I read Cemal Kafadar’s article on leisure and pleasure in the early
modern Ottoman capital, I found out that the genre of the text popularly known as
Risâle-i Garîbe was in fact, called nefsü’l-emrnâme, which Kafadar called a “nanogenre.”
2 As soon as I discovered the name of the genre, I began with the archival
research, and more nefsü’l-emrnâmes with different authors and styles started to pour
in, and in total, I identified fifteen nefsü’l-emrnâmes spread across different libraries
from around the world.
1 Hayati Develi, XVIII.yy İstanbul’a Dair Risale-i Garibe (İstanbul: Kitabevi, 1998), 15-45.
2 Cemal Kafadar, “How Dark is the History of the Night, How Black the Story of Coffee, How Bitter
the Tale of Love: The Changing Measure of Leisure and Pleasure in Early Modern Istanbul,” in
Medieval and Early Modern Performance in the Eastern Mediterranean, ed. Arzu Öztürkmen and
Evelyn Birge Vitz (Turnhout: Brepols, 2014), 264.
2
As these sources have been studied in a very limited manner, it is difficult to
define what they are. As mentioned above, Kafadar describes them fittingly as a
nano-genre, as only four authors and authorial versions have been identified and no
connection to a direct counterpart in other literary traditions could be established,
including Persian and Arabic literature.
Nefsü’l-emrnâmes count impudence after impudence and wish the worst for
the performers, who get ridiculed in a familiar and humorous language. Cemal
Kafadar claims a resemblance between nefsü’l-emrnâmes and galât manuals (galât
defterleri), written by two leading jurist-scholars (sheikhulislam) of the classical age,
Kemalpaşazâde (b. 1469 – d. 1534) and Ebussuûd Efendi (b. 1490 – d. 1574), to
warn against new and incorrect lexical and orthographical usages that were spreading
in the era of vernacularization.3 Kafadar observes that while galât manuals capture
the “ill-said,” not without a facetious undertone and secret pleasure, nefsü’lemrnâmes
capture the “ill-done” in a highly tongue-in-cheek manner.4
Saygın Salgırlı, on the other hand, refers to the works as “book of curses”
(beddua albümleri) in his MA thesis on early modern manners and gentleman
identity.5 Beddua or malediction, however, captures only one portion of the genre, as
at least one version of the nefsü’l-emrnâmes does not make use of maledictions,
displaying a different literary structure to ridicule its targeted ill-doers. I suggest that
one should first discuss what the term nefsü’l-emr means, compare the works, and
analyze their contents in order to offer a meaningful definition of the genre. Thus, I
will attempt at my own definition in the conclusion of this thesis.
3 Ibid, 248.
4 Ibid, 264.
5 Saygın Salgırlı, “Manners and Identity in Late Seventeenth Century Istanbul,” (MA Thesis, Sabancı
University, 2003), 1-88.
3
Before, introducing my sources, I find it necessary to discuss humor and
humorous sources in Ottoman historiography.
1.1 Humor and invective in Ottoman historiography
In her article on gendered humor in early modern Ottoman literature, Didem
Havlioğlu makes a distinction between humor and mockery, deriving from Franz
Rosenthal’s work on humor in early Islamic literature.6 While humor and the ability
to make others laugh are praised in Islam, mockery and derision are condemned by
hadiths.7 Sarcasm and mockery are defined as ugly excesses. However, we
occasionally see that humor is just as equally criticized and is considered a dangerous
endeavor that can easily cross into the domain of derision. Thus the line between
humor and sarcasm, or humor and derision is not well defined.
Agâh Sırrı Levend (b. 1894 - d. 1978), as one of the most prominent
historians of Ottoman literature, dispraises various Ottoman authors of humor and
invective in one of his articles and claims that, aside from a few valuable works,
Ottoman humor is nothing but vulgar satire.8 He expresses discomfiture with the fact
that respected literary and political figures of the Empire wrote such works
overstepping the boundaries of humorous criticism, and using a language “even a
pumpman (tulumbacı) would be ashamed of.” He concludes that the limitation of
women to the private sphere allowed Ottoman men to speak and write obscenities
6 Didem Havlıoğlu, “The Magic of a Joke: Humor and Gender in Islamicate Ottoman Aesthetics,”
Laughter, Humor, and the (Un)Making of Gender: Historical Perspectives, ed. Anna Foka and Jonas
Liliequist, (London: Palgrave, 2015), 105-6.
7 Ibid.
8 Agâh Sırrı Levend, “Divan Edebiyatında Gülmece ve Yergi (hezl ve hecv),” Türk Dili Araştırmaları
Yıllığı - Belleten 18, (1971): 40-1.
4
freely with no boundaries.9 While Levend’s gendered explanation might be at the
right spot in the matter of readership, as the intended readers of nefsü’l-emrnâmes
were most probably male subjects of the Empire, it does not suffice in explaining the
literary tradition in general.
Levend’s discomfiture reflects the common sentiment towards humor and
invective works in Ottoman historiography. When I went to the Süleymaniye
Manuscript Library to collect nefsü’l-emr manuscripts for my studies, the librarian
who provided me with the sources asked me what the works were about. I
ingenuously told him that the authors facetiously cursed almost every group of
people in the city. In response, he said, “You mean, they (the authors) are empty and
worthless men.”10 Ali Emre Özyıldırım argues that humor and invective have often
been denounced as time-consuming nonsense (türrehât) and sinful entertainment
(lehviyât), and gives Nâbî’s Hayriyye as an example, where Nâbî warns against “the
harmfulness of invective and humor (der beyân-ı zarâr-ı hezl ü mizah) and late
Ottoman humorist Ziyâ Paşa’s (b. 1829 – d. 1880) criticisms to Nedîm (b. 1681 – d.
1730) as a poet who occasionally “overstepped into the domain of humor (mizah).”11
These more than negative definitions and approaches to humor and/or
invective in Ottoman historiography explain why nefsü’l-emrnâmes have been
studied so little, despite being works that shed light on many areas of Ottoman
history.
9 Ibid, 40.
10 “Yani boş beleş adamlar.”
11 Ali Emre Özyıldırım, “Mertebe-i Mizaha Yetmek,” Hicve Revâ, Mizaha Mâyil: Güldürücü
Metinleri Anlamak, ed. Hatice Aynur, Müjgan Çakır, Hanife Koncu, and Ali Emre Özyıldırım,
(Istanbul: Klasik, 2018), 15-6.
5
1.1.1 Recent studies on humor and invective
While the earlier sentiments such as those of Ziyâ Paşa or Levend were prone to
denounce invective and humor in Ottoman literature as excesses, there have also
been several studies that took sources of humor and invective, and “reprehensible
words” (menfûr garâbet)12 in Ottoman verse and prose into the center, trying to
situate them in their deserved places.
One of the prominent figures was Tunca Kortantamer, with his works on
Nev’îzâde Atâ’î and his extensive book on Ottoman humor Temmuzda Kar Satmak
(Selling Snow in July) published in 1997, which are still fundamental works.13
In a recent study, Ali Emre Özyıldırım writes on the transformations in the
“Ottoman classical literature” (Dîvân edebiyatı) from the second half of the fifteenth
century on, which opened the way for humorous, uncouth, obscene, and grotesque
aspects and elements of the vernacular language to be used in verse by Ottoman
poets.14
In his doctoral dissertation, Hikmet Feridun Güven writes on the historical
development of invective in Ottoman literature, claiming that Ottoman invective saw
a proliferation in the sixteenth century, peaking in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries.15 He also has an article on varying reasons and forms of writing invectives,
12 Edith Gülçin Ambros, “Osmanlı gazelinin değişimi: gazelde kaba dil, müstehcen ima ve açık
cinsellik ifadesiyle mizah ve alaycı yergi,” Hicve Revâ, Mizaha Mâyil: Güldürücü Metinleri Anlamak,
ed. Hatice Aynur, Müjgan Çakır, Hanife Koncu, and Ali Emre Özyıldırım, (Istanbul: Klasik, 2018),
55.
13 Tunca Kortantamer, Temmuzda Kar Satmak: Örnekleriyle Geçmişten Günümüze Türk Mizahı, ed.
Fatih Ülken, Şerife Yalçınkaya, (Ankara: Phoenix Yayınları, 2007).
14 Ali Emre Özyıldırım, Mâşî-zâde Fikrî Çelebi ve Ebkâr-ı Efkâr’ı: On Altıncı Yüzyıldan Sıradışı Bir
Aşk Hikâyesi, (Istanbul: Dergâh, 2017), 264-5.
15 Hikmet Feridun Güven, “Klâsik Türk Şiirinde Hiciv,” (PhD Dissertation, Gazi University, 1997).
6
where he focuses on rivalries for positions and patronage, emphasizing the danger of
lampooning with examples of incidents where certain poets and authors were
eventually exiled or executed.16
Edit Gülçin Ambros in a recent article, focuses on the introduction of
“reprehensible words” (menfûr garâbet) into the Ottoman ghazal from the late
fifteenth century on, with words like “bowels” (bağırsak) or “vomit” (kusmuk)
starting to appear, or with open implications of sexuality in search of humor. She
focuses on six different poets, including Sâbit, whose Hikâyet-i Hâce Fesâd will be
discussed in Chapter 4, Zâtî, Bâkî, etc.17 Ambros also has a whole chapter dedicated
to “laughter” in her book Life, Love and Laughter: In Search of the Ottomans’ Lost
Poetic Language, where she analyzes works of Letâif (Pleasantries), invectives, and
satire.18
One of the most extensive studies on the area is Michael D. Sheridan’s
doctoral dissertation on Nef’î’s (b. 1572 – d. 1635) Sihâm-ı Kazâ (Shafts of Doom).
In his dissertation, Sheridan deals with the ways in which Nef’î lampooned important
figures of the seventeenth century Ottoman Empire, trying to situate him and his
poems in the larger frame of Ottoman and Islamic invective tradition.
For this study, I find Sheridan’s distinction between the western genres of
satire and invective useful. He defines invective through authors’ vituperative ad
16 Hikmet Feridun Güven, “Hiciv söyleme amaçları ve bu amacın hiciv dili ve söyleme tarzını
belirlemedeki rolü,” Hicve Revâ, Mizaha Mâyil: Güldürücü Metinleri Anlamak, ed. Hatice Aynur,
Müjgan Çakır, Hanife Koncu, and Ali Emre Özyıldırım, (Istanbul: Klasik, 2018), 25-51.
17 Ambros, “Osmanlı gazelinin değişimi,” 56-62.
18 Edith Gülçin Ambros, Life, Love and Laughter: In Search of Ottomans’ Lost Poetic Language,
(Istanbul: The Isis Press, 2015).
7
hominem attacks.19 An author or poet of invectives lampoons a certain person for
various reasons with only one goal as to humiliate the opponent. Sheridan clarifies
what he understands as Islamicate invective: “attacks of an explicitly personal nature,
though frequently with much broader implications in the way of social criticism.”20
Satire, on the other hand, is milder in its language and intends to have eventual
positive outcomes in the society or the person which it derides, making satire a
didactic genre.21 Sheridan lays out the historiographical framework in which the
analysts of Ottoman literature favored “satire” over “invective,” in an effort to
reorient Ottoman hiciv more towards the Western-style satire. Instead, he offers the
word “invective” as an equivalent of the genre of Ottoman hiciv.
Under this scheme offered by Sheridan, nefsü’l-emrnâmes as works that never
attack persons and that ask people to avoid certain ill-actions in conclusion, seem
likely to be classified as satires. However, as will be discussed in Chapter 2, satirical
didacticism is not present in every nefsü’l-emr manuscript, i.e. Niksârîzâde Mehmed
Efendi’s copy and the Nuruosmaniye manuscript. Even when the wish for positive
change in behaviors is explicit in conclusions, humiliation and derision weigh
heavier than the positive impact allegedly expected by the authors in each and every
nefsü’l-emr. Thus, it becomes less meaningful to search for a “didactic message” in
today’s sense in nefsü’l-emrnâmes.
Therefore, nefsü’l-emrnâmes perhaps carve a niche for themselves in
Sheridan’s definition of Ottoman invective. I suggest, nefsü’l-emrnâmes are “social
19 Michael D. Sheridan, “I curse no one without cause: Identity, Power, Rivalry, and Invective in the
Early 17th-Century Ottoman Court,” (PhD Dissertation, İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, 2018),
87.
20 Ibid, 90.
21 Ibid.
8
invectives,” and aim at generic groups of people rather than known figures. While I
reject neither the quality of these works as satires nor their satirical aspects, social
invective seems a rather more suitable designation, as nefsü’l-emr authors revile
society, social groups, and practices in such a manner that recalls the same grotesque,
obscene, and humorous language and methods applied by the poets or authors of
more ad hominem invective.
1.1.2 Nefsü’l-Emrnâmes in historiography
Studies that directly focus on nefsü’l-emrnâmes are quite a few. The most popular
one, and the one through which I got acquainted with the genre, is Hayati Develi’s
Risâle-i Garîbe, in which he transcribed and linguistically analyzed the untitled
nefsü’l-emrnâme example found in the Nuruosmaniye Manuscript Library.
Other than Develi’s transcription and analysis, Hasan Ali Esir transcribed the
copy attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi in 2001.22 In addition to Esir’s short work, Fikret
Turan carries out a similar introduction to Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi and his
nefsü’l-emr version, analyzing select passages in terms of linguistic value.23 Lastly,
Saygın Salgırlı’s MA thesis comprises the most in-depth study on the genre. In this
study, he compares two versions of the nefsü’l-emr literature, Risâle-i Garîbe and
Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle-i Nefsü’l-Emr24 with Gelibolulu Mustafa ‘Âlî’s (b. 1541 – d.
22 Hasan Ali Esir, “Lâmi’î Çelebi’ye İsnat Edilen Bir Eser: Risâle-i Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmi’î,” İlmî
Araştırmalar 12 (2001), 111-20.
23 Fikret Turan, “Onaltıncı Yüzyıl Osmanlıcasında Argo: Niksarizade ve Entelektüel Hayatın
Eleştirisi, ‘Nefsü’l-Emr-Nâme’ İsimli Eseri,” in IV. Uluslararası Türk Dili Kurultayı Bildirileri
(Ankara: Türk Dili Kurumları Yayınları, 2007), 1825-7.
24 Salgırlı names Hacı Ahmed’s manuscript as “Makâle-i Garîbe,” whereas its title reads “Makâle-i
Nefsü’l-Emr.”
9
1600) Table of Delicacies Concerning the Rules of Social Gatherings (Mevâ’idü’n-
Nefâ’is fî Kavâ’idi’l-Mecâlis).25 These works focus on individual nefsü’l-emrnâmes
and they are mostly introductory studies. Thus, this thesis will be the first cumulative
study on the genre of nefsü’l-emrnâmes, bringing together as many examples as the
archival research allowed, to make sense of the genre as a whole.
1.2 The nefsü’l-emr authors and manuscript sources
For my thesis, I use eleven nefsü’l-emr manuscripts from four different
authorial attributions, which are represented in detail in Table 1. Authorial
attributions are mostly found in the titles of the works and there are no other
references to the authors within the texts. Titles indicate by whom the nefsü’l-emrs
were written. The manuscript abbreviations used to facilitate footnote navigation can
be found in Appendix A. Manuscript page references in footnotes correspond to the
first folios of the manuscript as listed in Table 1. As an example, folio 97b of Hacı
Ahmed’s Makâle corresponds to page 1 in the footnotes.
Seven manuscripts out of the eleven I use for this thesis, are attributed to
Lâmiî Çelebi in the title, whose authorship will be questioned further below. Two
nefsü’l-emrnâmes are attributed to Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi, a seventeenthcentury
Ottoman bureaucrat. One manuscript belongs to a certain seventeenthcentury
Hacı Ahmed from Ioannina. The last one, found in the Nuruosmaniye
Manuscript Library, is an anonymous manuscript that dates back to 1720.
25 Salgırlı, “Manners and Identity,” 1-88.
7
Table 1. Manuscript Sources
Anonymous
Niksârîzâde
Niksârîzâde
Hacı Ahmed
Lâmiî Çelebi
Lamiî Çelebi
Lâmiî Çelebi
Lâmiî Çelebi
Lâmiî Çelebi
Lâmiî Çelebi
Lâmiî Çelebi
Authorial
Attribution
Untitled
Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi
Merhûmun Nefsü’l-emrnâme
Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi
Merhûmun Nefsü’l-Emrnâme-i
Latîfidir
Makâle-i Nefsü’l-Emr
Risâle-i Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmiî
Hazâ Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmiî Çelebi
re mim
Rahmetullahi ‘aleyhi Nefsü’lemr-
i Lâmiî Çelebi
Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmiî Çelebi
Rahmetullahi ‘aleyhi
Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmiî Çelebi
Rahmetullahi ‘aleyhi
Hazâ Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmiî Çelebi
Rahmetullahi ‘aleyhi
Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmiî Çelebi
Title
Nuruosmaniye
Yazma Eser
Kütüphanesi
Süleymaniye
Kütüphanesi
Süleymaniye
Kütüphanesi
Topkapı Sarayı
Kütüphanesi
İ.Ü. Nadir Eserler
Kütüphanesi
Milli Kütüphane
Süleymaniye
Kütüphanesi
Süleymaniye
Kütüphanesi
Milli Kütüphane
İBB Atatürk
Kitaplığı
Süleymaniye
Kütüphanesi
Library
4925
Hamidiye 390
Hafız Ahmed Paşa 362
Bağdad 404
TY.3182
Adnan Ötüken İl Halk
Kütüphanesi 3757/2
Hacı Mahmud Efendi
2167
Yazma Bağışlar 6692
Yazmalar Koleksiyonu
A.264/3
Muallim Cevdet K.144
Mihrişah Sultan 439
Collection & ID
Number
48a –
76b
-
72a –
75b
97b -99b
17b –
20b
7a – 9b
2b – 7b
43b –
45a
15b –
16a
80b –
81b
147b -
149a
Pages
1720
19th
century
-
1646/7
1882
1746
1709
1709
18th
century
-
-
Date
-
Alî bin Ebî Tâlib
-
-
-
-
Kadızâde Seyyid
Mehemmed Saîd
-
-
Seyyid Derviş
Feyzullah ibn Ali
-
Copyist
8
As also mentioned above, the anonymous and untitled Nuruosmaniye
manuscript was published in modern Turkish transcription by Hayati Develi in 1997.
Thus, except Develi’s published work titled Risâle-i Garîbe, the manuscript
transcriptions used for this thesis are my own, with much-appreciated checks from
my thesis advisor, Derin Terzioğlu. The transcriptions of the unpublished
manuscripts can be found in Appendix B. The facsimiles of the manuscript sources
can be found in Appendix C. Translated references of the long quotes appear in
Appendix D.
In addition to the texts used for this thesis, I identified other manuscripts from
different libraries, including a copy of Niksârîzâde’s version in the National Library
of Hungary, and two more copies attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi found in the collections
of Konya Mevlana Museum Library and Erzurum Atatürk University Library.
However, those manuscripts were not available to me and thus, were not analyzed for
this thesis.
Furthermore, Fikret Turan, in his article on Niksârîzâde’s nefsü’l-emr, claims
that he detected two nefsü’l-emr copies that belonged to Niksârîzâde, respectively in
the Hamidiye and the Fatih collections of the Süleymaniye Manuscript Library and
that he based his article on the latter copy.26 However, I could not detect a nefsü’lemrnâme
in the Fatih collection. Instead, there is a short jocular letter Niksârîzâde
wrote to Kapu Ağası Dursûnzâde, and an adjoined letter written by Ganî Çelebizâde
in response to Niksârîzâde’s letter. While these two letters seem to be jocular ripostes
exchanged between these learned men, they are not nefsü’l-emrnâmes whatsoever.
26 Fikret Turan, “Niksarizade,” 1826.
9
1.2.1 The question of Lâmiî Çelebi’s authorship
Lâmiî Çelebi was born in Bursa. In his work Şerefü’l-İnsân written in 933 AH (1526
AD), he mentions that he is 55 years old. This means he was born in 878 AH (1472
AD).27 The poet, who lived all his life in Bursa, died in 1532.28
While Lâmiî Çelebi is identified as the author of over ten nefsü’l-emr
manuscripts, he cannot have penned the nefsü’l-emr manuscripts studied in this
thesis. All of the manuscripts that are attributed to him deal with issues that are post-
1532. In each copy attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi, except the one found in the Mecmû’a-i
Fevâid compilation, coffeehouses and coffeehouse clientele are derided, which will
be exemplified in Chapters 3 and 4. The earliest mention of coffee in the Ottoman
capital dates back to 1539, in the endowment deed of the grand admiral Barbaros
Hayreddin Pasha (d. 1546).29 The earliest record of a coffeehouse in Istanbul is given
by the historian Peçevî as 1554-5.30 What this means is that coffee and coffeehouse
culture flourished in the decades following Lâmiî Çelebi’s death in 1532, and
presumably first in Istanbul rather than Bursa. He cannot have witnessed the
coffeehouse culture that is unanimously mocked in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes that are
attributed to him in the title, with only one exception, that is the copy found in
Mecmû’a-i Fevâid. Moreover, even in the Mecmû’a-i Fevâid copy, the author mocks
Birgivîs (Birgivîler),31 the predecessors of the Kadızadeli movement of the
seventeenth-century, who followed the theologian Birgivî Mehmed Efendi’s (b. 1523
27 Nuran Tezcan, “Bursalı Lâmiî Çelebi,” Türkoloji Dergisi 7, (1979): 305.
28 Ibid, 306.
29 Kafadar, “Leisure and Pleasure,” 247.
30 Ibid, 249.
31 “…ve meclisde lakırdı itmede kimseye nevbet değirmeyen Birgivîlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’lemr
(MK), 4.
10
– d. 1573) writings, including his widely popular Tarîkat-ı Muhammediye. Therefore,
Birgivîs are another issue that cannot have been witnessed and hence, problematized
by Lâmiî Çelebi who died in 1532.
Furthermore, while Lâmiî Çelebi was a long-time resident of Bursa and
devoted several texts to this city, none of the nefsü’l-emrnâmes attributed to him
make any reference to Bursa. Instead, one passage found in three copies attributed to
Lâmiî Çelebi derides “the imbeciles who borrow money to go to view the
[Rumelian?] Castle (hisâr) with five rowboats.”32
Bearing in mind Lâmiî Çelebi’s fame as a witty poet, and his authorship of
humorous works like Letâifnâme, it is possible that nefsü’l-emrnâmes were popularly
associated with his jocular personality. These works might have been evaluated as
“Lâmiî-like” by their audiences. Here, in the case of nefsü’l-emr authorship, it is
perhaps advisable to think more in terms of Lâmiî Çelebi’s distinguished witty
character that could have led to the attribution of the works to him in the title. As
Nuran Tezcan reports, Lâmiî Çelebi was known to be a witty poet, with his famous
ripostes to pretentious Semercizâde Seydî Hayâtî and his jokes in Letâifnâme.33
Furthermore, in his biography of poets (tezkire), Latîfî recounts how one day Lâmiî
Çelebi railed a conceited man with facetious and spontaneous verses at a gathering.34
The fact that he wrote a şehrengîz on Bursa, and allegedly, a book of jokes, along
with his reported witticisms enables us to distinguish his sociable and jocular
demeanor, as an appreciated raconteur of Bursa.
32 “…karz akçe alub beş çifte kayık ile hisâr seyrine giden eblehlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr
(HME), 6; “…karz akçe alub beş çifte kayık ile hisâr seyrine giden eblehlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi,
Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 5; “…karz akçe alub beş çifte kayık ile hisâr seyrine giden eblehlere…” Lâmiî
Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 3.
33 Ibid, 311.
34 Ibid.
11
However, even though there are concrete proofs that refute his nefsü’l-emr
authorship, at least for the manuscripts studied in this thesis, there is no other
possible suggestion for the authorship of these seven manuscripts attributed to him.
As they unanimously allude to Lâmiî Çelebi in the title, these seven manuscripts will
be referred to as “Lâmiî Çelebi” manuscripts or copies throughout this thesis,
including the footnotes and references for the sake of identification.
Among these copies attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi, the earliest extant nefsü’lemrs
that we know the date of, are the two Süleymaniye Manuscript Library copies,
found consecutively in the Hacı Mahmud Efendi collection no.2167 and Yazma
Bağışlar collection no.6692. They both date from Muharram of 1121 AH (1709AD)
and are quite similar in every aspect. A later copy, found in TY.3182 in the Istanbul
University Rare Books Library, dates from Rajab of 1299 AH (1882 AD), and is
almost the same as the aforementioned Süleymaniye manuscripts, except for some
nuances.
Another Lâmiî Çelebi copy that I use for this thesis is found in A/264 of the
manuscripts collection of the National Library of Turkey, and its title reads as
Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmi’î Çelebi Rahmetullahi ‘Aleyhi. The manuscript, dating from the
eighteenth century as the library noted, is found in a compilation titled Mecmû’a-i
Fevâ’id-i Eş’âr ü Ed’iye (Useful Miscellanea of Poems and Prayers).35 Another
manuscript from the Süleymaniye Manuscript Library is recorded in the Mihrişah
Sultan collection no.439, and its title reads as Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmi’î Çelebi. The final
lines of the manuscript are indecipherably damaged, thus its date is not known. This
copy displays several similarities to the Mecmû’a-i Fevâ’id copy.
35 This manuscript is almost identical to Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle.
12
Another copy, found in the Adnan Ötüken Public Library collection no.3757
of the National Library of Turkey, is titled Hazâ Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmi’î Çelebi re mim,
and dates from 1160 AH (1746-7 AD). This work and the manuscript found in the
Muallim Cevdet collection K.144 of the Taksim Atatürk Library, are the shortest two
nefsü’l-emrnâmes, as the former comprises of four folios, while the latter has only
three. The Muallim Cevdet manuscript is titled as Hazâ Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmi’î Çelebi
Rahmetullahi ‘Aleyhi, and is undated.
In addition to these seven Lâmiî Çelebi copies studied for this thesis, there are
other Lâmiî Çelebi copies in libraries around the world. One copy titled Risâle-i
Nefs-i Emr is found in Talat 39/2684 of the National Library of Egypt. Another one
is found in the Agah Sırrı Levend Manuscripts collection of the Atatürk University
Library, and another one is cataloged as no.2453 in the Konya Mevlana Museum
Library. Lastly, there is a Lâmiî Çelebi copy found in the Ali Emiri Efendi collection
no.665. in Istanbul Millet Library. These works were not analyzed for this research
and therefore, might yield interesting results for a further study on the genre of
nefsü’l-emrnâmes.
Furthermore, Tezcan claims that nefsü’l-emrnâmes attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi
were alternatively titled as Münâzara-i Nefs ü Rûh or Münâzara-i İns ü Cân.36
However, my search in manuscript libraries for these alternative titles yielded no
result.
1.2.2 Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi
36 Tezcan, “Bursalı Lâmiî Çelebi,” 335.
13
Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi (b. 1538 – d. 1616) was a scholar-bureaucrat of the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, who worked as a professor (müderris), mufti,
qadi, and, provincial governor (vali) in various centers including Istanbul, Edirne,
Silistra, Veria (Karaferye), Shumen (Şumnu), Thessaloniki, and Larissa (Yenişehir).37
According to Fikret Turan, his frequent appointments to different positions in
different parts of the Empire made Niksârîzâde witness competitions, favoritisms,
and corrupt behaviors that were prevalent in the Ottoman bureaucracy of the time,
leading him to write his version of the nefsü’l-emrnâmes, almost exclusively
reserved for the upper echelons of the society, like professors, and qadis.
The two copies used for this thesis and attributed to Niksârîzâde, are both
found in the Süleymaniye Manuscript Library, and the Hamidiye and Hafız Ahmed
Paşa collections. As mentioned earlier, no nefsü’l-emrnâme was found in the Fatih
collection, contrary to what Turan suggests.
1.2.3 Hacı Ahmed and the anonymous Nuruosmaniye manuscript
The other two nefsü’l-emrnâmes are more than mysterious. While the copy, found in
the Bağdad 404 collection of the Topkapı Palace Library, is titled as Makâle-i
Nefsü’l-Emr, we do not know anything about its author Hacı Ahmed. The manuscript
dates from 1084 AH (1673-74 AD) and is a copy of the original which was allegedly
written in Ioannina in 1056 AH (1646-7 AD). At the end of the manuscript, the
anonymous copyist notes; “And God is the most knowing. Hacı Ahmed wrote it in
the city of Yanya in the year 1056 and I copied it from the original in the year
37 Turan, “Niksarizade,” 1825.
14
1084.”38 This copy is almost identical to the Mecmû’a-i Fevâid manuscript that is
attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi and also has similarities with the Mihrişah Sultan
manuscript, that is also attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi.
The Nuruosmaniye manuscript is a bigger mystery, as neither the title nor the
author is known. The manuscript is found in a compilation owned by Osman II
(r.1618-22), as marked on the first folio of the compilation.39 At the end of the
manuscript, however, it is noted that the text was written in 1720, which means that
the text was added later into the compilation. On folio 48a, another note reads “The
owner of the book is Derviş İsmâil.”40 Hayati Develi, through analyses of
orthographical preferences in the text, like writing engeç instead of yengeç (crab),
concludes that the author or the copyist of the work must have been from Western
Anatolia.41
1.2.4 The setting of the works
The physical setting in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes is mostly urban. While some comings
and goings of people from and to the surrounding villages, fields, castles, or market
towns are ridiculed, the setting never strays too far from urban centers. The texts
mainly focus on daily immoralities in the streets, markets, and elite households of an
urban setting.
38 “Vallahu a'lem bi's-savab zeberahu Hacı Ahmed fî medineti Yanya fî sene 1056 ve harrartühu min
aslihi fî sene 1084.” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 5. I thank my friend Arif Erbil and my thesis advisor Derin
Terzioğlu for helping me decipher this note in Arabic.
39 Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 11.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
15
The degree to which the urban setting is specified varies from manuscript to
manuscript. The Nuruosmaniye manuscript, written in 1720, is the one with the most
concrete references, as it associates an immoral behavior with almost every
neighborhood in and around Istanbul, from Çukurhamam to Eyüp.42 Some other
place names are also found like the Sinan Paşa Mansion at the Topkapı Palace.43
Thus, the setting in the Nuruosmaniye manuscript is certainly Istanbul.
Unlike the multiplicity of Istanbulite toponyms in the Nuruosmaniye
manuscript, Niksârîzâde’s version gives fewer clues as to where the setting is.
However, in one passage, Niksârîzâde mentions Istanbul and the neighborhoods
Eyüp and Tophane, enabling one to identify its setting as Istanbul.44
The other manuscripts are not as explicit as the ones mentioned above. The
manuscripts attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi and Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle mostly take place
in a more generic urban setting. In the three Lâmiî Çelebi copies from the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries, as exemplified earlier, Bosphoran castle-viewing gets
ridiculed, which implies Istanbul as the setting. The other manuscripts do not give
any clues as to where the city could be.
In Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle, the author humorously mocks “those who call
Preverdi Castle pire var oldı.”45 This is the only instance in which a toponym is
42 “…ve düğün etmeğe kalkup iptidâ okuyuculığa ‘Avrat Bâzârı’n, Çukur Hammâm’ın ve Hazret-i
Eyyûb’un çenârın dört kerre dolanup “Düğüne okuram, seyre ne kadar âdem gelür gider benim de
düğünüme ol kadar âdem gelsün!” deyen şeytân masharası, sokak sipürgesi, zıbukçıların okuyucısı…”
Ibid, 44.
43 “Ahor Kapusında kayığına binüp Sinân Paşa Köşküni geçmeden duhân içenler…” Ibid, 23.
44 “…ve bayrâm seyrinde evvelki gün İstanbul’un ve ikinci gün Tobhâne’nin ve üçüncü gün
Eyyûbündür deyü şiddet-i şitâda ve yâhûd şiddet-i harrda, ol mevâzi’in esvâk-ı müntinesinden kendü
gibi erâzil ile muhkem itişüb gezen gezendelerin…” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (HAP), 5; “…ve bayrâm
seyrinde evvelki gün İstanbul’un ve ikinci gün Tobhâne’nin ve üçüncü gün Eyyûbündür deyü şiddet-i
şitâda ve yâhûd şiddet-i harrda, ol mevâzi’in esvâk-ı müntinesinden kendü gibi erâzil ile muhkem
itişüb gez de gezendilerin…” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (H), 6.
45 “…ve Preverdi kal’âsına ‘pire var oldı’ diyenlere,” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 5.
16
mentioned in his version. However, I could not identify any such castle in the
Empire, including the surroundings of Ioannina. It might not be extant. Nevertheless,
as the author indicates that the manuscript was written in Ioannina, it is safe to
assume that the setting was Ioannina.
The earliest dated manuscript is Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle-i Nefsü’l-Emr and it
dates from 1673/4 AD. The latest, on the other hand, is the Istanbul University
manuscript attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi copied in 1882. However, that manuscript is
almost an exact copy of the Yazma Bağışlar and Hacı Mahmud Efendi manuscripts
that date from 1709. Therefore, excluding the 1882 copy, nefsü’l-emr manuscripts
mostly fall between the 1670s and 1720. Considering the issues like Kadızadelis,
Birgivîs, and coffeehouses that are discussed above, and keeping in mind that the
geographical setting mainly points at Istanbul, one can claim that nefsü’l-emrnâmes
are works that deal with the social realities of the seventeenth and early eighteenthcentury
Istanbul and its denizens.
1.3 The concept of nefsü’l-emr
Having introduced the texts that are used for this thesis, it is necessary to discuss the
possible meanings of the compound word nefsü’l-emr. There is a whole other
literature on the term in Islamic theology, which might or might not be related to the
works at hand.
In Arabic, “nafs al-amr” literally means “essence of the matter.” Recep Duran
offers “işin aslı,” or “işin özü” (the crux of the matter) as potential Turkish
17
translations of the term.46 Abdurrahman Ali Mihirig asserts that in the discipline of
Islamic theology (kalam), nafs al-amr denotes “the thing itself,” or “the objective
world,” signifying the existence of the objects outside the perceiving mind.47
Theological nefsü’l-emrs, also known as nefsü’l-emr risâleleri or “treatises of nafs
al-amr,” distinct from the invectives studied for this thesis, deal with God’s
ontological existence and independence from the minds that envision Him.48
For our nefsü’l-emrnâmes, the picture is a bit more complex. The term
nefsü’l-emr brings to mind nefs-i emmâre, the inciting self, which represented the
lowest level of the self in the Sufi conception.49 Since the works in question ridicule
immoral, or improper acts of men and women, it is possible that in choosing the title
of nefsü’l-emrnâme the authors intended to evoke in the mind of their readers also
this notion of the inciting self.
Niksârîzâde’s version is the only work that gives some glimpse to the
intended meaning of nefsü’l-emr. He calls a distinct group of elite “the friends of
nefsü’l-emr” (nefsü’l-emr yârânı), and designates a certain way of acting as
“demeanors of nefsü’l-emr” (evzâ’-ı nefsü’l-emr), questioning the suitability of the
bad manners that he lists, to the nefsü’l-emr identity.50 Turan suggests that
Niksârîzâde distinguishes a self-proclaimed coterie of the elite by the term nefsü’lemr.
51 In the copies of Lâmiî Çelebi, while nefsü’l-emr is limited to the title, the
counter identity to the riff-raff in the works is designated either as “men of grace”
46 Recep Duran, “Nefsü’l-Emr Risaleleri,” Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi
Felsefe Bölümü Dergisi 14, (1992): 97.
47 Abdurrahman Ali Mihirig, “Typologies of Scepticism in the Philosophical Tradition of Kalam,”
Theoria (2020): 14-6.
48 Duran, “Nefsü’l-Emr Risaleleri,” 97.
49 Abdulbaki Gölpınarlı, 100 Soruda Tasavvuf (Istanbul: Gerçek Yayınevi, 1985), 43.
50 Turan, “Niksarizade,” 1826.
51 Ibid.
18
(erbâb-ı zarâfet) or as “men of elegance” (ashâb-ı letâfet). “Nefsü’l-emr yârânı”
assumes a similar role in Niksârîzâde’s version. In consideration of the meaning of
the compound, nefsü’l-emr potentially designates an elite-intellectual identity,
genuine and sincere in their acts, unlike the pretentious masses who get reviled in the
texts.
As the only manuscripts that use the term nefsü’l-emr in-text are
Niksârîzâde’s two copies, nefsü’l-emr need not have meant the same for the other
authors. It seems plausible that nefsü’l-emr, in the sense of “fact,” or “crux of
matter,” might have alluded to two different things. It can either be “the real face” of
the pretentious groups ridiculed in the texts, or the “genuine and sincere” genteel
who are bothered by the undeserving masses infiltrating the upper echelons of
society.
1.4 Thesis structure
This thesis is comprised of five chapters, including the Introduction and Conclusion.
In Chapter 2, I compare the different versions of the nano-genre, emphasizing
different branches that stand out as unique. Then I provide a content analysis of
specific sections of the texts, including the sections on the reasons for writing and the
malediction, that are common to most nefsü’l-emrs. In the final section of this
chapter, I discuss Niksârîzâde’s unique style and content that greatly diverge from
the other versions.
Chapter 3 begins with a discussion on the impact of the seventeenth and
eighteenth-century religious trends on the nefsü’l-emr approach to religious matters
19
and groups. I continue with a discussion of the would-be Sufis who are insulted in
almost every manuscript. I continue with the Kızılbaş, an insult category that is too
useful and generic, and not without political-historical connotations. Lastly, in
Chapter 3, I compare nefsü’l-emr’s call for orthopraxy with Kadızadeli
fundamentalism, trying to emphasize how and where they converge and differ.
In Chapter 4, I focus on urban representation. First, I provide a discussion on
the concepts of representation and object-world, as coined for European history, and
will question their usefulness for the nefsü’l-emrnâmes. Second, I discuss the
dichotomy of public and private, as challenged by recent Ottoman historiography.
Then, I analyze the city as represented in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes, beginning at the
street level and gradually arriving at the elite household.
Lastly, in Chapter 5, I question the possible meaning(s) of nefsü’l-emr as an
identity category and offer a possible translation of the title of the genre, nefsü’lemrnâme
in English.
20
CHAPTER 2
COMPARISON OF SOURCES AND TEXTUAL STRUCTURE
As stated in the introduction, I have identified four different authorial versions of
nefsü’l-emrnâme based on the authorial attributions in the titles of the works. Certain
repeated motifs, canonized structural elements, and almost identical passages span
across each manuscript, carving out a small cluster for these works within Ottoman
invective literature, gathering them in a “nano-genre” of their own.52
Yet, there are significant differences and divergences between the works that
mostly stem from authorial subjectivity, distinct social registers of the manuscripts,
and the intended readership. Every author applied different literary tactics to engage
the reader, using different similes in their jokes and anecdotes, deriding different
groups of people for their varying ill-actions, and expecting different effects on their
readers as an outcome.
The sources studied in this research make up a small family of documents
whose members have lived lives of their own. Here, I find it apposite to use familial
terms to describe the networks and distances between the versions and copies of such
a small-scale genre. The authorial versions of nefsü’l-emrnâmes are like cousins who
have preserved the family resemblance, whereas the copies of a version attributed to
the same author can be described as siblings, or even as even twins, with minor
marks of history left by the different courses taken in their lifetime.
52 Kafadar, “Leisure and Pleasure,” 264.
21
One must understand the different directions members of such a small genre
took in order to make an inclusive study that is not reductionist and which does not
overlook important details that can give a glimpse of authorial mentalities. This
section of my study will try to establish meaningful rubrics to think along,
emphasizing both similarities and variations in search of origin.
Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi’s unique style and focus necessitate a structural
division between the versions. Keeping Niksârîzâde’s two nefsü’l-emr copies aside, I
bring together all the other nefsü’l-emrnâmes studied for this thesis under one roof.
The manuscripts attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi, Hacı Ahmed, and the anonymous
Nuruosmaniye manuscript come together in the same branch as they share structural
elements and textual sections that are highly different from Niksârîzâde’s copies
which will be discussed further below.
I choose to call this “main branch” of the genre the Lâmiî Corpus. Because
Lâmiî Çelebi’s is the most recurrent name in nefsü’l-emr titles, even though he
cannot be a nefsü’l-emr author. This means that the designation I choose has nothing
to do with the authorship, but is an allusion to a repeated motif in the nefsü’l-emr
titles.
2.1 Defining the Lâmiî Corpus and structure
The Lâmiî Corpus comprises all the stylistic and content-wise features that define the
nefsü’l-emrnâme genre. A reader would recognize, for instance, that the untitled
Nuruosmaniye manuscript is a nefsü’l-emr example even without it being titled as
such because it employs all the basic nefsü’l-emrnâme templates found in the Lâmiî
22
Corpus. Each nefsü’l-emr within the Lâmiî Corpus is reminiscent of each other with
common stylistic elements and passages abounding. However, what defines the
borders of the Lâmiî Corpus within the larger genre is not the conventions followed
by the authors and copyists with the corpus but Niksârîzâde and his discrete rendition
of the genre.
Following his agenda, Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi experimented with a
different form and a different set of target groups that earns him his solitary branch53
within this nano-genre. To analyze what he did differently within the genre, one must
first analyze the main branch that I call the Lâmiî Corpus.
The manuscripts that form the Lâmiî Corpus have the same chapters that
introduce, develop and conclude the texts. These respectively include the reasons for
writing, distinctive malediction, list of ill-doers to receive the malediction, and
conclusion.
2.1.1 Praise to God
Only in the three copies attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi, a praise to God precedes the
reasons for writing. These copies are the manuscripts titled as Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmiî
Çelebi Rahmetullahi ‘Aleyhi found in the Mecmû’a-i Fevâid-i Eş’âr ü Ed’iye
compilation of the National Library of Turkey (Milli Kütüphane), Nefsü’l-Emr-i
Lâmiî Çelebi found in the Mihrişah Sultan collection of the Süleymaniye Manuscript
Library, and Risâle-i Nefsü'l-Emr-i Lâmiî found in the Sadrazam Ali Paşa collection
of the Istanbul University Rare Books Library (İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler
53 It is so individual that one can call this a twig, rather than a branch.
23
Kütüphanesi). The initial section of these three nefsü’l-emrnâmes is the praise to
God. The authors express their gratefulness to the almighty and ever-present God, as
was the convention in the Islamic literary traditions. However, the symbolisms
applied in the three copies to praise God are formulated in such a way that they are
directly reminiscent of the Ottoman Sultan: “Glory and thanks to the matchless
Emperor (Pâdişâh) and the Shah of shahs (şehinşâh), next to whose exalted court the
rebellious bullies appear lower and viler than dogs.”54 The intention was to crossreference
the Sultan himself, exalting his titles and the locus of his power (palace) to
the divine position. While this act of creating ambiguity on divine praise could have
been read as sinful polytheism (şirk), an early modern reader would know that
thankfulness (şükr) would only be to God, no matter which symbolisms were
applied. However, one sees that the double meaning conveyed in the formulation
serves other purposes that are better aligned with the intentions of the text.
Diffused within the formulation of the praise are the statements about the
rebellious and immoral bullies (gerdânkeş olan cebâbire), claiming that they are
lower than dogs. Through the double praise, the author denigrates rebelliousness
against the realms of both God and the Sultan. These two categories intersect, and
contumacy against God becomes contumacy against the Sultan himself, and vice
versa. The preface in the form of praise adds a serious coating that alters the rest of
the texts, elevating them to a politically loaded level in a more explicit manner. The
54 “Şükr ü sipâs ol pâdişâh-ı bî-hemtâya ve şehinşâh-ı zu’l-’izz ve’l-kibriyayâdır ki dergâh-ı ‘âli ve
penâh-ı müte’aliden gerdankeş olan cebâbire kilâbdan hor ve hakîrdir.” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr
(İÜ), 1; “Sezâvâr-ı hamd ü sena ol pâdişâh-ı bî-hemtâya ve şehinşâh-ı zû’l-’izz ve’l-kibriyâyadır ki
dergâh-ı ‘âli ve bârgâh-ı müte’âlîsinden gerdânkeş ve cabbârlar kelbden hor ve hakîr yürür.” Lâmiî
Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MS), 1; “Sezâvâr-ı hamd ü sena ol pâdişâhân-ı bî-hemtâya ve şâhinşâh-ı zû’l-’izz
ve’l-kibriyâyadır ki dergâh-ı ‘âli ve bârgâh-ı müte’âlîsinden gerdankeş ve cabbarlar kelbden hor ve
hakîrlerdir.” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MF), 1.
24
praise serves as a cautionary overture, which turns these acts into disobedience
against God and the state. The immoral acts to be derided in the following lines,
therefore, should be taken seriously by the readers.
The fact that only three nefsü’l-emrnâme copies attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi
have the initial praise raises the question of possible omission or interpolation. The
other nefsü’l-emrnâme versions, namely Hacı Ahmed, Niksârîzâde, and the
Nuruosmaniye manuscripts, do not apply the praise section to their texts. They
instead begin right away with the reasons for writing. Out of seven Lâmiî Çelebi
copies transcribed and analyzed for this research, only three aforementioned
manuscripts exhibit the praise.
2.1.2 Hadiths
The praise, if there is any, is always followed by one or two popular hadiths about
greed and modesty. The first hadith, cited in all nefsü’l-emrnâmes except one is, “the
world is a carrion and those who want it are dogs” (ed-dünyâ cîfetün ve tâlibuha
kilâbun), a hadith also cited in Keşfü’l-Hafâ, Muhammed el-Aclûnî’s (b. 1676 - d.
1749) work about popular sayings widely taken to be hadiths.55 This saying does not
come up in any of the canonical literature on hadith, including the six hadith
compilations known as the Kutub al-Sittah (Kütüb-i Sitte).
Not only the message of condemning worldly greed but also its scornful tone
must have been found apposite by the authors, as it opens the way for the use of
strong language in the rest of the text. Everything in the repertoire is easily justified
55 Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 19.
25
and buttressed by the prophetic saying and the authors project the same scornful tone
throughout their nefsü’l-emrs, with similes that resemble the one in the hadith. Dog
(kelb or it) is a recurring insult in the works, as is the donkey (har, eşek, or merkeb).
Both of these animals were popular choices to denigrate and satirize others in
Ottoman literature.56
The second saying, only cited in the anonymous Nuruosmaniye manuscript is,
“el-îmânu mine’l-hayâ” or “faith issues from modesty” in English, presented in the
following passage: “As guidance to the right path, it has been said about the seekers
of this world, ‘the world is a carrion and those who want it are dogs,’ and about the
impudent; “faith issues from modesty.”57 The original saying is “el-hayâu mine’lîmân”,
or “modesty issues from faith,” which is also a popular saying attributed to
the Prophet Muhammad. This hadith is reported in numerous canonical hadith
compilations including Sahih Muslim, Sahih al-Bukhari, Sunan Ibn Majah, Sunan
Abu Dawood, Jami at-Tirmidhi, Bulugh al-Maram, Sunan an-Nasa’i, Al-Adab al-
Mufrad, and more. It comes out in multiple reports. In Sunan Ibn Majah, compiled
by Ibn Majah of Qazwin (b. 824 -d. 887), the aforementioned hadith is reported via
Abu Bakr’s narration as “Modesty is part of faith, and faith is in Heaven. Foul
language is part of coarseness and coarseness is in Hell.”58 In Sahih Muslim it is
reported as such: “Salim reported on the authority of his father that the Prophet (may
peace and blessings be upon him) heard a man censuring his brother regarding
modesty. Upon this, the Prophet remarked: Modesty is part of faith.”59 The
56 Donkey is an especially popular symbol in Ottoman humor, for which Şeyhî’s (b. 1370s – d. 1429?)
satirical fable in verse, Harnâme is an important example.
57 “Delâlet-i tarîk-i hidâyet içün dünyâ tâlibleri (hakkında) ‘ed-dünyâ cîfetün ve tâlibühâ kilâbun’ ve
bî-edebler hakkında ‘el-îmânu mine’l-hayâ’ (buyurulmıştır).” Hayati Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 19.
58 Yazīd Ibn Mājah, Sunan Ibn Majah, Book 37, Hadith 85.
59 Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj, Sahih Muslim, Book 1, Hadith 61.
26
possibility that the author of the Nuruosmaniye manuscript confounded the place of
the components of the hadith is less likely, as the priority of modesty, or bashfulness,
aligns better with the message conveyed in the work which advocates for modest
behaviors, bashing shamelessness.
2.1.3 The reasons for writing in nefsü’l-emrnâmes
After reciting the hadiths, the authors proceed to the reasons for writing (sebeb-i
te’lif), to clarify the motivation behind their writing of such a work. The authors
explain that they were moved to write this work after thinking of all the immoral
deeds and the people who practiced them in the world. Seeing how bothered and
disturbed every true gentleman was by these ugly acts, they bluntly started cursing
(şetm-i azîm) those who bothered them:
Now, the reason for writing this strange treatise (risâle-i ‘acîbe) and odd
essay (makâle-i garîbe) is that; looking at the debauchery of the people,
hearing their meaningless words, thinking of the violent anguish (they cause),
evaluating all by their faults, and seeing as they torment the men of grace, I
started to curse at them recklessly with severe and inappropriate words.60
The formulation of reasons for writing is almost identical in every nefsü’l-emrnâme
within the Lâmiî Corpus. The authors exclaim that it was sudden bewilderment that
overtook their hearts, which made them write the gruesome maledictions and
reckless curses for the groups of people who incited anguish (elem).
In the section on the reasons for writing, one also finds the first instance in
which the authors more deliberately give a glimpse of the identity to counter all the
alleged “riff-raff” and “immoral scoundrels” that are ridiculed in the texts. It is the
60 See Appendix D, 1.
27
“men of grace” and “genteel people” (erbâb-ı zerâfet and ashâb-ı letâfet) who were
perturbed by the immoral acts prevailing in society. Without doubt, the authors felt
they were speaking for a self-nominated coterie of the select few, who shared a
disdain for the ill-acting mob. The authors never delineate the acts that are to be done
and the moral codes that are to be followed, thus one can claim that they wrote a
reverse etiquette book that did not tell what to do but what not to do in a humorous
style. Throughout the nefsü’l-emrnâmes one rarely gets direct references as to the
people who were bothered by these immoral acts, and with whom the authors
identified. The matter of identity becomes much more pronounced in Niksârîzâde
Mehmed Efendi’s version, who is focused mostly on the elite and intellectual milieux
of early modern Istanbul.
The section on the reasons for writing in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes is quite loaded
and the most intriguing part of the section, which requires a discussion of its own, is
the characterization of the texts as garîb61 and ‘acîb by their authors. These two
adjectives need further analysis as they have multiple significations for the
interpretation of the texts.
The two words of Arabic origin had their distinct history in Ottoman
literature and the Turkish language. While the words would approximately mean
strange or odd in English, Ali Emre Özyıldırım’s article on the use of garîb and ‘acîb
in Ottoman literature and especially in poetry and biographies of poets (tezkire-i
şu’arâ) offers a new perspective to the words. According to Özyıldırım, the two
words, which were used conjunctively to describe poets and their poems in
61 Hayati Develi took these two denominators and made the title for his transciption of the
Nuruosmaniye manuscript. I find the title Risâle-i Garîbe quite apposite for the genre.
28
anthologies, could have both negative and positive connotations depending on the
context.62 When used in the negative sense, the words would have a closer meaning
to their meaning in Modern Turkish; strange, odd, or freakish. Derivatives of the
Arabic root ḡ-r-b and ‘-j-b in Turkish, like garabet and ucube, reflect this
negativity.63
However, as Özyıldırım suggests and as the Arabic etymology indicates, the
words also have a more positive meaning closer to wondrous, rare, unusual, and
original.64 It is suggested in Özyıldırım’s article that biographers like ‘Âşık Çelebi
used the words to designate a poet’s use of novel forms and similes as original and
creative rather than off-putting and strange. Therefore, the words convey a positive
message of literary originality and creativity in certain contexts.
It would rather be strange for the authors to call their works strange and odd
in a negative manner. The second meaning analyzed by Özyıldırım within the
Ottoman literary context is more appropriate for the text and it better aligns with the
authors’ conscious perspective about their works as possible novelties in Ottoman
literature. As discussed in Chapter One and at the beginning of this chapter, the genre
of nefsü’l-emrnâme was seemingly novel and very Rumi, with no direct counterparts
having been detected in other literary traditions of the Islamicate world. The authors
might have used the reasons for writing as an opportunity to emphasize the
originality of their work.
62 Ali Emre Özyıldırım, “Garîb Ma’nâlar, Acîb Hayâller: Latîfî ve Âşık Çelebi Tezkirelerinden
Hareketle Belagat Terimi Olarak ‘Garîb’ Sıfatı,” Âşık Çelebi ve Şairler Tezkiresi Üzerine Yazılar, ed.
Hatice Aynur and Aslı Niyazioğlu, (Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2011), 150-2.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid, 155.
29
However, I suggest that these two words embody different meanings, also
analyzed shortly by Özyıldırım, that better suit their exact position in the nefsü’lemrnâmes
and the authorial agenda. It is suggested in Özyıldırım’s text that garîb
and ‘acîb represent sihr (spell or magic) in poetry, implying an utmost level of
originality reached by poets. In the Islamic tradition, the act of creation is exclusive
to Allah. And creativity in literature partakes in that divine creativity.65 When an
author or a poet applies a new poetic formula it can be regarded as magical, therefore
originality implies magic. Özyıldırım briefly analyzes this idea of magical originality
in terms of literary commentary and critique.
However, I suggest that, here in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes, the meaning of magic
in garîb and ‘acîb is valid purely through its use as “strange” without necessarily
pertaining to originality. The authors might have employed these words to imply
inexplicability, mystery, and ominous disposition, which would warn the readers of
the following malediction (beddu’â) to befall the ill-doers.
2.1.4 The malediction
The malediction or curse does not comprise the main body of the nefsü’l-emrnâmes
within the Lâmiî Corpus, however, it is the densest section, where the authors sought
the greatest literary and humorous effect. After the reasons for writing comes the
section of malediction full of grotesque images of cruel punishment. The content of
the malediction remains the same in every nefsü’l-emr, while the length and details
of the mishaps wished for the ill-doers vary.
65 Ibid, 161-2.
30
While the shortest of maledictions is found in the three-folio long Lâmiî
Çelebi manuscript of the Adnan Ötüken Public Library collection, titled as Hazâ
Nefsü’l-Emr-i Lâmi’î Çelebi re mim, it is once again the Nuruosmaniye manuscript
that engages with the most material for its malediction. As the two manuscripts
represent the two poles of the genre and the Lâmiî Corpus, in terms of length and
detail, I will use both maledictions to exemplify the range in which the authors
played with the humorous curse. The shortest malediction goes like this:
Firstly, it is my wish from the munificent God and eternal Sovereign that
ignoramuses, who violate the norms and who will not be brought in line
through instruction, fall into the latrine hole (when they go to relieve
themselves); that they suffer from extreme cold and get covered in mud in the
winter days; that they get carbuncles in their groins; that they find forty
snakes in their beds; that they get kicked by mules; that they drop their
turbans while riding a horse in the market; that they pass gas a thousand times
at a grand gathering; that they suffer from a thousand different humiliations,
getting ashamed in front of the whole world.66
The Adnan Ötüken manuscript is useful as it contains every basic component of the
malediction that the other nefsü’l-emr manuscripts preserved, diversified, and
expanded on. The most colorful one is the malediction of the Nuruosmaniye
manuscript:
My wish from the everlasting Sovereign is that ignoramuses, who violate the
norms, who know neither measure nor decorum, who are not brought in line
through instruction and training, slip and fall into the latrine hole headfirst;
that they suffer from constipation on hot days and from diarrhea on cold days;
that they contract malaria in the summer and get twinges in the winter; that a
rabid dog attacks them on a deadend street, biting and tearing their robes and
getting its teeth deep into their calves; that they are kicked by donkeys,
camels and oxen on a narrow street; that they drop their turban down from
their head as their horse slips during rain in a crowded market; that their arms
touch tar, ruining their precious clothes; that they have bloody carbuncles as
large as goose eggs in their groins and around their testicles; that they are
infested with snakes, centipedes, scorpions, and lice along with bedbugs and
mosquitoes while sleeping under the eaves of a mosque; that they become
like pigs, getting scabs under their beards when young; and that they turn into
66 See Appendix D, 2.
31
passive sodomites when old; and that they fart uncontrollably a thousand
times at a gathering and are humiliated in front of everyone, and do not dare
to return to that gathering ever again.67
While the Adnan Ötüken copy is the plainest example, the Nuruosmaniye manuscript
is the most detailed, and one can claim that every other malediction falls somewhere
between the passages found in these two manuscripts. The repertoire is always the
same, with the amount of detail and pleasure taken in humorous cruelty varying. The
malediction (beddu’â) that follows the delineation of the texts as strange and
ominous, must have made the readers “think while laughing” at the humorous
imagery, as these troubles would and could be called upon them if they did not
behave.
The malediction applies corporeal and scatological humor, turning the body
into the target of humiliation and pain, with insects and feral animals assaulting it, or
diseases taking over and carbuncles popping out. Corporeal pain is treated as a
means to humorous fun, raising the question of the relationship between cruelty and
humor. The imagination of inflicting pain turns into pleasure that manifests itself as
humor in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes.
The loss of corporeal control is another matter to consider. The body is a
domain to be kept in control. Humiliation is caused by the lack or even a momentary
lapse in one’s control over their body. This gets exemplified by slipping down into
the latrines or by uncontrollable flatulence. Continence is treated as the utmost
distinction of man from beast.
As the human’s most intimate possession, the body either through external
infliction of pain or through loss of internal control is situated at the nucleus of
67 See Appendix D, 3.
32
humor in nefsü’l-emrnâmes. The matter of privacy and body will be dealt with in
Chapter 4, analyzed along with gender and manners.
2.1.5 The list of ill-doers
The malediction is followed by a long list of ill-doers who are to receive gruesome
misfortunes. The list comprises the main body of the nefsü’l-emrnâmes and is the
only section that is common to all versions including Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi’s.
Therefore, it can be argued that the list of ill-doers is the most essential and defining
element of the nefsü’l-emr genre.
The authors proceed by indicating whom the malediction should befall with a
transitional sentence, which differs from version to version.68 Niksârîzâde’s version
lacks the malediction, therefore he has a distinctive way to introduce the ill-doers and
it will be discussed further below. Thereafter, the reader is presented with a long list
of groups of different ethnic, religious, professional, and sexual identifications. The
identities, as had been discussed, are collective, depersonalized, and anonymous. One
cannot find even one insult directed towards a known persona with a name, and no
insult is formulated in a way to allude to a certain individual in the society. Society
and the social elements that comprise it, with which the authors were in conflict, are
the main objects of derision in the case of nefsü’l-emrnâmes. It can therefore be
suggested that the nefsü’l-emrnâmes were critiques of the early modern Ottoman
society in general. An analysis of the criticized groups will yield interesting insights
68 “Zikr olunan bed-du’âlar bu zikr olunacak gürûh üzerine vâki’ ola.” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 1;
“Mezbûrlar zikr olunur:” Hayati Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 20; “İmdi da’vât-ı sâlifât ü muhâlifât kimlere
‘âid ü râci’ ola?” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 1.
33
as to what some members of the intellectual milieux felt towards social dynamics,
transformations, and trends like upward mobility.
One cannot rule out that personal issues also impacted the texts on some
level. However, it is impossible to carry out an investigation into this dimension in
the absence of textual clues. Surely, every author drew from their personal
experience and individual agenda, which gave the copies their varying colors and
volume.
While certain social groups are ridiculed as general categories with little to no
additional detail to qualify the derision, like simply “Albanians (Arnavudlar),”69
some other categories are qualified with peculiar details up to the brim, like “the
donkeys who, though incapable of vulgar words in Turkish and untalented at humor,
act like womanizers making ugly jokes to women in the streets saying ‘Oh Lord,
protect my morlu!70 My lady, where do you pee from?”71 As one can see, the authors
delineated their target groups in varying degrees of detail and color. One might be
intrigued to think that the specificity in various passages, like the one mentioned
above, indicates direct personal experience, meaning the authors narrated what they
saw, heard, and deemed worthy of satire. The authors might have drawn these
colorful details in the description from their personal experiences and social
encounters. However, I suggest that the specific details given in certain passages do
69 “…Arnavudlar…” Hayati Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 41.
70 I have scanned various slang dictionaries for morlu ( مورلو ) and could not find any direct mention of
the word. However, morlu, as purple one in Turkish, must have meant penis in this passage.
71 “…ve kaba türkî kelâma kâdir ve zerâfetde mâhir değil iken yollarda musâdif olduğı havânîne zendostlık
‘arz idüb ‘rabbim sen sakla benim morlumı, kadınım nereden işersin’ deyü pohlu pohlu
zerâfetler iden eşeklere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 7; “…ve kaba türkî kelâma kâdir ve
zerâfetde mâhir değil iken yollarda musâdif olduğı havânîne zen-dostlık ‘arz idüb ‘rabbim sen sakla
benim morlumı, kadınım nereden işersin?’ deyü pohlu pohlu zerâfetler iden eşeklere…” Lâmiî Çelebi,
Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 3; “…ve kaba türk kelâma kâdir ve zerâfete mâhir değil yollarda musâdif olduğı
havânîne zen-dostlık ‘arz idüb “rabbim sen sakla benim morlımı? , kadınım nereden işersin?’ deyü
pohlu pohlu zerâfetler iden …” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 5.
34
not represent direct encounters of the authors. While the social universe, within
which the authors were found, was the source that fed the long list, the detailed
examples from the texts do not link to lived moments of the authors, but rather link
to stereotypes known to the authors, that would best set the humorous scene for the
reader. The abundance of rich details certainly helped create a scene that the readers
could better imagine, facilitating the association with the humor conveyed in the
texts.
In the example of the womanizers who made ugly jokes to women, it is not
necessarily reporting of a moment witnessed by the author(s), but of a possible scene
in the streets of early modern Istanbul, or other urban centers. Whether or not it was
a lived moment transferred into the written works does not matter for the reader at
the moment. This study is not concerned with the reality of the described moments,
just as the nefsü’l-emrs themselves were not concerned. The authors permuted their
reality that would better represent Constantinopolitan society and things about it that
both bothered and amused them at the same time. Here, reality is suspended, just like
the implausible malediction which must have amused the authors and the readers
alike through exaggeration. The authors of humor are not reporters a historian
interested in the day-to-day realities would consult, as the raconteur’s report is
always distorted via many emotions and authorial considerations at work. It might be
no less and no more than any other reporter of the past, however, humorists must
have been especially interested in distorting the realities as a shortcut to their reality,
perceived and deemed worthy of report.
35
Therefore, humor necessitates literary creativity, as day-to-day encounters are
not always funny enough to evoke humorous appreciation in readers. The author
must have diligently worked to turn the target material into a joke.
To understand the social register in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes within the Lâmiî
Corpus, distinct from Niksârîzâde’s register, I find it necessary to discuss Sheridan’s
distinction between vertical and horizontal invective. According to this scheme,
invective works are divided into two categories. In the vertical invective, an author
derides or lampoons a person, or in the case of nefsü’l-emrnâmes, a group of people
deemed above or below the author. In the horizontal invective, the author derides or
lampoons a person or, again, a group of people that can be considered equal to the
author.72 However, Sheridan asserts that for the author of invective, the targets are
never equal to or above the author himself.73 Therefore, this scheme does not pertain
to the author’s views but the social reality.
Drawing from this distinction, the nefsü’l-emrnâmes within the Lâmiî
Corpus, can be claimed to be vertical invectives. While we do not know the identities
of the authors, the presentation of the elite identity of the “men of grace” (erbâb-ı
zarâfet) or “men of elegance” (ashâb-ı letâfet) as a counter identity with which the
authors could identify, and the multiplicity of descriptions of elite gatherings in each
work suggest that the authors were members of the elite and identified as gentlemen.
The groups ridiculed within their works are deemed to be commoners who are lower
than the authors, and most nefsü’l-emr derision in the works pertains to the city folk
who overturn the social hierarchies.
72 Sheridan, PhD Thesis, 32-8.
73 Ibid.
36
In the later Lâmiî Çelebi copies, the list is concluded in a way to link to the
conclusion. The authors “finally” insult “the miserable who say ‘he (the author)
mocked everyone but me!’74 and those who do not discontinue their immoral acts,
despite having read the nefsü’l-emr and learned their faults.”75 These last entries
imply a will on the author’s side to have a behavioral impact on the readers,
expecting them to comprehend the moral of the invective. The authorial expectation
is different in every nefsü’l-emr, and this good-willed expectation of impact at the
end will not recur in the same way in other nefsü’l-emrnâmes as will be discussed in
the next subchapter.
The colorful content of the lists will be analyzed in detail in the following
chapters focusing on different areas, including religion, urbanity, and gender.
2.1.6 The conclusion in nefsü’l-emrnâmes within the Lâmiî Corpus
The authors within the Lâmiî Corpus concluded their works with beneficent wishes,
hoping those immoral people, after reading their nefsü’l-emrnâmes, would be cut off
from their ill-actions. Once again, Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi employed another
tactic to conclude his version, and his conclusion is to be analyzed in the following
subchapter.
In the nefsü’l-emrs that are attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi, one finds different
endings among copies. As stated above, the last folios of the Mecmû’a-i Fevâid copy
74 Alternatively the miserable say “He only mocked me!” in the later Istanbul University manuscript.
75 “Muhassılü’l-kelâm ‘nefsü’l-emrde ancak bana dokunmamış’ diyen süfehâya ve nefsü’l-emr içinde
‘aybını bilübde ol ‘aybdan kesilmeyen sığırlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 5; “Muhassılü’lkelâm
“nefsü’l-emrde ancak bana dokunmuş” diyen süfehâya ve nefsü’l-emr içinde ‘aybını bilübde ol
‘aybdan kesilmeyen sığırlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 7.
37
are missing, therefore, one cannot know how that peculiar copy was concluded by its
copyist.
The shortest and most immediate conclusion can be found in the Lâmiî Çelebi
copies of Mihrişah Sultan, Muallim Cevdet, and Adnan Ötüken Public Library
collections. These three copies simply end the list with a final remark that reiterates
the malediction; “May the calamities counted at the beginning of this treatise befall
the foulest who do not intend to abstain from all the acts written in this nefsü’l-emr,
amen. Treatise complete.”76 The author and/or the copyists simply resonated the
malediction and the reasons for writing section in their conclusion, ending with an
“amen” as after an act of religious worship or prayer.
Hacı Ahmed’s version and the three Lâmiî Çelebi copies of Istanbul
University, Hacı Mahmud Efendi, and Yazma Bağışlar collections present rather
peculiar endings. In Makâle, Hacı Ahmed claims “if he could find them, he would
feed the aforementioned groups to eighty wild dogs, hang a bag of sulfur on their
necks, and torture them after the curse cited in the beginning.”77 This ending that
visualizes a torturous violent scene is present also in the three Lâmiî Çelebi copies
listed above, two of which, however, end with a twist. In the Istanbul University
copy, dating from 1882, the copyist similarly reports that he “would feed those who
did not pay regard to his words of censure and who continued to indulge in shameful
76 “Bu nefsü’l-emrde yazılan fi’l-cümle perhîz kasd itmeyen ebterde her kim olursa bu risâle
ibtidâsında zikr olan vartalara uğraya, âmîn. Temme er-risâle.” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MC), 3;
“Bu nefsü’l-emrde yazılan fi’l-cümle perhîz olmak üzre kasd itmeyen ebterlerden her kim olursa bu
risâle dîbâcesinde olan vartalara ve ‘akîdlere… (missing)” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MS), 6; “Bu
nefsü’l-emrde yazılan fi’l-cümle perhîz kasd itmeyen ebterden her kim olursabu risâle dibâcesinde
olan vartalara uğraya, âmîn.” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (AÖ), 4.
77 “…ve bi’l-cümle tavâîf-i mezbûreyi seksen dâne kelb-i ‘akûra daladırdım ve boğazlarına kükürt
torbasın asardım, ibtidâ-i bâlâda mezkûr şetmdensoğra işkence iderdim.” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 5.
38
acts to ninety wild dogs.”78 While the number of dogs increases by ten, the bag of
sulfur found in the Makâle just gets erased.
The level of bodily cruelty at the end might have posed a problem for other
authors and copyists of nefsü’l-emr, as it either did not get reproduced or was
reformulated in a new way that changed the context. For instance, in the Hacı
Mahmud Efendi and Yazma Bağışlar copies, the copyists stretch the list in a way to
subsume the torture in the conclusion, applying the malediction also to “the fools
who say they would feed those who did not pay regard to their words of censure and
who continued to indulge in shameful acts, to ninety wild dogs.”79 As one can see,
the copyists conflict with the ending they copied and did not perhaps find it
appropriate to conclude in such a manner that did not make peace with the readers at
the end, turning the statement of torture into just one of those immoral acts criticized
in the texts. The conclusion is also the section in which the authors would make
peace with readers, asking “the friends of purity and brothers of fidelity, who made
an effort, to not forget benedictions for him/them.”80
In the malediction, which plays with even more cruel yet facetious imagery,
the authors appeal to God to punish the offenders accordingly. The authors did not
claim they would carry out those misfortunes, thus, the first-person subject is not
present in the malediction. However, when the author claimed “he” would do the
78 “Bi’l-cümle bunları gözetmeyüb ve bu ‘uyûbla muttasıf olanı bulsam toksan dâne kelb-i ‘akûra
daladırdım.” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-Emr (İÜ), 7.
79 “bi’l-cümle ‘bunları gözetmeyüb ve bu ‘uyûb ile muttasıf olanı bulsam toksan dâne kelb-i ‘akûra
daladırdım’ diyen ‘aklsızlara.” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 5; “bi’l-cümle ‘bunları gözetmeyüb
ve bu ‘uyûb ile muttasıf olanı bulsam toksan dâne kelb-i ‘akûra daladırdım’ diyen ‘aklsızlara.” Lâmiî
Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 11.
80 “’Amel iden yârân-ı safâ ve ihvân-ı pür-vefâ bizi hayr du’âdan ferâmuş itmeyeler.” Lâmiî Çelebi,
Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 5; “’Amel iden yârân-ı safâ ve ihvân-ı pür-vefâ bizi hayr du’âdan ferâmuş
itmeyeler.” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 7; “’Amel iden yârân-ı safâ ve ihvân-ı pür-vefâ bizi hayr
du’âdan ferâmuş itmeyeler.” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 11.
39
torture if he could find them, it became a problematic statement for other authors and
copyists to reproduce. Direct subjectivity in such outright insulting literary forms
might perhaps be something to be avoided, taking up God’s right and duty to punish.
After the torturous scene presented in two varying ways in different copies,
the authors wrote about necessities of continence and abstinence from such acts,
calling for a behavioral diet, writing:
In conclusion, it is of utmost necessity and significance, that people, on
account of their dignity as human beings, abstain from these aforementioned
faults as much as they can. This pleasant text was written so as to make plain
the code of conduct for the creation and its fine points as much as possible.81
As one can see, the concluding remarks resonate with the discourse of etiquette. The
authors explain why they wrote this treatise. It is indeed a reverse book of etiquette,
one which does not count the codes of behavior among the members of a certain
milieu, but rather the uncouth, inappropriate ones that need to be avoided. However,
given that the emphasis on etiquette is strong, especially in these copies attributed to
Lâmiî Çelebi and Hacı Ahmed, it rather remains a matter of wonder why the peculiar
reverse form was chosen to replace the book of etiquette form. Nowhere in the texts
can one encounter a proposition of proper conduct or righteous behavior. One could
perhaps expect a contrast built by the authors, that emphasized the disparity between
the immoral riff-raff and the gentlemen. Contrarily, the nefsü’l-emrs, even though at
the end, they claimed they were aimed at the manifestation of proper conduct, did not
do that directly in any part. Therefore, the authorial agenda must have been further
beyond the discussion of conduct, and thus, more interested in humiliation and
derision, as has been discussed earlier.
81 See Appendix D, 4.
40
This study is not directly concerned with the etiquette genre in Ottoman
literature, however, it would be safe to assume that, in fact, all examples of etiquette
literature, be it reverse or humorous, is in one way or another, interested in
permeating a discourse of exclusion through propriety and inclusion. What is to be
included and validated builds the boundaries that will exclude certain others. Thus,
one can benefit from studying examples of etiquette literature from this perspective
of exclusion. Therefore, the nefsü’l-emrs, with their peculiar agenda, strong
language, and humorous employments cannot be invalid as etiquette books, or rather
manuals. They certainly can be counted as witty examples of the etiquette genre, that
roughly played with the myths of uncouth men and women, who most probably were
a topic of mockery at gatherings of the elite, acquainted with matters of etiquette.
The author of the untitled Nuruosmaniye manuscript is the one who engaged
with the most characteristic ending within the Lâmiî Corpus. In Risâle-i Garîbe, the
author does not cut the humor of the list with concluding remarks. The list continues
until the end, subsuming the conclusion within the insulting humor:
Those who do not repent of their sins and misdemeanors and become purified
(after reading this text); those who say “He mocked us all!” but do not heed
its (the text’s) truth, and those who compile, write, read, listen to all this (in
this text), but who do not live following (its underlying lessons); and those
who feel hurt and recant (after reading this), becoming indebted to me.
Completed in 1132.82
The list extends right until the end. In contrast to the other copies, the humor is
sustained also in the conclusion, where the author mocks the readers who get the
message as becoming indebted to him. The list form applied the malediction also to
those who felt affected by the nefsü’l-emr, understanding the moral behind the work.
82 See Appendix D, 5.
41
The conclusion in the Nuruosmaniye manuscript is as facetious as the rest of the text.
There is no mention of etiquette and the necessity of its manifestation. Neither did
the author intend to make peace by suggesting a way out through abstinence or
asking for benedictions. On the contrary, he incorporated readers into the joke of his
work. I suggest, through this almost offensive twist in humor, the Nuruosmaniye
manuscript is the nefsü’l-emr example that was the most interested in humor.
2.1.7 Differences between the manuscripts within the Lâmiî Corpus
As emphasized in the previous subsections, manuscripts attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi,
Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle, and the anonymous Nuruosmaniye manuscript have
commonalities in sections that form the genre, albeit with minor or major
differences.
The differences do not end in small variations in the sections. As discussed
earlier, the settings of the texts are different. While the Nuruosmaniye manuscript
makes sure the setting is Istanbul, the Lâmiî Çelebi manuscripts present a rather
more generic city. This turns the Nuruosmaniye manuscript into the most divergent
and unique text within the Lâmiî Corpus. Contrarily, Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle
converges with the Lâmiî Çelebi manuscripts, and especially with the Mecmû’a-i
Fevâid and Mihrişah Sultan copies.
In the Lâmiî Çelebi and Hacı Ahmed manuscripts, many passages are
common. Nevertheless, Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle and Mecmû’a-i Fevâid copy can be
claimed to have a stronger language than the rest of the Lâmiî Çelebi copies, when it
comes to derision. These two copies, for instance, are the only copies that deride “the
42
black-faced who fuck donkeys and calves,”83 or “the shameless who expose their
dicks through their pants.”84
An interesting difference found in the Lâmiî Çelebi copies and Hacı Ahmed’s
Makâle, is the treatment of animals. There are no such passages that insult people
who treat animals badly in other nefsü’l-emrnâmes. For instance, five Lâmiî Çelebi
manuscripts and Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle revile “those who whistle while animals
(especially a carthorse) drink water.”85 Similarly, three Lâmiî Çelebi manuscripts
mock “the cruel who sit and chat on the back of a horse.”86 Similar examples abound
in these texts, and one cannot find any such mention of the animals in the
Nuruosmaniye manuscript and Niksârîzâde’s version.
Aside from the issue of animal treatment, one can claim that the
Nuruosmaniye manuscript is an extended and detailed version of the Lâmiî Çelebi
manuscripts and Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle, as the Nuruosmaniye manuscript subsumes
many issues derided in those manuscripts.
83 “…eşek ve kısrak siken dînsiz yüzi karalara…” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 3; “…eşek ve dana
sikenlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 3.
84 “…çahşır içinde gönleğiyle edebden hâric sikin kald(ır)ub gösteren siki kuruyacaklara…” Hacı
Ahmed, Makâle, 3; “…ve çakşır içinde gömleğin edibde sikin düzen siki kurıyacaklara…” Lâmiî
Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 3.
85 “…ve katır eğerine pâlden takanlara, ve bargîr su içerken sıklık virenlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’lemr
(MS), 2; “…bârgir su içerken sıklık virenlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 2;
“…hayvanât su içerken sıklık viren sığırlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 2; “…, ve hayvanât
su içerken sıklık viren sığırlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 2; “…hayvanât su içerken
sıklık uran sığırlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 4; “…ve bârgîr su içerken ıslık virenlere…”
Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MC), 1; “…ve bârgîr su içerken sıklık viren humekâya…” Hacı Ahmed,
Makâle, 2.
86 “…ve bârgîr üzerinde oturub musâhebet iden bî-rahmlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 2;
“… ve bârgîr üzerinde oturub musâhebet iden bî-rahmlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 6;
“…ve bârgîr üzerinde oturub musâhebet iden bî-rahmlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 9.
43
2.2 Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi and his version
Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi is the maverick within the nano-genre of nefsü’lemrnâmes.
The two copies that were attributed to him are titled as Niksârîzâde
Efendi Merhûmun Nefsü’l-Emrnâme-i Latîfidir and Niksârîzâde Efendi Merhûmun
Nefsü’l-Emrenâme Deyü Yazdıkları Sûret-i Mes’eledir. The former can be found in
the Hafız Ahmed Paşa collection, while the latter is in the Hamidiye collection, both
of which are part of the Süleymaniye Manuscript Library. A third nefsü’l-emrnâme
that is attributed to Niksârîzâde belongs to the collections of the National Library of
Hungary. Since I was not able to examine this copy, it can offer new insights into the
genre.
Niksârîzâde had a unique take on the genre compared to the other nefsü’l-emr
authors. His distinct rendering is what makes it possible for the historian to call it a
genre in the first place, as perhaps one needs some variation and individuality within
to categorize a certain cluster of texts as a genre in itself. Niksârîzâde’s version opens
up the possibility for more, and when one considers the issue of anonymity,
alternative titles, and different styles, it becomes more likely that there are other
takes on the nefsü’l-emr genre, that might have played with different ideas as
Niksârîzâde did.
One such contender would be Bahâî-i Küfrî’s Takvîmü’l-Kavîm, also known
as Ahkâm-ı Külliye, written in the form of a calendar, which according to Mehmet
Fuat Köprülü, was influenced by the nefsü’l-emrnâmes of Lâmiî Çelebi and
Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi.87 If one is to consider Takvîmü’l-Kavîm within the
87 Mehmet Fuat Köprülü, XVII. Asır Saz Şairlerinden Kayıkçı Kul Mustafa ve Genç Osman Hikâyesi,
(İstanbul: Evkaf Matbaası, 1930), 7.
44
genre of nefsü’l-emrnâme, there appears a certain pattern in which the authors played
with the genre. Niksârîzâde, as reported by Nev’îzâde Atâ’i in his Hadâikü’l-Hakâik
ve fî Tekmileti’ş-Şakâik, worked as a professor (müderris), mufti, and qadi in various
parts of the Empire during the seventeenth century, hence he was highly familiar
with the written juridical forms.88 He applied, therefore, the petition form to his
version. On the other hand, Bahâî-i Küfrî, who worked as a chief astrologer
(müneccimbaşı) in the seventeenth century, prepared his social invective that is
highly reminiscent of nefsü’l-emrs in calendar form. This might suggest that
authorial rank and profession were central in determining both the form and content
of the nefsü’l-emrs or more general, social invectives. Küfrî’s work will not be dealt
with in this research, as it does not call itself a nefsü’l-emr and is totally in another
literary form. However, it can be proposed as a must-read for the historian interested
in nefsü’l-emrnâmes, as a text that got highly influenced by the genre.
2.2.1 Form and language in Niksârîzâde’s Nefsü’l-Emrnâme
Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi’s version, skipping the sections on reasons for writing,
and malediction, begins by demanding an answer from the Hanefi Imams (e’imme-i
Hanefî), saying “what would be the answer of the Hanefi Imams to this?”89 His
request then is followed by the basic nefsü’l-emr list of ill-doers. After declaring all
the immoral actions and their lowly performers consecutively, he spells out the
question, for which he had demanded an answer, in the conclusion:
88 Turan, “Niksarizade,” 1825.
89 “Bu mes’ele beyânında e’imme-i Hanefîden cevâb ne vechiledir ki:” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr
(HAP), 1; “Bu mes’ele beyânında e’imme-i Hanefîden cevâb ne vechiledir ki:” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’lemr
(H), 1.
45
Finally, what needs to be done according to the Islamic law about the
debauchee (rind),90 who says “I will divorce my wife with triple-divorce
(talâk-ı selâse)91 if the aforementioned bad behaviors and ill actions are
deemed suitable for the demeanors of nefsü’l-emr?”92
The form imitates that of a fatwa, which is a ruling issued by a qualified jurist on a
matter of Islamic jurisprudence often in response to a question posed by another
person. In the case of nefsü’l-emrnâme, humor is implied through the question that
depicts a man of cynical and sardonic composure, rind. However, Niksârîzâde did
not write a mock answer from the Hanefi Imams, to whom the request was directed.
According to Fikret Turan, Niksârîzâde applied the specific form of fatwa to
direct criticism towards the legal establishment, which allegedly served to legitimize
corrupt and unacceptable acts and behaviors of the bureaucrats via fabricated decrees
at the time.93 It is without question that Niksârîzâde used the petition form as a
means of mockery, however, nowhere in the text did he openly criticize legal
procedures or the petitionary institution. While what Turan suggested cannot be
denied, it is also not supported by the present criticisms in the text. Seeing as
Niksârîzâde did not hesitate to mock upper echelons and establishments, one finds no
reason why he would not include such actors, who, as Turan suggested, would use
decrees to legitimize their corrupt acts, in his long list of the ignorant and pretentious
90 A unique identity in Islamicate cultures, rind might have both positive and negative connotations.
When negative, it depicts a muslim, deviated from the path, living in debauchery. Rind in literature on
the other hand, would depict a man whose guise and actions would belie his affectionate
devotion/attachment to the divine, which would trascend orthodox conventions.
91 Talâk-ı selâse, which I roughly translated here as triple-divorce, is the way a muslim man would
divorce his wife. He would need to say “divorce” (boş ol) three times. There are still discussions on
the nature of talâk-ı selâse, as to how the divorce is carried out, whether a man who said without
meaning, as if facetiously, would still need to divorce or not. These discussions are not part of this
study. Nevertheless, talâk-ı selâse and its precarity in the muslim man’s mind have clearly been
mocked here by the author. There are several jokes present in every nefsü’l-emr about people saying
or doing things, when drunk or high, regretting it the next day, like selling something without meaning
it. Talâk-ı selâse might have aligned with these nefsü’l-emr moments when people made fools of
themselves.
92 See Appendix D, 6.
93 Turan, “Niksarizade,” 1826.
46
mob. I rather suggest that Niksârîzâde would have criticized the petitionary
institution more deliberately if it were in his agenda.
Another aspect that highly distinguishes Niksârîzâde’s version from the rest
of the nefsü’l-emrnâmes is the style of his language. For instance, right after his
initial mock-up demand from the Imams, Niksârîzâde takes three couplets in Persian
from the fourth chapter of Saadi’s (b. 1210 – d. 1291-2) Bustan: Concerning
Humility (Bâb-ı Çehârom der Tevâzu’) to begin with the first entry of his list of illdoers.
94 The selected section titled as the Story of the Madrasa Student (Hikâyet-i
Dânişmend) in the fourth chapter of Bustan tells the story of a dervish and a ghazi in
verse. At the court of a ghazi, a learned yet poorly clad dervish sits at the front row.
The ghazi, annoyed by his act, tells the dervish to either sit at the back or to leave the
court saying:
Not everyone is worthy of the chief seat,
honor is proportionate to rank and rank to merit.
Be not so bold as to occupy the seat of the great,
if you are humble, pose not as a lion.95
The dervish, who stands up and takes a seat at the back gains the respect of the
guests by his sagacious responses to the discussions at the gathering. The ghazi,
regretting how he underestimated the true worth of the dervish, offers him his turban.
The dervish turns down the offer saying:
A man is not better than his fellows by reason of his wealth,
for a donkey, though covered with a satin cloth, is still a donkey.96
نه هر کس سزاوار باشد به صدر“ 94
کرامت به جاه است و منزل به قدر ” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (HAP), نه هر کس سزاوار باشد به صدر“ ; 1
کرامت به جاه است و منزل به قد ” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (H), 1.
95 Sheikh Mosleh al-Din Saadi Shirazi, The Bostan of Saadi, 30. Accessed April 20, 2021.
https://www.iranchamber.com/literature/saadi/books/bostan_saadi.pdf
96 Saadi, The Bostan, 31.
47
These passages in verse, that dealt with the concepts of humility and pride, are cited
consecutively in the nefsü’l-emrnâme, without referring to the backstory and context
behind them. Thus, Saadi’s narrative is not present in the nefsü’l-emrnâme. However,
what is interesting is that Niksârîzâde adds his line in between the lines of response
by the dervish, turning it into the following:
A man is not better than his fellows by reason of his wealth.
No ignoramus is superior to another person,
for a donkey, though covered with a satin cloth, is still a donkey.97
The line about ignorance is not present in the original Bustan and might be an
addition by Niksârîzâde himself. Alterations on widely known bodies of literature are
common in Islamic traditions. The Story of the Danishmend in Bustan is comprised
of 102 lines. Instead of replicating the whole, Niksârîzâde added his commentary,
reflecting and summarizing what he took as a moral from the story. The addition also
reflects the content and message conveyed by Niksârîzâde throughout his nefsü’lemrnâme.
Via alteration of lines from an authoritative figure such as Saadi, the rest
of the manuscript is better supported. The lines that he selected from Bustan do not
openly discuss ignorance, however, the story in Bustan indeed is about ignorance and
delusiveness of appearance in that regard: themes which constitute the backbone of
Niksârîzâde’s version. Alternatively, he might have come across a copy of Bustan
that had this passage.
Throughout his version, Niksârîzâde uses other excerpts from Persian poems
of, for instance, Hafez and Saadi. In his rather long and peculiar discussion on the
نه منعم به مال از کسی بهتر است“ 97
نه جاهل بجاه از کسی برتر است
خر از جل اطلس بپوشد خر است ” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (HAP), نه منعم به مال از کسی بهتر است“ ; 1
نه جاهل بجاه از کسی برتر است
خر از جل اطلس بپوشد خر است ” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (H), 1.
48
Sufi concept of the unity of being (vahdet-i vücûd) within his nefsü’l-emrnâme,
Niksârîzâde cites this passage from Hafez’s 144th gazel:98
Thou that goest not forth from the house of nature,
How passage to the street of Tarikat, thou canst make.99
And from the prologue of Saadi’s Bustan, he cites these lines:100
Think not, O Saadi, that one can walk in the road of purity
except in the footsteps of Muhammad.101
These examples show what kind of sources Ottoman authors based themselves on to
buttress their literary claims. Religious sources or excerpts from widely
acknowledged poets worked as points of reference and refuge for an author who
wanted to assert his vituperative claims. Playing with original lines, even when it
would be risky in Islamic sayings, was not a matter of hesitation in nefsü’lemrnâmes,
and it served as an adjustment that located the support at even more
useful coordinates for the author.
The inclusion of Persian poetry is also telling of the intended readership on
part of Niksârîzâde. The authors of the Lâmiî Corpus wrote in a simple language.
With Niksârîzâde, the language becomes more complex, and crude insults and swear
words are much rarer compared to the other nefsü’l-emrs. Niksârîzâde intended his
work for a more exclusive or refined readership, who could understand Persian,
recognize canonical poetry, and be able to follow criticisms and commentaries on
matters like the unity of being. This owes it once again to the authorial agenda. In
تو کز سرای طبیعت نمیروی بیرون“ 98
کجا به کوی طریقت گذر توانی کرد ” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (HAP), تو کز سرای طبیعت نمیروی بیرون“ ; 2
کجا به کوی طریقت گذر توانی کرد ” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (H), 2.
99 Hafez, The Divan of Hafiz: Edition of Complete Poetry, ed. Hamid Eslamian, trans. H.W. Clarke
(Dallas: Persian Learning Center, 2020), 141.
مپندار سعدی که راه صفا “ 100
”توان رفت جز بر پی مصطفی
101 Saadi, The Bostan, 3.
49
Niksârîzâde’s case, the level was deliberately lifted to higher strata, as he both
criticized and wanted to be read by other elites. Hence, both the content and language
in his version differ from other examples of the nano-genre.
Another indication of the excerpts from Persian poetry and Niksârîzâde’s
addition to Saadi’s lines would concern authorial identity. Niksârîzâde Mehmed
Efendi, by adding his line between those of Saadi, lifts himself to the level of the
authoritative Persian masters. His lines become worthy of the “front row.” Indeed the
matter of identity will be dealt with in the following chapters, with special focus
given to Niksârîzâde, as his work is the only one that openly attempts to define what
nefsü’l-emr could be. He offers the term as a possible identity, composed of the
friends of nefsü’l-emr (nefsü’l-emr yârânı) whose traits would be defined as evzâ’-ı
nefsü’l-emr.
2.2.2 The list in Niksârîzâde’s Nefsü’l-Emrnâme
The list in Niksârîzâde’s version is the main body of the text. In fact, since the other
sections that appear in other nefsü’l-emrnâmes, like malediction and conclusion, are
absent from this text, the narrative of Niksârîzâde’s version depends and builds itself
almost solely on the list.
Similar to the Lâmiî Corpus, Niksârîzâde too ceaselessly counts immorality
after immorality, picturing the offending types in their most shameful moments.
However, the groups chosen to be railed by his pen are highly specific. While every
nefsü’l-emrnâme problematizes pretentious people who do not deserve to be
accepted into the elite circles, Niksârîzâde’s version is a manifesto almost
50
exclusively written against those who, though they are ignorant, make their way into
the learned circles. These mostly include pretentious professors, wannabe poets,
greedy qadis, etc.
His treatment of the subjects of his criticisms is also different from the Lâmiî
Corpus. Niksârîzâde aims more at the intellectual deficiencies of his targets, mostly
avoiding bodily, and occasionally eroticized humor. He humiliates his subjects
mainly by highlighting the contrast between their ignorance and their lofty
pretensions. Their intellect is mocked and their pride is bashed, instead of imagining
them in physical conditions that would humiliate their bodily being. In this regard,
Niksârîzâde’s work draws a contrast most with the Nuruosmaniye manuscript. As the
latter seeks to extract humor from the bodies of its target groups, imagining them
occupying latrines for hours;102 trembling malariously with anger;103 spitting behind
fine cushions and on the wall after smoking tobacco;104 disturbing mosque-goers by
walking fast and carelessly towards the front row in the mosque,105 etc. Contrarily, in
Niksârîzâde’s version, these moments of physical contact or corporeal humor seldom
occur. For instance, he mocks the supposedly famous poets whose pennames are
widely known but whose poems are not known to a soul;106 and the foolish çelebis
who think they can complete their education (only) by studying Hidâye,107 without
102 “…ve iki sa’at helâda oturanlar…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 38.
103 “…ve ehl-i tehevvür olup cüz’î şeyden ökelenüp gözin âb-hâne câmı gibi şişirüp elin ayağın cühûd
sıtması tutmış gibi ditreden mel’ûnlar…” Ibid, 43.
104 “…ve fâhir döşeli oda içinde nâzik kumâş yasdıklar ardına ve divâra duhan içip de tüküren ağzı
kuruyaçaklar…” Ibid, 26.
105 “…ve câmi’ şerifte ilerü giderken usûl ile geçmeyüp oturan müsülmânları eteğiyle çarpup lodos
kumı gibi geçen zevâ’idler…” Ibid, 32.
106 “…ve mahlası meşhûr olub şi’irini kimesne bilmez şâ’ir efendilerin…”Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr
(HAP), 3.
107 Al-Hidayah or Hidâye is a legal compendium on Hanefi jurisprudence compiled by Al-Marghinani
(d. 1197) in the twelfth century.
51
studying logic, kalam,108 and dialectics;109 or “the asses who, even though they are
exceedingly dull, dare to imitate the Persian masters and speak Persian.”110
Remembering Sheridan’s distinction between vertical and horizontal
invective, I suggest that Niksârîzâde’s nefsü’l-emrnâme can be considered a
horizontal invective contrary to the manuscripts within the Lâmiî Corpus, which I
suggested, are vertical invective examples. This does not mean that Niksârîzâde
considered his target groups equal to him. Contrarily, his derision works hard to
prove how lowly the groups are, no matter how hard they pretend. However,
Niksârîzâde’s version almost exclusively targets people who shared the same social
circles as he did. This turns his version into a social invective that ridiculed the elite
circles, or at least, the pretenders in the elite circles. Unlike the other nefsü’lemrnâmes
whose target groups consist of all the people acting and behaving ill in the
city, Niksârîzâde’s version is fixed to the milieux that he belonged.
108 Kalam or ‘Ilm al-Kalam is the Islamic theology, that aims to discuss, analyze, and explain basic
concepts and doctrines in Islam.
109 “…ve tahsîl-i ‘ilmde mantık ü kelâm ü âdâb-i bahs lâzım iken ‘ilm-i Hidâyeden tahsîl eylemek
isteyen ma’tûh çelebilerin…” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (H), 2; “…ve tahsîl-i ‘ilmde mantık ü kelâm ü
âdâb-i bahs lâzım iken ‘ilm-i Hidâyeden tahsîl eylemek isteyen ma’tûh çelebilerin…” Niksârîzâde,
Nefsü’l-emr (HAP), 1.
110 “…ve fevku’l-hadd gûl iken yârân-ı ‘aceme taklîd idüb tekellüm-ü farsî eyleyen harların…” Ibid,
3.
52
CHAPTER 3
PIOUS GROUPS AND RELIGIOUS MATTERS
Religious groups and practices are the first, if not the most, criticized categories in
every nefsü’l-emrnâme. The nefsü’l-emr approach to moral and religious matters,
and to specific pious groups, e.g. Kadızadelis, Birgivîs, Mevlevis, are directly related
to the seventeenth and eighteenth-century Ottoman social realities, like the Sunni
revivalism and popularization of Sufism.
However, nefsü’l-emrnâmes do not have a unanimous stance that makes it
possible for the readers to espouse the texts with a specific side in the debates of the
time. A rigid dichotomy of orthodoxy and heterodoxy does not apply well to this
specific group of texts. While the texts reflect the contemporaneous trend of
Sunnitization, dealing with matters like innovation (bid’at) and time management on
seemingly shared grounds with fundamentalist Kadızadelis, nefsü’l-emrnâmes also
simultaneously deride such fundamentalist groups.
Likewise, while there are strong criticisms towards specific Sufi groups or
certain Sufi practices, nefsü’l-emr derisions never target the Sufi path itself.
Contrarily, by reviling those who misunderstand and who, therefore, divert the Sufi
path, the texts imply an indirect fondness for an orthoprax Sufism, that abides the
boundaries of the Sunnah.
Thus, the most debated religious groups of the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, Birgivîs, highly anti-Sufi Kadızadelis, Sufis, etc. get their share from the
53
nefsü’l-emr criticisms. This situates the nefsü’l-emr authors and their views on the
religious trends of the time on a rather middle-way approach.
This chapter aims to uncover the seventeenth and eighteenth-century trends
and dynamics in the religio-moral domain that affected the nefsü’l-emr approach to
the specific groups and practices. In the conclusion of this chapter, after discussing
the groups that are criticized in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes, Münirî-i Belgrâdî, a
seventeenth-century Ottoman Halveti sheikh (b. 1551 - d. 1617), will be offered as a
figure whose stance in regard to the debates of the time is similar to nefsü’lemrnâmes.
3.1 Sufism and dervishes in nefsü’l-emrnâmes
According to Fikret Turan, who reports from Nev’îzâde Atâ’î’s (b. 1583 – d. 1635)
biographical work Hadâiku’l-Hakâik fî Tekmileti’ş-Şakâ’ik written as an addendum
(zeyl) to Taşköprizâde’s Şakâ’ik, Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi adhered to the
Mevlevi order.111 We do not know the affiliations of Hacı Ahmed and the
anonymous authors of the Nuruosmaniye manuscript and the manuscript attributed to
Lâmiî Çelebi. However, given that their criticisms towards Sufis are almost
unanimous, it would not be wrong to assume that they had similar sentiments and
stances concerning the Sufi path. Thus, when dealing with the Sufis in the nefsü’lemrnâmes,
who get criticized no less than other groups, one must be careful at
distinguishing what wrongdoings of which type of Sufis the authorial mockery is
directed. As one delves deeper into the texts, one realizes that nefsü’l-emr criticisms
111 Turan, “Niksarizade,” 1825.
54
are not independent of the social and intellectual history of Sufism. The texts reflect
both the centuries-long social transformation of the institution of Sufism and some
central concepts of Sufi thought.
However, as mentioned earlier, the authors write their derisions in a mental
universe specific to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Sunni revivalism
in the Ottoman Empire was not exclusively specific to Birgivîs and, later,
Kadızadelis. Many Sufi thinkers and tariqas were also vying for a Sunnah-abiding,
orthoprax Sufism.112 The Sufi-critical passages in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes reflect such
a disapprobation for people and practices that marginalize Sufism.
The manuscripts, except Niksârîzâde’s, begin their lists of ill-doers with the
Sufis. In the shorter Lâmiî Çelebi manuscripts, the target group is defined as “the
Sufi pretenders who don the dervish cloak and claim to know [divine] reality
(hakîkat).”113 In the other four Lâmiî Çelebi manuscripts, including Mecmû’a-i
Fevâid copy, the target group is defined slightly differently as “the Sufi pretenders
who make a mockery of the Sufi path with their claims to know [divine] reality, and
who attack the men of refinement and delicacy.”114 In Hacı Ahmed’s version and the
Nuruosmaniye manuscript, the formulation is very similar to Lâmiî Çelebi copies.
Hacı Ahmed targets “the pretenders who are dressed as Sufis (mukallak Sûfîler)115
112 Derin Terzioğlu, “How to Conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization: A Hsitoriographical Discussion,”
Turcica 44 (2013): 319.
113 “Evvelâ hakîkat da’vâsın iden ehl-i kisvet sûfîlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (AÖ), 1; “Evvelâ
hakîkat da’vâsın iden ehl-i kisvet sûfîlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MC), 1; “Evvelâ hakîkat
da’vâsı iden ehl-i kisvet sûfîlere…” Nefsü’l-emr (MS), 1.
114 “Hakîkat da’vasın rîş-hand ehl-i kisvet sûfilere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 1; “Evvelâ
hakîkat da’vâsıyla rîş-hand olub ehl-i zerâfeti ve erbâb-ı letâfeti kesüb biçen sûfîlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi,
Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 2; “Evvelâ hakîkat da’vâsıyla rîş-hand olub ehl-i zerâfeti ve erbâb-ı letâfeti kesüb
biçen sûfîlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 1; “Evvelâ hakîkat da’vâsıyla rîş-hand olub ehl-i
zerâfeti ve erbâb-ı letâfeti kesüb biçen sûfîlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 1.
115 Hacı Ahmed used the word mukallak, which was derived from the Turkish word kılık (guise), using
the Arabic adjective measure. Saygın Salgırlı interpreted his use of the Arabic ism-i mef’ûl form as an
indication of the learned background of Hacı Ahmed, assuming he applied the form on the root.
55
and who falsely claim to know divine reality.”116 The Nuruosmaniye manuscript
specifies its targets as “the Sufi pretenders who put on the dervish cloak six months
ago (altı aylık), and who [already] claim to know [divine] reality.”117 As one can see,
the problem in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes is neither Sufism nor the totality of the Sufis.
The authors problematized a certain type of Sufi, new and immature as implied by
their recent entry to the path without navigating the necessary stations (maqamat) of
the Sufi path, through which the seekers would gradually be elevated by the
master,118 think they perfected themselves.
Similar entries problematizing people who were Sufis only in appearance can
be found in other parts. In Risâle-i Garîbe, they are criticized a second time for
“being ‘image thieves’ (sûret uğrıları) who go to dervish lodges and learned
gatherings, posing as dervishes only to impress (impressionable) young men.”119
“Image thief” was an insult frequently directed to Sufis. In one of the fatwas of
Kemalpaşazâde (b. 1468 - d. 1536) he is asked what should be done to a person who
calls a Halvetî dervish “sûret uğrısı.” Kemalpaşazâde answers, “Nothing, if that Sufi
is not a person of honor.”120 Similarly, in his version, Niksârîzâde insults “the
disdainful, graceless, and destitute dervishes who pretend to have been freed from
worldly desires, while [in fact] being greedy and morally reprehensible.”121
116 “Evvelâ hakîkat da’vâsın iden ehl-i sâhib-i kisvet mukallak sûfîlere…” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 1.
117 “Evvela, hakîkat da’vâsın eden ehl-i kisvet altı aylık Sûfîler…” Hayati Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 20.
118 Gölpınarlı, Tasavvuf, 34.
119 “…tâze oğlan hâtırı içün tekyelerde ‘ulemâ meclisinde varup ehl-i tarîk şekline giren sûret
uğrıları…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 20.
120 “Mes’ele: Halvetî Sûfîlerin birisine âhirden bir kimesne sûret uğrısı dise ne lâzım olur? El-Cevâb:
Nesne lâzım olmaz ehl-i ‘ırz değilse ol Sûfî. Kemâl Paşa.” Lâli Seyyid Ahmed, Mecmâu’l-Mesâili’şŞer’iyye
fi’l-’Ulûmi’d-Dîniyye, Millet Kütüphanesi, AEsry497, 5v. I thank my friend Arif Erbil for
pointing me to this fatwa, which he came across in his own study.
121 “…ve tamâm ahlâk-ı zemîme ve hırs ile muttasıf olub târik-i dünya geçinen müstağni-şekl olan
dervîş-i bî-endâm bî-nevâların…”
56
In certain Sufi tariqas, and especially in the later antinomian dervish modes
of piety, one is expected to don certain paraphernalia that symbolizes the wearer’s
will to seclusion from the world and worldly desire, abstaining from luxury.122 The
paraphernalia would not only distinguish the followers of a tariqa from other paths
but would also make an outward statement about the wearer’s superior religiosity.
According to Bernd Radtke, in the early years of Islam, the ascetic sought to set
himself apart and above the ordinary Muslim, who increased in number as a result of
the rapid expansion and conversions.123 In the following centuries, not only Sufi
exegesis, metaphysics, or gnoseology but also practices and appearance have always
been geared up to maintain the Sufi identity above all other identities available to
Muslims and as exclusive as possible.124 Outward appearance was seen as one of the
primary marks of the Sufi identity by the Sufis themselves throughout centuries and
as one of the constituents of Sufism that distinguished it.125 Later in the aftermath of
the Mongolian Invasions in the thirteenth century and throughout the Late Middle
Ages, a new current (re)emerged from within Sufism, which took the ascetic
principles once again to the center of one’s piety.126 Of utmost importance to the
orders and brotherhoods in this current, called the new renunciation by Ahmet T.
122 This tradition was illustrated by İbrâhim Hâs (d. 1762) in his hagiography (menâkıbnâme) of the
Halvetî sheikh Hasan Ünsî (b. 1645 - d. 1723). Hâs narrated how he got scolded by his sheikh for
having worn a fur122 scarf on his shoulders. Ünsî warned him, as Hâs reported, saying “a Sufi does not
need precious clothings.” Fur was a prominent symbol of power and official authority in the Ottoman
realms, as also implied in a famous Nasreddin Hoca anecdote: one day, Nasreddin Hoca attended a
feast in his casual clothes. Seeing that nobody came to serve him, he went home to grab his most
lavish fur coat. This time, being welcomed in the best possible way at the gathering, he started to feed
his fur coat at the table, saying “Eat, my fur, eat!” implying how it was the fur and not his own worth
that got the attention and respect. İbrâhim Hâs, Menâkıbnâme-i Hasan Ünsî, ed. Mustafa Tatçı (Kültür
Bakanlığı Yayınları: 2002), 204-6.
123 Knysh, Sufism, 29.
124 Ibid, 222.
125 Ibid, 43.
126 Ahmet T. Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends: Dervish Groups in the Islamic Later Middle Period
1200-1550 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994), 2-3.
57
Karamustafa,127 was the highly distinguishable paraphernalia worn by the ascetic
seekers, such as ankle bones, clubs, rings pierced into the body, etc. accompanied by
the distinctive ways of shaving one’s beard and hair.128 The new ascetic appearance
and behaviors sought to shock the society against which they protested, while at the
same time serving as distinctive marks of the tariqa to which one belonged.129
However, there were Sufi masters, whose hagiographies depict as having
preferred not to wear distinctive paraphernalia. Instead, they wore ordinary or
unobjectionable garments. Nimatullah Wali was one such example, as he preferred to
wear simple clothes and turban in the tradition of Muhammad.130 The only thing that
signified his Sufi identity was a belt around his waist, and he abstained from wearing
paraphernalia that signified pious distinction.131 In fact, throughout centuries, many
Sufi tariqas produced literature against excessive asceticism and encouraged their
followers to meditate and train their thoughts not just in isolation but among the
crowd and within the society.132 Many Sufi thinkers were striving to build or keep
Sufism as a community-based mode of piety, not in contradiction with and
opposition to the Sunni perception of Islam as the religion of ummah.133
Problematization of ablutions and purity in the above-mentioned passage is
reminiscent of this kind of concern for Sunnah-abiding Sufi institution. Thus,
appearance is a subject of criticism in the nefsü’l-emrs not only for concealing the
insincerity of the new dervishes but also for being a religious statement about
127 Ibid, 4.
128 Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 52, 66-86.
129 Ibid, 90-2.
130 Bashir, Sufi Bodies, 81.
131 Ibid.
132 Knysh, Sufism, 180-1.
133 Ibid, 16-8, 180-1.
58
society, from which the antinomian dervish cuts himself apart both in practice and
visually. Contemporary with what Karamustafa defined as the new renunciation, or
occasionally as deviant renunciation, nefsü’l-emr authors directed their criticisms
towards such society-rejecting antinomian dervish groups who had risen in number
and become foci of public veneration. At the time, growing numbers of ascetic
renouncers, as historical evidence shows, were also recruited from among the
learned.134 This led to further disdain from certain Sufis whose exclusivist and lofty
niche in the society was being challenged and usurped by the “riff-raff.” The
emphasis on how the pretenders attack (kesüb biçen) the men of refinement and
delicacy in the four Lâmiî Çelebi copies, is evocative of the growing dislike between
the antinomian dervish groups and the Sufis, from within which the new renunciation
had risen as a counter-reaction and protest.135
Nefsü’l-emrnâmes reflect this socioreligious conflict peculiar to Late Middle
Ages also in other passages that problematize ascetic-antinomian practices, which, in
their eyes, trivialized and debased the Sufi path. For instance, in the Nuruosmaniye
manuscript, the author directly ridicules “the wandering abdals, whose hashish is
aplenty,”136 referring to the use of intoxicants by some itinerant dervish groups.137
Moreover, in every manuscript except Niksârîzâde’s version, one of the earlier
insults to practices blame “those who abandon the ritual prayers (salavat), and sit in
front of the dervish lodges with a candle before them to seclude themselves from the
world.”138 In some versions, this passage is followed by “the lunatics who sit by the
134 Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 10.
135 Ibid, 91-2.
136 “…esrârı çok yayak abdâllar…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 22.
137 Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 71.
138 “…tekyegâhlar öninde celb-i dünyâ içün önlerine çerâğ koyub târik-i salavat olan(lara)…” Hacı
Ahmed, Makâle, 1; “…ve tekyegâhlar önünde celb-i dünyâ içün önine çerâğ koyub oturanlara…”
59
roads and play in the heaps, and the brutes who call them friends of God
(evliyâ’).”139
These three passages blatantly criticize the itinerant ascetics who roamed
Anatolia in the Late Middle Ages from town to town, like Qalandars, Haydaris, and
Abdals of Rum, who were described and reported in detail and disdain by different
European travelers and Ottomans like Vâhidî and Evliya Çelebi.140 Antinomian and
itinerant behaviors are ridiculed as lunacy in the passages, which also criticize the
public tendency to venerate mentally ill persons, which has been denounced as public
ignorance just as equally by Gölpınarlı in his Tasavvuf, who claim that public often
confounded Sufi idea of divine attraction (cezbe) with actual mental illnesses.141 The
emphasis on their “playing” in the heaps is reminiscent of the practice of seclusion in
cemeteries performed by dervishes such as Qalandari sheikh Jamal al-Din Savi (d.
1232-3),142 and interestingly of the chöd tradition, performed by Tibetan Buddhist
and Bön monks, who voluntarily bring themselves to the brink of trepidation, staying
in charnel houses or sky burial grounds.143
Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 2; “…tekyegâhlarda celb-i dünyâ içün önine çerâğ koyub
oturanlara...” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (AÖ), 2; “… tekye-gâhlar öninde celb-i dünyâ içün önlerine
çerâğ koyub oturanlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 1; “…tekye-gâhlar öninde celb-i dünyâ
içün önine çerâğ koyub oturanlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 3; “… tekyegâhlarda celb-i
dünyâ içün önüne çerâğ koyub oturanlara ve evliyâdır diyenlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MS),
2; “…tekye-gâhlar öninde celb-i dünyâ içün önine çerâğ koyub oturanlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’lemr
(YB), 1; “…ve tekyegâhlarda celb-i dünyâ içün önünde çırâk koyub okuyanlara ve ana evliyâdır
deyü sû’ idenlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MC), 1; “…ve celb-i mâl-ı dünyâ [içün] önüne çerâğ
koyup oturanlar…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 42.
139 “…yollarda oturub mezbelede oynar dîvâneler ki anlara evliyâdır diyen hayvânlara…” Hacı
Ahmed, Makâle, 2; “…ve yollarda oturub mezbelelerde oynar dîvânelere evliyâdır diyenlere…”
Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 2; “…ve yollarda oturub mezbelelerde oynar dîvânelere evliyâdır
diyenlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 1; “… ve yollarda oturub mezbelelerde oynar
dîvânelere ve evliyâdır diyenlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 3; “…ve yollarda oturub
mezbelelerde oynar dîvânelere evliyâdır diyenlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 2.
140 Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 5-8.
141 Gölpınarlı, Tasavvuf, 82.
142 Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 15, 21, 28, 44.
143 Jerôme Edou, Machig Ladbrön and the Foundations of Chöd, (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications,
1996), 43.
60
In some versions, the dervish groups are more direct and even further
specified with the only ever mention of a known historical figure in the works,
Şücâ’üddîn Velî of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries Anatolia. In between the
two insults mentioned above, some versions also ridicule the dervishes “who are
crowned by Velî Şücâ’,” or sometimes alternatively as “Şücâ’ the lunatic (deli
Şücâ’).”144 Şücâ’eddin Velî, also known as Sultan Şücâ’ or Sücâ’, was a prominent
Abdal, who traveled naked and shaved in the fashion of chahar-zarb, the four-fold
shave applied by the antinomian dervishes, shaving all facial hair.145 Throughout his
lifetime he caught the eye of power figures, including Murad II (r. 1421 – 51), who
had a mosque built in his name in Edirne.146 According to Karamustafa, Şücâ’eddîn
Velî, along with other figures like Kaygusuz Abdal and Barak Baba, helped form the
distinguishable marks of the identity of Abdals of Rum (Abdalân-ı Rûm).147 This
passage found in four nefsü’l-emrnâmes is the most outspoken and direct discomfort
expressed against the current of deviant renunciation of the period in which the
authors were writing. The description of the prominent dervish alternatively either as
God’s friend (velî) or as lunatic (deli), reflects the discomfort for the ever blurrier
line between the two states, and is not, I suggest, just a coincidental copyist error.
A distinction made by Jami in Nefahât can be quite revelatory for how Sufis
and dervishes are criticized in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes. According to Gölpınarlı, in
Sufism there are three categories defined by the Sufis themselves: the Sufi,
144 “…ve Velî Şücâ’dan tâc giyenlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 1; “…ve Veli Sücâ’dan
tâc giyenler…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 3; “…deli Şücâhdan tâc ur giyenlere…” Lâmiî
Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 2; “…ve deli Şücâ’dan tâc giyenlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 2.
145 Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 19, 39, 63.
146 Ibid, 64.
147 Ibid, 62.
61
mutasavvıf,148 and mustasvıf.149 Jami, who distinguishes between the Sufi and
mutasavvıf, describes the latter as a person who has entered the path, counting
himself as an accomplished Sufi while not yet mature.150 Even though there is no
mention of the mutasavvıf as a lower identity category alternative and/or counter to
the “Sufi” in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes, the Sufi-critical passages in the nefsü’lemrnâmes
possibly recall such a distinction, expecting the reader to infer the
discrepancy between the real and the fake Sufi. A lengthy diatribe against the
immature Sufis in Niksârîzâde’s version is quite revelatory for the matter at hand:
The imitators of heresy who, without paying respect to the exalted law, talk
about the unity of being (vahdet-i vücûd), while still in the state of the inciting
self (nefs-i emmâre), although the ‘ulema have collectively verified that the
matter of unity of being cannot be comprehended by the faculty of
reason…and some mendacious pseudo-dervishes who confirm them.151
Niksârîzâde in this lengthy passage addresses his readers to two basic concepts of
Sufism; unity of being and states of the self (nafs).
Unity of being, discussed and developed by Ibn ‘Arabi, has always been
confounded with the unity of the existent [beings] (vahdet-i mevcûd) according to
Gölpınarlı, who asserts that the latter prioritizes nature and existence over God,
resulting in atheism and/or pantheism.152
The seven, or sometimes three states and/or stations of the self, represent the
levels a seeker of the path would have to navigate in the guidance of a master.153 The
inciting self (nefs-i emmâre), the lowest of all the stations of the self, deceitfully
148 Mutasavvıf can be translated as “one who becomes a Sufi.”
149 Gölpınarlı, Tasavvuf, 15.
150 Ibid.
151 See Appendix D, 7.
152 Gölpınarlı, Tasavvuf, 43.
153 Ibid, 34-5.
62
commands one to do evil for selfish ends.154 Niksârîzâde, with excerpts from Jurjani
(b. 1339 – d. 1414), Hafez, and Saadi, criticizes the recent seekers of the path, still
being commanded by selfish benefits, who undeservingly deem themselves at a level
where they can speak about the profound and demanding issue of unity of being,
which can easily cross into the domain of atheism and/or pantheism.
In conclusion, I suggest that Sufi-critical passages in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes
problematize two interchangeable categories to which the Sufi identity could be
dragged. First is the antinomian dervish who both recruited from among the learned
and challenged the society’s view on Sufism by reprehensible actions, and second is
the mutasavvıf, the new recruit to the path who thinks he’s perfected himself without
the necessary challenges and guidance, stuck in the state of the inciting self.
Both identities owe to the popularization of Sufism in the Late Middle Ages.
When the authors were writing nefsü’l-emrnâmes, Sufism had long turned into sets
of socioreligious networks with numerous tariqas with endless pedigrees (silsile).
There were indeed groups who, in the eyes of the authors, offered easier ways to
salvation, turning undeserving riff-raff into unlaboured friends of God. One last
passage from the Lâmiî Çelebi manuscripts and Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle is a good
example for the situation, as they criticize “the credulous and irresponsible men, who
enter the Sufi path because of a trouble [that befell them] and wander like minstrels
(‘âşık-meşreb).”155 The passage skillfully problematizes the facilitation of entrance
for and availability of the Sufi path to men from lower backgrounds, while ridiculing
154 Ibid; Bashir, Sufi Bodies, 41.
155 “…ve bir dûd-ı âhdan tekye külâhı urunmış ‘âşık meşreb sâfî-dil levendlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi,
Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 1; “…bir dûd-ı âhdan tekye külâhı urunmış ‘âşık meşreb sâfî dil levendlere…”
Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 1; “…bir dûd-ı âhdan tekye külâhını urunmış ‘âşık meşreb sâfî dil
olan zükûr ü levendlere…” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 1.
63
the culmination of itinerant, antinomian dervish piety, like Qalandars, Haydaris, etc.
in Ottoman lands under the Alevi-Bektashis, as ‘aşıks.156
Regarding the inseparability of the overall etiquette from normative religious
practice, the Sufi adab literature can be proposed as a potential venture point for the
authors of nefsü’l-emrnâmes. Etiquette was an essential part of the Sufi path, the
ascetic-mystical current within Islam, to the degree that famous Sufi hagiographer al-
Sulami (b. 937 - d. 1021) wrote “All of Sufism is [nothing but] adab” in his Kitab al-
Tabaqat al-Sufiyya.157 Stretching over two sides, adab would rule both the external
(zâhir) and the internal (bâtın) world of the Sufi, the former of which would allow
one to enjoy piously the benefits of earthly existence, whereas the latter would secure
the hereafter.158 As Shahzad Bashir discusses in his book Sufi Bodies, the institution
of Sufism was a corporeal relationship between the master, disciple, and the other
disciples more than anything else.159 Hagiographies and adab literature served as
guides to good conduct, proper behavior, and corporeal control for the seekers of the
path, teaching them how to behave in this bodily co-existence through depictions of
the exemplary sheikh as the absolute master of his body.160 As Bashir reports, the
hagiographies pictured the Sufi sheikh in full control of his body almost in a Socratic
sense. For instance, the Persian Sufi master Nimatullah Wali (b. 1330 – d. 1431), was
described in his hagiography as having never been seen doing uncouth things like
156 Bayram Durbilmez, “Aşık Edebiyatının Oluşumu ve Gelişiminde Alevi-Bektaşi Zümrelerin Yeri
ve Önemi,” Alevilik Araştırmaları Dergisi 13 (2017): 62.
157 Al-Sulami, Kitab al-tabaqat al-sufiyya, ed. Johannes Pedersen (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1960), 110; Alexander Knysh, Sufism: A New History of Islamic Mysticism (Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 2017), 139.
158 Ibid.
159 Shahzad Bashir, Sufi Bodies: Religion and Society in Medieval Islam (New York: Columbia
University Press, 2011), 78-82.
160 Ibid, 85.
64
spitting, touching his limbs, or sleeping.161 Likewise, the Khwajagan-Naqshbandi
shaykh Ubaydullah Ahrar (b. 1404 – d. 1490), as accounted by two disciples, was
never seen yawning, coughing, expelling phlegm, or blowing his nose in a
company.162 His body was “incapable” of producing such an unpleasant impression
on the onlookers.163 The founder of the Naqshbandi order Baha’ ad-Din Naqshband
(b. 1318 – d. 1389) is said to have defined the friend of God (wali/awliya) as “one
from whose bodily organs no wrong deed would ever come.”164
3.2 Kızılbaş and the non-Muslim in nefsü’l-emrnâmes
While the nefsü’l-emr genre is not exclusively written against or for the Muslim
population and/or the mispractitioner, it is only interested in Islam at the religious
level, except for some minor instances that are only present in the Nuruosmaniye
manuscript, which does not spare such non-Muslim groups as Muscovites165 or
Yezidis,166 blaming them for infidelity. Here, however, a paradox is presented. While
the “objective” reader is ready to distinguish Muslim from non-Muslim, for the
nefsü’l-emr authors, the definition of non-Muslim would be much wider. Many
Muslims are railed for being in a clash with the authors’ understanding of Islam. The
historian should not fail to acknowledge the authors’ rejection when analyzing
groups that he/she readily know to be within Islam, as some were nowhere near
being a Muslim in the eyes of the authors. One such example would be from the
161 Ibid, 80.
162 Ibid, 81.
163 Ibid.
164 Ibid, 80.
165 “…ve Moskovın nûrsızı…” Hayati Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 41.
166 “…ve soğanı yumruğile kırmayan Yezîdî Kürdler…” Ibid.
65
Nuruosmaniye manuscript, which insulted the Kızılbaş in a paragraph reserved for
non-Muslim groups, such as “the bastards of Austria (Nemçe)”167 or “the Jewish
tricksters.”168 It shows that the nefsü’l-emr authors’ category of non-Muslim would
subsume such groups as Kızılbaş that one would be ready to analyze within Islam,
heterodox or not.
It is once again important to bear in mind that what the authors took to be
categorically religious could be different from what one expects. As Stefan Winter
discusses in his article on the Syrian Kızılbaş, in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries the Ottoman State used categorical insults such as Kızılbaş or Revafız for
the Shiite populations of coastal highlands of Syria, increasingly beyond their
capacity to designate heresy or political ambitions in support of the Safavid State.169
Such pejorative terms became more and more general and meaningless, serving and
justifying the Ottoman State’s political and economic agenda in the region shortly
and efficiently.170 While it is surely difficult to compare humorous nefsü’l-emrnâmes
with the registers of imperial decrees (mühimme defterleri), the insulting language
applied within nefsü’l-emrs displays a similar efficiency sought out from the
largeness of the terms like dînsiz and bî-dîn, if not of Kızılbaş or Revâfız. Thus, the
historian should be diligent in distinguishing equivocal blame from the
problematization of socioreligious realities. It is rather difficult to determine where
kızılbaş as an insult starts and ends in Ottoman realms. Insults that aim to defame on
religious grounds tend to go beyond their literal meanings, transcend their context,
167 “...Nemçe’nin harâmzâdesi…” Ibid.
168 “…Cühûd’un hîlebâzı…” Ibid.
169 Stefan Winter, “The Kızılbaş of Syria and Ottoman Shiism,” The Ottoman World (New York:
Routledge, 2012), 172.
170 Ibid, 178.
66
and subsume large groups, knowing no bounds. No period of time and no land are
exempt from these categories of insult that states and societies consult as practical,
hasty, and efficient resorts that justify legal penalization. Kızılbaş, is one such resort
for the Ottomans, as suggested by Stefan Winter. And indeed, though nefsü’l-emrs
were not official documents written for the consumption of the state, they were also
not independent from the vituperative language it generated. Moreover, in the
tongue-in-cheek style of the nefsü’l-emrnâmes, which makes it difficult to
understand where the joke ends, kızılbaş has both been a vituperative insult and the
insulted target group itself, especially in the Nuruosmaniye manuscript.
With the founding of the Safaviyya Order in Western Iran in the thirteenth
century by the Sheikh Safi al-Din Ardabili (b. 1252), Shii-sympathizing groups
started to emerge also in Ottoman territories.171 As Sheikh Junayd (r. 1447-1460)
politicized and militarized the Order in the fifteenth century, Safaviyya started to be
seen as a threat from the East by the Ottoman State.172 Kızılbaş, referring to a twelvegored
crimson taj worn by the followers to signify their adherence to the Twelve
Imams,173 became an insult that denigrated both Safavids and the Ottoman subjects
with Alid and pro-Safavid tendencies, including Shiitizing dervishes. While the
insult always maintained its core that targeted the Safavids, even when the
diplomatic relations were better off with the Safavids or when they finally ceased to
171 Ayle Baltacıoğlu-Brammer, “The Formation of Kızılbaş Communities in Anatolia and Ottoman
Responses, 1450s-1630s,” International Journal of Turkish Studies 20 (2014): 29-31; Ayşe
Baltacıoğlu-Brammer, “Neither Victim Nor Accomplice: The Kızılbaş as Borderland Actors in the
Early Modern Ottoman Realm,” Historicizing Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450–c. 1750
(Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2020), 423.
172 Brammer, “Formation,” 25.
173 Brammer, “Formation,” 28; Brammer, “Borderland Actors,” 423.
67
be a major threat for the Ottomans in the seventeenth century,174 kızılbaş remained as
the insult to-go, retaining a meaning large enough and closer to heretic and infidel.
The fact that, in the Nuruosmaniye manuscript, kızılbaş only pop out in
sections that also railed non-muslim and even extraimperial populations is telling of
its intended target in the nefsü’l-emrs. For instance, in one such passage, the author
accuses “the pimps who send their sick spouses to random doctors, no matter if
infidel, Jew, Kızılbaş, or Frank, letting them squeeze their arms.”175 Kızılbaş is
pinned between the non-muslim others of the Empire and beyond. In another
passage, Kızılbaş is packed along with the non-Muslim infidels and enemies of the
Empire:
Fire-worshipping Hindus; Bosnians who say ‘I know it’s a windmill, but
where does its water come from?’; Tatars who don’t behead Cossacks and
bring them instead to İslambol; Kalmyks of canine origins; Rus who do not
become Muslim; the traitors of Moldavia; Wallachian thieves; Polish Jews;
unlikeable Muscovites; bastards of Austria; stubborn Hungarians; mad
gardeners (bakçuvân) of the Abkhaz; [ve]sikalu(?) Circassians; Georgians
who don’t know how to row; Jewish tricksters; the unfaithful who eats shit
instead of bread when not doing tricks; and the accursed Shiite (revâfiz)
Kızılbaş, who are donkeys to the Jews, cursing the four distinguished friends
of the Prophet (cihar yâr-ı güzîn) –may God be pleased with them all.176
This passage from the Nuruosmaniye manuscript177 situated Kızılbaş among the
extraneous non-muslim populations outside the imperial realm, such as Hindus,
Austrians, etc. This leads to the conclusion that Kızılbaş in this context rather targets
the Safavids per se, as also evidenced by the emphasis on the ritual cursing of the
174 Brammer, “Formation,” 33-4.
175 “…ve ‘ehlim ‘ayâlim hastadur!’ deyüp, tabîbdür deyü ne kadar kâfir ve cühûd ve kızılbaş ve Firenk
var ise göndürüp kolunı sıkdıran püzevenkler…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 28.
176 See Appendix D, 8.
177 This passage is not followed by relevant target groups, but rather by topics like mendicancy etc.
Thus, that paragraph forms a cluster in itself, that exclusively mocked extraneous groups.
68
“four”178 caliphs. Evliya Çelebi too reports how he resisted the temptation, even
though he was at liberty to kill up to four Kızılbaş indulging in the ritual cursing,
when in the Safavid territories as an envoy.179
Furthermore, in the same passage, the author of the manuscript makes another
reference to a popular myth about Jews and Kızılbaş, which too is reported by Evliya
Çelebi. As Evliya narrates, one day, the Safavid Shah Tahmasb (r. 1524 - 76) sends
coins and jewelry with an ambassador during the construction of the Süleymaniye
Mosque to prove superior to Suleiman:
Süleymân Khan, burning with rage after reading the letter, distributed a
thousand pouchfuls of riches to the Jews of İslâmbol until nothing was left.
He said to the ambassador: “On doom’s day, Shiites will be donkeys under
the Jews. Jews will surely be your cavalrymen. Your goods should be handed
to your masters now so that on doom’s day they don’t spur and whip you.
Why would peoples like you, after all, who abandoned the ritual prayers, be
even concerned with a pious mosque?”180
The author of the Nuruosmaniye manuscript is familiar with the lore and reproduces
a corporeal hierarchy, situating Kızılbaş even lower than the Jews, who, as Karateke
shows were considered at the lowest 181 Zoomorphic imagery is often used to
178 Ritual cursing includes three caliphs, namely Abu Bakr, Omar, and Uthman. However, the
formulation in the manuscript as “cihar yâr-ı güzîn” (the four distinguished friends of God) blame the
kızılbaş also for cursing Ali himself as a fourth.
179 Robert Dankoff, An Ottoman Mentality: The World of Evliya Çelebi (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2006),
58.
180 See Appendix D, 9.
181 Hakan T. Karateke, “Evliyâ Çelebi’s Perception of Jews,” Disliking Others: Loathing Hostility,
and Distrust in Premodern Ottoman Lands, ed. Hakan Karateke, H. Erdem Çıpa, Helga Anetshofer,
(Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2018), 137-8.
69
denigrate a given identity.182 As evidenced by works like Harnâme,183 in Ottoman
literature, donkey represents physical submission, which is symbolized via the
imagery of being ridden, whipped, and spurred in this passage from Seyahatname
and the Nuruosmaniye manuscript. While not overt, there is also the implication of
sexual submission in the image of a donkey, which some Lâmiî Çelebi copies and
Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle make use, ridiculing the “irreligious who fuck donkeys and
cattle.”184
Libelous juxtaposition and even amalgamation of different identities or
political groups have always been part of the language of enmity and still are
phenomena that one witnesses in today’s politics. Two groups, no matter if related,
get merged in the language, being turned into practical keywords that evoke each
other. Thus, the act of defamation efficiently targets multiple groups, smearing them
with each other. This is the haunting, almost phantasmagorical nature of the insults
that categorize politically and evoke history. Kızılbaş becomes an insult for the Jews,
just as Cühûd, a derogatory word for Jew, becomes an insult for the Kızılbaş, as a
result of this narrative marriage made in hell. This adds to the argument of the
practicality of insulting discourse at the political level, made by Winter, in the
Ottoman realms. Furthermore, for the discussion at hand, this amalgamation of the
182 As Bilha Moor shows in her article on al-Qazwini’s (b. 1203 – d. 1283) cosmographical
encyclopaedia Acâ’ibü’l-Mahlûkât ve Garâ’ibü’l-Mevcûdât, which was quite popular among the
Ottoman readers too, the “Jewish shaykh” is a wondrous hybrid amphibian creature, with the head of
an elderly Jew and the body of a giant frog. In medieval and early modern European literature, frog is
often associated with the Jew, who, “as the usurer, is swollen with greed.” Bilha Moor, “The Jew, the
Orthodox Christian, and the European in Ottoman Eyes, ca. 1550-1700,” Disliking Others: Loathing
Hostility, and Distrust in Premodern Ottoman Lands, ed. Hakan Karateke, H. Erdem Çıpa, Helga
Anetshofer, (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2018), 79-82.
183 Harnâme is an allegorical, humorous poem by Şeyhî (d. 1431) that tells the story of an emaciated
donkey.
184 “…eşek ve kısrak siken dînsiz yüzi karalara…” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 3; “…eşek ve dana
sikenlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr, 3.
70
two also means that, while the target is determined and accurate as Safavids in this
case, the authors do not hesitate in evoking possible collateral meanings, are
conscious about them, and do mean to touch upon them. Thus, while Kızılbaş
pertains to the Safavids in the Nuruosmaniye manuscript, it also does not necessarily
condone the Alid and Shiitizing populations within. This argument can be supported
by Evliya Çelebi’s use of the aforementioned lore a second time for the Crimean
Jews, the Karaites. He describes Karaites as the kızılbaş of the Jews, carving a niche
for them within Judaism as the heretics of that religion.185 He exemplifies the distant
social reality that he observes with a familiar category for his audience, making a
resemblance to an identity group the Ottoman reader would easily recognize.
However, as he mentions that “these Kızılbaş” of the Jews won’t be riding
the[actual] Kızılbaş on Doom’s Day, it becomes self-evident that “kızılbaş” signifies
both the heretic and the Safavid, without necessarily canceling each other out.
In the other manuscripts, there is only one instance in which the Kızılbaş
“coiffure” is ridiculed. Hacı Ahmed and two Lâmiî Çelebi copies blame “those who
pluck the white hair off their beards, turning it into Kızılbaş moustache” of being
Kızılbaş and creedless (mezhebsiz).186 Once again, in the Nuruosmaniye manuscript,
the same passage emphasizes rejectionism, calling them Rafidi.187 Beard coiffure has
always been a very outward statement about piety and creed in Islamdom. The
antinomian dervishes of the Late Middle Ages adopted the chahar zarb which
185 Karateke, “Evliya Çelebi on Jews,” 137.
186 “…ve sakalının ağın yolubda bıyığını kızılbaş bıyığına döndüren kızılbaş gidilere…” Lâmiî Çelebi,
Nefsü’l-emr (MS), 3; “…ve sakalının ağını yolubda ya’nî kızıl baş bıyığına döndüren kızıl başlara…”
Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 3: “…ve sakalının ağın yolub da bıyığını kızılbaş bıyığına döndüren
mezhebsizlere…” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 3.
187 “…ve sakalın dişile akın yolup kızıl baş buyuğına benzeden Râfızîler…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe,
35.
71
included the shaving of hair, beard, eyebrows, and eyelashes,188 which was a clear
divergence from the sunnah, which enjoins one to wear beard and mustache.189 The
fourteenth-century jurist scholar Ibn Taymiyya condemns Qalandars as “unbelievers
who shave their beards.”190 This antinomian coiffure was becoming so popular that
in Syria and Egypt, Qalandar dervishes were forbidden to shave in the “Iranian”
style.191 Thus, shaving one’s beard was reportedly seen as Iranian, as also evidenced
by Evliya Çelebi, who occasionally ridicules the Kızılbaş as sertiraş, shaven-heads in
his Seyâhatnâme.192 Unlike other dervish groups, however, Haydaris, who shaved
their beards, let their mustache grow after the example of ‘Ali, who, according to
Haydaris, never shaved his mustache.193 The nefsü’l-emrnâmes cumulatively ridicule
Alids and Safavids through their coiffure that serves as Shii and antinomian identity
marks. This passage and its problematization of the coiffure once again shows the
largeness of the term Kızılbaş, in its capacity to insult target groups both in and
outside the Empire.
3.3 Kadızadelis and innovation (bid’at) in nefsü’l-emrnâmes
In the scholarship, the Kadızadeli movement is usually analyzed as consisting of
three waves under three leading figures. Kadızâde Mehmed (b. 1582 – d. 1635), the
fervent anti-Sufi preacher of the Ayasofya Mosque, was the first to translate the
prominent sixteenth-century theologian Birgivî Mehmed’s fundamentalist ideas into
188 Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 19, 52.
189 Ibid, 19.
190 Ibid, 54.
191 Ibid, 55.
192 Dankoff, Ottoman Mentality, 63.
193 Karamustafa, God’s Unruly Friends, 68-9.
72
social activism.194 Under Üstüvanî Mehmed (b. 1608 – d. 1661) and later Vanî
Efendi (d. 1685), the movement saw its second and third waves with fluctuations
marked by political conflicts and struggles that involved various actors like regents,
viziers, janissaries, city-folk, and more.195
Under the influence of Birgivî’s writings, followers of the movement
expressed a highly strong distaste for the Sufi brotherhoods, especially the Halvetis,
and advocated for a return to the “Prophetic” foundations, getting rid of all the
innovations (bid’at) that prevailed in the society like consumption of tobacco and
drugs, or revoking new taxes, especially ones imposed on tradesmen.196 While the
nefsü’l-emrnâmes are Sufi-critical, and yet not as anti-Sufi as the Kadızadeli
movement was, the texts abound with entries against such innovations as tobacco,
drugs, and coffeehouses. Moreover, some allegedly profit-oriented ideals of the
Kadızadeli movement, deemed worthy of comparison by some with Protestant ethic,
can also be traced in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes, especially in the latest known work, the
Nuruosmaniye manuscript, which dates back from the early eighteenth century.
Tobacco consumption is one of the “innovations” that frequently gets
criticized in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes. For instance, in the Nuruosmaniye manuscript,
the author criticizes “those who break their fast by smoking tobacco in the holy
month of Ramadan, and who, [therefore] will be fed the poisonous leaves of Zaqqum
[in the hell].”197 This passage is the harshest, as it defames smoking as a sinful act
194 Marinos Sariyannis, “The Kadızadelis as a Social and Political Phenomenon: The Rise of a
‘Mercantile Ethic’?,” Political Initiatives from the Bottom-Up in the Ottoman Empire, ed. A.
Anastasopoulos (Rethymno: Crete University Press, 2012), 263-4.
195 Ibid, 265, 271-8.
196 Ibid, 263.
197 “…ve Ramazân-ı Şerîfte iftârı duhân ile eden zehir zakkum yudaçaklar…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe,
33.
73
that directly violates ritual obligations, not without an argument against its unhealthy
or poisonous content, resembling the Zaqqum. Other instances problematize how
tobacco smokers disturb others at gatherings with their dirt, emphasizing the lack of
etiquette: “the donkeys who light their pipes with candles and spoil them with
tobacco,”198 or “those whose mouths will desiccate spitting behind elegant cushions
or on the walls of a beautifully furnished room, after smoking tobacco.”199 Another
passage from, once again, the Nuruosmaniye manuscript gives insight into the urban
space perceived by the denizens of early modern Istanbul. The anonymous author
curses “those who, after embarking on a boat from Ahor Kapusı, start smoking
tobacco before leaving past the Sinan Paşa Mansion,”200 one of the seaside mansions
of Topkapı Palace, no longer extant. This passage informs the historian on the
symbolic reach and range of the imperial authority that emanated from the Palace, as
Sinan Paşa Mansion was considered a reference point that would determine the
appropriateness of certain actions—like smoking tobacco or eating sweets—at a
certain proximity to the Palace.201
Another nefsü’l-emr criticism that aligns with Kadızadeli ideals pertains to
the assessment of one’s time and the issue of idleness. As Marinos Sariyannis
discusses in his article, comparably similar with Protestant work ethic,202 Kadızadeli
198 “…ve ocakta yâ mangalda âteş var iken mûmda lüle yakup mûmun üzerine tütün döken
hımârlar…” Ibid, 26.
199 “…ve fâhir döşeli oda içinde nâzik kumaş yasdıklar ardına ve dîvâra duhân içip de tüküren ağzı
kuruyaçaklar…” Ibid; “… ve bir kibâr meclisine varub kendüye duhân getürdüklerinde nûş iderken
nefîs, nazîf yasdıkların ardına tüküren eşeklere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 10; “…ve bir
kibâr meclisine varub kendüye duhân getürdüklerinde nûş iderken nefîs nazîf yasdıkların ardına
tüküren eşeklere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 5; “…ve bir kibâr meclisine varub kendüye
duhân getürdüklerinde nûş iderken nefîs, nazîf yasdıklar dibine tüküren eşek ve ebterlere…” Lâmiî
Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 7.
200 “Ahor Kapusında kayığına binüp Sinân Paşa Köşküni geçmeden duhân içenler…” Develi, Risâle-i
Garîbe, 23.
201 Ibid, 83.
202 Sariyannis, “Kadızadelis,” 283.
74
ideals were presumably appealing to the profit-minded merchant groups, who were
the active base of the movement in the city.203 He suggests that aspiring merchants
who were bothered by the traditional concept of time and the narrow gain perspective
of the guilds would be appealed by the rigid and austere lifestyle proposed by the
Kadızadelis that required one to denounce pleasures like coffeehouse culture and
public entertainment for financial and religious pursuits. While this remains
speculation, there are passages from nefsü’l-emrnâmes that berate idle behaviors, if
not for the sake of mercantile pursuits:
The donkeys who ignore ritual ablutions and instead wrestle naked in the
cold; and the boors who intend to play jereed (cirid), while they can’t even
practice archery; and the accursed who play backgammon, chess, and
mancala, instead of reading; and the liars who read Shahnameh (Şâhnâme)
and Hamzanama (Hamzanâme), instead of Quran, Risâle, or Tarikh al-Tabari
(Tevârih-i Taberî), and the bards who spend their days with questions and
answers that are of no use to their lives here and hereafter; and those who
play with knuckle bones on streets and in front of mosques; and the Franks
who gamble in arsenals (tophânelerde).204
Here, the aforementioned Risâle must be Birgivî Mehmed’s popular ‘ilm-i hâl work
Vasiyetnâme, also known as Risâle-i Birgivî. This passage sheds light on the
anonymous author’s literary preferences and brings him closer to an ideological line
shared by Kadızadelis. However, the author’s reference to Birgivî’s work, while
expresses the ideological and religious influence that can shed light on many
passages within his nefsü’l-emr, does not necessarily make him a Kadızadeli. As
discussed earlier, orthodox Sunni ideals were not exclusive to the Kadızadelis, and
Birgivî was quite the popular read at the time.205
203 Ibid, 286-8.
204 See Appendix D, 10.
205 Sariyannis, “Kadızadelis,” 285; Terzioğlu, “Sunnitization,” 319.
75
In a similar passage that problematizes indolence through poetry, Niksârîzâde
mocks “the vermin who spend their precious time on poetry instead of religious
knowledge (‘ilm).”206 Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle is another work that ridicules the idle
and it specifically problematizes the coffeehouse, which was as the locus of the lazy:
“the shameless who visit those who pass their time killing lice (kehle cellâdı) and
sleep in coffeehouses.”207 Coffeehouses, denounced by many for keeping people
away from work, and as seditionary loci, were closed in the mid-seventeenth century,
partly prompted by Kadızâde Mehmed.208
In the nefsü’l-emrnâmes, another issue that gets its share from the insults and
mockery with religious right conduct in mind is wine consumption. However, most
passages in nefsü’l-emrnâmes problematize not directly the wine itself but its
consumption at occasions that require more solemnity and religious respect, and the
drinker who lacks the necessary manners for that. For instance, in the four Lâmiî
Çelebi copies, Niksârîzâde’s version, and in the Makâle of Hacı Ahmed, “the
hypocrites” are criticized for “wanting to pray after a wine gathering, despite the
stench of wine still emanating from their mouths.”209 In the Nuruosmaniye
manuscript too wine is problematized: “the confused who dress up and go to drink
206 “…ve evkât-ı şerîfesin ‘ilme sarf itmeyüb şi’ir böceği olan haşarâtın…” Niksârziâde, Nefsü’l-emr
(H), 3; “…ve evkât-ı şerîfesin ‘ilme sarf itmeyüb şi’ir böceği olan haşarâtın…” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’lemr
(HAP), 2.
207 “…ve kahvehânede uyuyan kehle cellâdına ziyârete varan utanmazlara…” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 5.
208 Sariyannis, “Kadızadelis,” 286.
209 “…ve henûz ağzında âsâr-ı hamr var iken meclis-i şarâbdan kalkub namâz kılmak
ister mürâyîlerin…” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (H), 7; “…ve henûz ağzında hamr var iken meclis-i
şarâbdan kalkub namâz kılmak isteyen mürâyîlerin…” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (HAP), 6; “…ve
henûz ağzında hamr râyihâsı var iken namâz kılmak isteyen mel’ûnlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr
(MS), 4; “…ve henûz ağzının hamr râyihâsı var iken namâz kılmak isteyen mürâyîlere…” Lâmiî
Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 4; “… henûz ağzında hamr râyihası var iken namâz kılmak isteyen
mürâyîlere…” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 4.
76
wine at the taverns on holidays in imitation of the infidels.”210 In a different passage,
Lâmiî Çelebi copies deride “the infidel unbelievers who say ‘Your flesh is my flesh’
(lahmüke lahmî)211 while drinking wine with their sons.”212
Another example from the Lâmiî Çelebi manuscripts, in which juxtaposition
of wine and Sufism is problematized, derides “the donkeys who converse about
Sufism and religious knowledge (‘ilm) while drinking wine at a gathering.”213 In
these examples, despite the symbolic importance of wine in Sufi literature, the
problem is the juxtaposition of the actual drink with religious discussion, which
perhaps would be turned into blather by the drunk.
These examples are in line with other sections that mock improper conduct at
gatherings of wine (bâde sofrası). For example, the Lâmiî Çelebi copies mock “the
pricks who give away their belongings at a wine gathering, regretting it the next day
when they sober up.”214 It is apparent that the wine gathering is not the problem for
the author in this passage, but the type of guest who does not know his bounds,
drinking until he humiliates himself, becoming a subject of laughter for the author
and the other guests, presumably. Another instance, this time in the Nuruosmaniye
manuscript, ridicules “the accursed who vomit like dogs after drinking wine, unable
to digest,”215 once again bothered by the drinker rather than the drink. As Shahab
Ahmed discusses in his book What is Islam?, in Islamic culture, wine-drinking was
210 “…ve bayrâm güni geyinüp kuşanup mîhâneye varup şarâb içen ve kefereye taklîd iden
müşevveşler…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 33.
211 “Lahmüke Lahmî,” (Your flesh is my flesh) is an ‘Alid phrase believed to have been said by
Prophet Muhammad to ‘Ali as a sign of bond and unity.
212 “...kendü öz oğlı ile bâde sohbetinde hem-kadeh olup “lahmüke lahmî” müsâhabet iden kâfir dinsiz
gidilere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 5.
213 “...ve şarâb meclisinde izhâr-ı fazîlet idüp müsâhebet-i ‘ilm ve mübâhese-i ma’rif ü tasavvuf iden
eşek sûfîlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 4.
214 “…bâde meclisinde cûd ü sehâ aşikâr idüb bir şey hîbe idüb irtesi gün ayıldıkda pişmân olan kırd
kırd kalâfatlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 3.
215 “…ve hazm etmeyüp şarâb içüp köpek gibi kusan mel’ûnlar…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 35.
77
both a metaphor in poetry and an actual rarefied group practice, which would be
accompanied by poetry216 at social gatherings, despite its prohibition by Qur’an.217
And as Walter Andrews and Mehmet Kalpaklı show in their book on the early
modern concept of love, wine gatherings in the early modern Istanbul would almost
without exception be accompanied by the youthful boys,218 just like the Quranic
immortal youths who are to accompany Muslims in the gardens of delight in the
hereafter.219 Thus, the criticisms in nefsü’l-emrs, which pertain to wine consumption,
are not from an oppositional ground but from within the Islamic elite wine-drinking
culture, which the target groups in the texts violate by exceeding bounds, in terms of
both religion and etiquette, which are transitive categories, as discussed earlier.
In the subchapter on the Sufis, I had discussed how the Sufi master is
depicted as having full corporeal control, almost in a Socratic sense. In Plato’s
famous and influential work on love (Eros), Symposium, Athenian notables,
including Aristophanes, Alcibiades, and later Socrates, converse about and eulogize
Eros, the deity of desire, by turns at a wine gathering. Alcibiades, the prominent
Athenian general, in his turn and “under the impact of wine’s intoxication,”
confesses his “otherwise unspeakable” love for Socrates,220 and how he tirelessly
tried to seduce Socrates during the Battle of Potidea (432 BCE) to no avail. Socrates
is described by Alcibiades as having not fallen to his “youthful beauty,” attempt after
attempt.221 Alcibiades goes on to tell Socrates’ perplexing control over his body, how
216 Shahab Ahmed, What is Islam? The Importance of Being Islamic (Oxford: The University of
Princeton Press, 2016), 36.
217 Ahmed, What is Islam, 62.
218 Walter G. Andrews & Mehmet Kalpaklı, The Age of Beloveds: Love and the Beloved in Early-
Modern Ottoman and European Culture and Society, (Durham & London: Duke University Press,
2005), 144.
219 Andrews and Kalpaklı, Beloveds, 156-7.
220 Plato, Symposium, trans. Seth Bernadete (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001), 46-8.
221 Ibid, 47.
78
he outdid every soldier in the challenging tasks of the battle, resisting hunger and
bitter winter colds with the usual clothes that he always wore, walking barefoot on
ice, standing still outside in the cold till dawn came up, etc.222 The most amazing
thing Socrates did, however, tells Alcibiades, is how nobody ever saw him drunk,
and assures the guests that they will soon witness it.223 He proves right, and at the
end of the Symposium, when every guest falls asleep intoxicated with wine, Socrates,
having drunk a tremendous amount, puts everyone to bed, goes to the Lyceum just as
he’d do any other day.224
Symposium and its depiction of Socrates as the absolute master of his body,
both resisting drunkenness, and youthful attraction, are interesting sources to look at.
One should be careful in comparing them to early modern Istanbulite culture.
However, classical Greek thought has been no stranger to the Sufis. I find similarities
between this Socratic ideal in the hagiographic depictions and the Islamic wine
drinking culture as discussed in this chapter. Self-control, imagined in the body of
the Sufi master, extends into the elite wine party, where getting drunk would be a
violation of etiquette, and those who lack it are criticized within nefsü’l-emrnâmes.
These criticisms are in line with the Kadızadeli critic and discourse that were
up and thriving in the seventeenth century as discussed. The movement had gradually
lost its acceleration towards the mid-eighteenth century, though its impacts on
politics and religious identity were felt by the authors.225 Moreover, there were other
moralists in the eighteenth century, who wrote against innovations like coffee, and
idle occupations like playing chess, gardening, or bird keeping, including Sünbülzâde
222 Ibid, 50-1.
223 Ibid, 50.
224 Ibid, 54.
225 Sariyannis, “Kadızadelis,” 266.
79
Vehbî’s (b. 1719 – d. 1809) Lütfiyye.226 While the political movement eased,
fundamentalist ideals remained effective in Ottoman thought.
Interestingly, the Kadızadelis themselves are not spared from the criticisms,
in the Nuruosmaniye manuscript. In nefsü’l-emrnâmes except for Risâle-i Garîbe,
the second place in the lists, after the disguised Sufis, is always reserved for “the
arrogant weird birds who put on airs as if they are the Phoenix, who look down on
heavens and the legendary Simurgh, calling it a fly.”227 The formula and the idiom
are used to delineate arrogance without narrowing it down to an identified group of
people deemed to be arrogant. In the Nuruosmaniye manuscript, however, the author
takes up the same formula and idiom to attack the Kadızadelis, who this time are
depicted as, “dressed up like weird birds.”228
In his Master’s thesis, Salgırlı claims that at the period in which the
Nuruosmaniye manuscript was written, Kadızadeli would simply be a synonym for
orthodox fanaticism.229 However, self-proclaimed Kadızadelis were present in
Sarajevo, as evidenced by Kerima Filan, as late as the second half of the eighteenth
century.230 Thus, while their halcyon days in the capital as powerful political actors
were gone, the Kadızadeli identity did not disappear for much longer, turning this
passage into one that directly criticizes Kadızadelis, to which the genre and its
templates became an opportunity for expression.231
226 Ibid, 288.
227 “...ve ‘ankâlık da’vâsın iden feleğe kelek simurga sinek dimez her ‘aceb kuş olanlara...” Lâmiî
Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MC), 1.
228 “...ve simurga sinek demez 'ankālık da'vāsın eden 'aceb kuş kıyāfetli Kadızādeler...” Develi, Risâlei
Garîbe, 20.
229 Salgırlı, MA Thesis, 33.
230 Kerima Filan, “Religious Puritans in Sarajevo in the eighteenth century,” OTAM 33 (2013): 44-6.
231 The Kadızâdeli example is also an important one for having shown how the authors were
occasionally appropriating the genre to their own social realities, instead of reproducing the same text
withox*xxut subjectivity.
80
Similarly, in the Istanbul University and Mecmû’a-i Fevâid copies attributed
to Lâmiî Çelebi, and in Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle, Birgivî Mehmed Efendi’s followers,
Birgivîs, are ridiculed. Once again a passage that is reserved for the donkeys and
dogs, without specifying a target group gets turned into a passage that ridicules a
religious group. In the Lâmiî Çelebi copies, the authors mock “the dogs (also
donkeys) who do not let anybody else talk at a gathering.”232 The same passage is
used to deride Birgivîs in Mecmû’a-i Fevâid and Istanbul University copies
attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi; “Birgivîs who do not let anybody else talk at a
gathering.”233 In Makâle, Hacı Ahmed derides “the mendacious Birgivîs who
obstinately try to find fault in others.”234 This passage once again shows how the
nefsü’l-emr stance was not totally aligned with the fundamentalist and moralist views
that were popular at the time.
3.4 Conclusion
These examples from the manuscripts, which depict both Sufi-critical and
Kadızadeli-critical positions, paint an ambiguous picture as to what stance the
authors took in their works. I find Nathalie Clayer’s article on Münîrî-i Belgrâdî
useful for this context, as it shows an alternative approach to the discussion of clear-
232 “…ve meclisde mütekellim-i vahde ve çene defterdârı olub kimseye nevbet değirmeyen
hımârlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 3; “…ve meclisde mütekellim-i vahde ve çene
defterdârı olub kimesneye nevbet değirmeyenhımârlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 5-6;
“…ve meclisde kimseye kelâm itdirmeyüb nevbet virmeyen kuduz kilâblara…” Lâmiî Çelebi,
Nefsü’l-emr (AÖ), 3; “…ve meclisde kimseye kelam itdirmeyüb nevbet virmeyen kilâblara…” Lâmiî
Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MC), 2.
233 “…ve meclisde lakırdı itmede kimseye nevbet değirmeyen Birgivîlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’lemr
(MK), 4; “…ve meclisde mütekellim-i vahde ve çene defterdârı olub kimesneye nevbet
değirmeyen Birgivî sülüsü’l-kavle mübtelâ hımârlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 4.
234 “…ve ‘inâdına musırr olub sözi dürüst değil iken ta’annüt üzere olan Birgivîlere…” Hacı Ahmed,
Makâle, 5.
81
cut orthodox and heterodox identities in the Ottoman Empire. Münîrî was a madrasaeducated
Halvetî sheikh who, according to Nathalie Clayer, had a double identity of
what she defines as côté zâhir and côté bâtin.235 As Clayer argues, Münîrî played
with both religious establishment through his profession as an Islamic jurist and
teacher, and with the Sufi path as a prominent sheikh in his region.236 Münîrî-i
Belgrâdî individually favored an orthodox kind of Sufism, in which the humble
follower did not skip obligatory prayers, consume coffee, opium, tobacco or wine,
and abstained from displaying religiosity and performing rituals that challenged
orthodox Sunnism like sama. He also wrote against the pro-Alid and Malamisympathizing
fütüvvet institution.237
At the period in which the nefsü’l-emrnâmes were being written, both
shariah-abiding Sufis and the fundamentalist Kadızadelis were competing for the
spokesmanship of Sunni orthodoxy in the Ottoman political arena, finding
themselves social base in the urban centers.238 However, Sufism outlived the
fundamentalist movement, via its capacity to internalize the Sunnitizing current of
the times.239 I suggest that, just like Münîrî, the nefsü’l-emr authors too represent the
current of a middle-way approach internalized by Sufis vis-à-vis both the new modes
of piety and the fundamentalist movements. While criticizing new and antinomian
modes of dervish piety, which put Sufism at stake in a time when it was more
difficult to be a Sufi, the authors also made sure to join into the factious debates like
235 Exoteric side and esoteric side, which in the case of Münîrî compose his double identity as jurist
and sheikh.
236 Nathalie Clayer, “Münîrî Blegrâdî, Un représentant de ‘ilmiyye dans la région de Belgrade, fin
XVIe - début du siecle,” Frauen, Bilder und Gelehrte (2002): 555-62.
237 Gölpınarlı, Tasavvuf, 128; Sariyannis, “Kadızadelis,” 281.
238 Terzioğlu, “Sunnitization,” 319.
239 Ibid, 320.
82
the illicit innovations that were being spearheaded by Kadızadelis, whom they did
not spare from their mockery.
In the end, I suggest, at least for the passages covered within this chapter, that
the authors drew from two basic literary sources; Sufi adab literature, and the
fundamentalist ideals that had been on the rise, which culminated in the works of
Birgivî. It is, in the end, the proper conduct via one’s self-control and abstinence
from such factious innovations that constitute the counter-argument implied within
nefsü’l-emrnâmes.
83
CHAPTER 4
URBAN SPACE IN NEFSÜ’L-EMRNÂMES
The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were turbulent times for the
Ottomans. Cycles of rural unrest that periodically swept through the sixteenth
century almost tripled the population of the capital city.240 The city had also become
a condensed nucleus of diversity where social conflicts and eventual daily
confrontations between the “urban participants” were inevitable.241 The social
dynamism of the times helped the flourishing of new ways of seeing and representing
the city both in pictorial and textual works.242 New genres that directed their gaze
towards the city and the loci where urbanites participated in the daily life started to
appear, such as şehrengîz and sûrnâme.243 Derin Terzioğlu and Çiğdem Kafescioğlu
analyze the most celebrated example of the sûrnâme genre, İntizâmî’s (b. 1540 –
d.1612) Sûrnâme-i Hümâyûn in consideration of these social transformations.
I will try to analyze nefsü’l-emrnâmes and their targeted groups in the city
with a similar approach. I will first discuss the concept of representation and what it
might mean for the Ottoman early modernity, making use of the vocabulary
suggested by Timothy Mitchell for comparisons of nineteenth-century Egypt and
France. I will also challenge his arguments with the data and analyses offered by
240 Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, “Viewing, Walking, Mapping Istanbul, ca. 1580,” Mitteilungen Des
Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 56, no. 1 (2014): 27. Accessed May 30, 2021.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/23890552.
241 Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, “Picturing the Square, Streets, and Denizens of Early Modern Istanbul:
Practices of Urban Space and Shifts in Visuality,” Muqarnas 27, no.1 (2020): 140.
242 Ibid.
243 Derin Terzioğlu, “The Imperial Circumcision Festival of 1582: An Interpretation,” Muqarnas 12
(1995): 84; Kafescioğlu, “Picturing the Square,” 157-8.
84
Terzioğlu and Kafescioğlu on the representation of the early modern Ottoman capital
and its populace.
After making the ground for an analysis of representation, I will compare two
approaches to public and private spheres in the Ottoman historiography, offered by
Alan Mikhail and Tülay Artan. Their discussions and differing approaches to space
in the early modern Ottoman context will help me craft my tool for organizational
purposes. Instead of an arrangement based on identity groups as in Chapter 3, I will
employ a structure that takes the reader gradually from the street level to home.
4.1 Representation in nefsü’l-emrnâmes - nefsü’l-emrnâmes as urban representations
In his celebrated article on the world fairs and the “spectacle,” Timothy Mitchell
argues that there was a changing way of representing the world that culminated in the
West during the nineteenth century, and particularly in the example of the French in
his article, which the Orient, as the great “external reality” of Europe, lacked.244
Europeans, according to Mitchell, who reports from the accounts of Egyptians who
had the chance to visit the late nineteenth-century world fairs (expositions
universelles) in Paris, stood and stared, and had a keen eye for the spectacle (le
spectacle), a word to which a visiting Egyptian student could not find an equivalent
in Arabic.245 Europeans organized the world around them as an endless exhibition to
be viewed. Exhibition transcended the walls of the fairgrounds and transgressed into
the city in which everything was organized so as to represent and recall a larger
244 Timothy Mitchell, "The World as Exhibition," Comparative Studies in Society and History 31, no.
2 (1989): 218.
245 Ibid, 220.
85
meaning. The Egyptian delegations often found themselves as the spectacle amidst a
crowd of spectators.246 In the Exposition Universelle of 1867, the Khedive of Egypt
who visited Paris found out that an imitation palace was built for him that
incorporated him into the theatrical machinery, where he received visitors who came
to view him.247 This theatrical machinery set the world up as a picture.
Mitchell conceptualizes this phenomenon as the “object-world,” denoting the
separation and distancing of the self from the world, so that it can be grasped as a
meaningful whole, fit in a frame.248 Exhibitions in Europe alluded to a sense of
external reality that could be found and grasped.249 Thus, the French intelligentsia,
including Gérard de Nerval, Théophile Gautier, and Gustave Flaubert, traveled to
Egypt in the nineteenth century in search of the “real thing,” only to be tremendously
disappointed, for it was nowhere to be found.250 They ceaselessly searched for
viewpoints, elevated enough or at the right angle, from which meaningful pictures of
the cities and their neighborhoods could be drawn or photographed.251 Mitchell
argues that, as the world was not yet arranged to be viewed in the Orient, it refused
such a rendition into an object.252 The Frenchmen returned to their homes
unsatisfied.
I find the concepts he suggests in his article quite useful for this research.
Object-world explains the changing relationship of the viewing subjects with the
world in which they live via separation and distancing. It can benefit the argument
246 Ibid, 219-20.
247 Ibid, 220.
248 Ibid, 227-8.
249 Ibid, 219-22.
250 Ibid, 227-36.
251 Ibid, 229.
252 Ibid.
86
of changing regime of visuality in the early modern Ottoman art and society,
suggested by Kafescioğlu. I will discuss it in relation to nefsü’l-emrnâmes further
below.
However, some points in Mitchell’s formulations are problematic and thus
require discussion. Firstly, his arguments build a rigid and decisive dichotomy of
“Egypt and France,” or of “the Orient and West.” He isolates Europe from the rest of
the world, in a new and supposedly unique or exclusive regime of spectacle. In his
comparison of the visual vocabulary, for instance, the lack of an equivalent for le
spectacle in Arabic, “the” language of the Orient in a way, speaks for the whole.
After all, if in Arabic you cannot find a word, why search for it in other languages of
the historical geography? Hence, his study mutes the rest of the world with one
example of an Egyptian student. Unbeknown to Mitchell, Ottoman Turkish had the
word or words for the spectacle, which were being used ever more frequently in a
century when viewing became one of the defining aspects of the Istanbulite urban
life and identity, as evidenced by Kafescioğlu.
Kafescioğlu, in her article on the changing regimes of visuality in early
modern Istanbul, offers seyr and temâşâ as significant words from the Ottoman
“visualist vocabulary,” and as potential equivalents for “spectacle.”253 Seyr and
temâşâ, which both originate etymologically from Arabic roots that signify the act of
walking, moving, and traveling have come to designate the act of mobile viewing in
Turkish and Persian. In literary examples from the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, Istanbulites were increasingly described as seyr ehli, or ehl-i nazar, people
253 Kafescioğlu, “Picturing the Square,” 152.
87
of the gaze, who flock to the streets and squares to partake in the spectacle, moving
through, watching the spectacle, and themselves being a spectacle to be watched.254
In this regard, I have to acknowledge that ehl-i nazar and seyr ehli differ from
the European spectator in Mitchell’s work. While the early modern Istanbulite
spectator is described as both the spectator and the spectacle, European spectator of
the nineteenth century, according to Mitchell, wanted to be invisible. His visibility
was what impeded him to grasp the “reality,” as the gaze around him in Egypt
always intervened and did not let him set himself apart from the world.255 The
Istanbulite seyr ehli, on the other hand, partook in that reciprocal relationship
voluntarily. The alleged difference is based on the will, as can be seen. The
Frenchman failed at becoming the invisible spectator, as it was impossible to strip
away from this relationship that caught one in the webs of the gaze.
I do not reject Mitchell’s arguments that differentiate the European
organization of world for viewing. However, this is not a phenomenon that can be
isolated to one area and time. Without acknowledging “a European way” of spectacle
among many other regimes of visuality that occurred before, in parallel, or relation
with the so-called European organization of the view, Mitchell’s argument remains
highly reductionist and shortcoming. And even when the emphasis is on the
increasing pervasiveness of the phenomenon beyond the borders of the arenas
reserved for representational spectacles, Ottoman examples from the early modernity
tend to challenge the picture.
254 Ibid, 153.
255 Mitchell, “World as Exhibition,” 230-1.
88
The circumcision festival, held for two months in the summer of 1582 for
Murad III’s son Prince Mehmed III, marks the apogee of the Istanbulite spectacle,
perhaps unparalleled in Istanbul even today as a single set of events. Sûrnâme-i
Hümâyûn depicts processions and performances organized by professional groups of
the city, and by groups like students (sûhte).256 One of the central entertainments in
the festivities, besides music, dance, and fireworks,257 was the procession of model
shops and workshops on wheels dragged by guild members. Guild members would
play a scene that would imitate a day in their shops and workshops.258
The model shops exhibited in the circumcision festival were fictive and
theatrical. They identified the individuals through the objects they made and
exchanged.259 They were prepared so as to recall the reality. Even the ulama
performed in the processions, pretending to search for something in the books that
they carried.260 Likewise, in the Exposition Universelle of 1889, to the surprise of the
Egyptian delegation, even the dirt on the façades of the Cairene souqs were imitated
to represent the real market experience.261
These modes of professional representation in the processions in the
Istanbulite festive scene were also linked to a newly emerging body of literature,
şehrengîz (city thrillers) and letâifnâme (books of jokes), which commented on real
or imaginary individuals from among the artisanal and professional communities.262
The city and its urbanite identities were becoming new foci of art and literature.
256 Terzioğlu, “Circumcision Festival,” 87.
257 On performance arts in the festival, see Metin And, Osmanlı Şenliklerinde Türk Sanatları (Ankara:
Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 1982); Metin And, 40 Days 40 Nights: Ottoman Weddings, Festivities,
Processions (Istanbul: Toprakbank, 2000 [1st ed. 1959]).
258 Ibid; Kafescioğlu, “Picturing the Square,” 157.
259 Ibid.
260 Terzioğlu, “Circumcision Festival,” 93.
261 Mitchell, “World as Exhibition,” 217.
262 Kafescioğlu, “Picturing the Square,” 157.
89
Nefsü’l-emrnâmes relate to this picture and to the social dynamisms that
played a significant role in the emergence of the new genres, in multiple ways.
Firstly, they can be considered relatives of the şehrengîz and letâifnâme genres.
Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi, for instance, has a Letâif in British Library collections.
Moreover, nefsü’l-emrnâmes similarly drew from the social transformations
experienced and witnessed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Similar
phenomena were at play in nefsü’l-emrs’ absolute focus on the street and the city,
rather than court or high politics. Just like letâifnâmes, sûrnâmes, and şehrengîz,
nefsü’l-emrnâmes too recount professional groups and their deeds like a procession,
using humor as a representational quality.
When one distances him/herself from a bothering situation, it can be turned
into an object that amuses. A distanced second life, that will not touch physically,
turns into entertainment which represents a reality further away. Feelings of
annoyance, and perhaps other emotions, can be exchanged for fun and humor when
the subject distances him/herself from the object through representation. Processions
in Ottoman circumcision festivals provide examples of this phenomenon. In their
mobile model, coffee-sellers humorously reenacted a popular discourse of the time
against coffeehouse patrons and coffeehouse clientele. Coffeehouses, which started
to appear in Istanbul in the latter half of the sixteenth century, were objected by the
pious for being loci of illicit drug use and idleness, beside seditious talks, and faced
threats of being closed,263 which I partly discuss in Chapter 3. As Terzioğlu reports,
Sûrnâme recounts how the coffee sellers refused the debased coin of the drugged
coffee drinkers as part of the play in 1582. Eventually, they argued for drinking
263 Terzioğlu, “Circumcision Festival,” 87.
90
coffee and how it benefited learning, as it kept people awake, drawing a hilarious
contrast with the drugged drinkers. According to Mustafa ‘Âli, this performance
pleased the sultan so much that he promised them respite from his wrath for at least
some time.264 I suggest that this instance from 1582 shows how an actual problematic
reality – accusations of drug use and idleness directed at coffeehouse clientele in this
case – becomes tolerable and amusing when turned into a representation.
Another example is the presence of mock-market inspectors (muhtesib) who
pretended to walk around the shop models to keep the “simulated” order in the
market representation. While in 1582, they did not punish the performing guild
members, in the circumcision festival of 1720, they punished the artisans who
“violated” the market regulations. One example was a baker who used defective
weights to get around price controls. His wooden cap was covered with gun powder.
The çavuşes charged with fire and tulumcıs with water, so the mock punishment
continued.265 This act certainly evokes the spectacle of punishment in Foucaultian
sense, which argues that public torture is a theatrical forum that manifests the
sovereign’s extensive power.266 However, it is not the real punishment itself in this
case, and therefore, opens up space for an otherwise missing humor and amusement
within the “safe” distance between the real and representation.
These examples are contained within the limits of the festivals. However, the
Istanbulite gaze and the spectacle were not spatially and temporally limited to the
festivities, where norms could be suspended and lines between identities were
264 Ibid.
265 Ibid, 91.
266 Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Random House,
1977), 55.
91
blurred in a Bakhtinian sense.267 A very interesting example from the anonymous
nefsü’l-emr work, the Nuruosmaniye manuscript, shows the embeddedness of the
idea of spectacle in early modern Ottoman society. In the passage the author mocks:
The street broom,268 the Devil’s buffoon, who (to organize a wedding feast)
walks around the plane tree(s) of ‘Avrat Bâzâr, Çukur Hammâm, and Eyyûb
four times, and says “I invite [you all] to my wedding! It shall be just as
crowded as a spectacle (seyr),” inviting dildo-makers to her wedding
(zıbıkçılarun okuyucısı).269
This example is distinct from all the other formulations found in the nefsü’lemrnâmes.
First, it is the only insult that is directed to a third-person singular in the
whole nefsü’l-emr genre. This suggests that, perhaps, the author insults a real female
burgher he saw, without extracting a generic identity out of her, as he does with the
rest of the targeted groups. More importantly, however, this passage shows the
multiple foci of the urban gaze and spectacle. The woman is making a spectacle of
herself, walking around in public spaces of the aforementioned neighborhoods, and
calling out to the onlookers. Moreover, she announces that she is desirous of a
wedding feast that is as visible and crowded as a spectacle would be. And lastly, the
authorial gaze is upon her, which eventually turns her into textual representation.
While this example is a distinct one, it informs the readers about both the
changing regimes of visuality in the early modern capital city and the authorial gaze
at work in turning urban realities into textual and humorous representations. I will
turn back to this passage further below when discussing gender and space. Before
267 Terzioğlu, “Circumcision Festival,” 91.
268 “Street broom” is an insult to women that is frequently used in humorous literature. See İpek
Hüner-Cora’s article on Hikâye-i Hâce Fesâd. İpek Hüner-Cora, “Gendered Infidels in Fiction: A
Case Study on Sābit’s Ḥikāye-i Ḫvāce Fesād,” Disliking Others: Loathing, Hostility, and Distrust in
Premodern Ottoman Lands, ed. Hakan Karateke, H. Erdem Çıpa, and Helga Anetshofer, (Boston:
Academic Studies Press, 2018), 260.
269 See Appendix D, 11.
92
getting to that, it is necessary to discuss two concepts that have been the focus of
much debate in Ottoman social historiography: public and private.
4.2 Public and private in nefsü’l-emrnâmes
Both Alan Mikhail and Tülay Artan argue that the dichotomy of public and private is
a shortcoming tool that fails to explain the spatial dynamics of the premodern
Ottoman society. Both offer coffeehouses as places that reject the Habermasian
categorization under public or private, which rigidly appoints males to public arenas,
and females to private areas that are well defined and intransitive.270
Tülay Artan, in her article on gendered public spaces in early modern
Istanbul, suggests a third category between the public and private as an intermediate
sphere where boundaries between the individual and society tended to blur.271 Alan
Mikhail, on the other hand, makes use of the concept of heterotopia, coined by
Michel Foucault. According to Mikhail, heterotopias are overlapping spaces that
juxtapose several sites that are in themselves incompatible. He suggests that one
should not think in terms of a rigid dichotomy of private and public but should
emphasize the multilayered character of urban spaces in the early modern Ottoman
context.272 I find both approaches quite useful. However, both arguments
acknowledge the undeniability of the public and private as spatial categories, instead
270 Alan Mikhail, “The Heart’s Desire: Gender, Urban Space and the Ottoman Coffee House,”
Ottoman Tulips, Ottoman Coffee: Leisure and Lifestyle in the Eighteenth Century, ed. Dana Sajdi
(London & New York: Tauris Academic Studies, 2007), 134-6.
271 Tülay Artan, “Forms and Forums of Expression: Istanbul and Beyond, 1600–1800,” The Ottoman
World, ed. Christine Woodhead, (New York: Routledge, 2012): 381.
272 Mikhail, “Coffee House,” 137.
93
of challenging them. Throughout their articles, both use public and private as
inevitable categories.
I suggest that nefsü’l-emrnâmes are works that prove the existence of the
public and private space as gendered urban spheres in early modern Istanbul.
However, these spaces are constantly breaching each other’s domain and overlap in
numerous places. These overlappings, visibilities, and audibilities are what disturb,
and perhaps amuse, the nefsü’l-emr authors. This is why I find Mikhail’s suggestion
of heterotopia as a multilayered locus highly suitable for the Ottoman context,
without, however, denouncing the use of public and private.
To explain my understanding further, I will use the example of the
coffeehouse as used by Mikhail and Artan. I suggest that the Ottoman coffeehouse is
a public domain, which constantly got breached by the private. When male
coffeehouse clientele talked over private matters or when they brought their families
together with them to watch a karagöz show at night,273 the public sphere got
intervened by the private. However, based on nefsü’l-emrnâmes, I suggest that these
instances did not completely alter its being a public domain as perceived by the
authors. Likewise, when the guests at a house party try to look inside the interior
rooms, the house does not necessarily give up its being a private sphere. The nefsü’lemr
problematizations of space are raised right at these junctures and intersections.
Regarding this scheme, I will try to analyze the urban space as represented in
the nefsü’l-emrnâmes, starting at the public level, first as unbreached by the domain
of private. I will gradually arrive at the neighborhood and home, and on the way, will
try to discuss nefsü’l-emr problematizations of the breachings and transitions
273 Kafadar, “Leisure and Pleasure,” 260-1.
94
between the two. Thus, I make use of the two categories public and private, observe
the areas where they overlap temporarily and result in conflict.
4.2.1 A derisive map of Istanbul
Nefsü’l-emrnâmes that are attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi and Hacı Ahmed are mostly
abstract, not only in terms of anonymity of their targeted groups but also spatially. In
their versions and copies, places are not specified and thus, in a way, linger in midair
as representative loci that can signify any location in the outside reality. When
their locus is the market or the dervish lodge, it depicts a generic picture that
represents all the markets and lodges, just like the Cairene souq in Parisian world
fairs or the shop models of the circumcision festival in 1582, which point to external
realities further away. The only instance where urban space gets specified with a
modicum of description in three Lâmiî Çelebi copies is “the imbeciles who borrow
money to go to view the [Rumelian?] Castle (hisâr) with five rowboats.”274 This
passage that brings up the issue of spectacle is only present in three Lâmiî Çelebi
copies that date from the early eighteenth and late nineteenth centuries when the
urban spectacular turn became much more pronounced and unignorable.
While the same abstractness in space is also present in Niksârîzâde’s version
and the Nuruosmaniye manuscript, these texts have instances in which Istanbul and
its neighborhoods suddenly appear with distinguishable toponyms. Their works
sporadically exhibit textual maps of the city, which instantly lay the texts on the
274 “…karz akçe alub beş çifte kayık ile hisâr seyrine giden eblehlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr
(HME), 6; “…karz akçe alub beş çifte kayık ile hisâr seyrine giden eblehlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi,
Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 5; “…karz akçe alub beş çifte kayık ile hisâr seyrine giden eblehlere…” Lâmiî
Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 3.
95
actual ground. Moreover, besides drawing an atlas with words for the readers, their
descriptions also make use of the premodern temporal universe, informing the reader
when and where the ill-mannered Istanbulites performed their ugly deeds. In the
Nuruosmaniye manuscript, a quite lengthy section is reserved for the neighborhoods
of Istanbul and some surrounding towns:
The meaningless, who enter into the filthy pool of the Yeni Kapu bathhouse
for the sake of the catamites of Ayak Kapusı, and who deserve an early grave;
and those who soak the coal and adulterate it with earth and stone in Cibâli
Kapusı … and the oarsmen who row around and save whores [from drowning
in Golden Horn] in Zindân Kapusı … and the filthy who eat mussels, oysters,
crabs, and lobsters in Balık Bâzârı … and the porters with poles from
Kastamonı who say “Oh! Servants and slaves! Get out of the way!” in
Gümrük … and the pimps who have beloveds in Cihângîr, and restlessly
climb up the slope of Tophâne every day [to go to their places].275
There are many more examples from the same section, and each one is about one
neighborhood in and around Istanbul. These depict a city in motion. People climb up
steep slopes, row on boats, go to filthy bathhouses, and partake in urban life. The city
and its denizens become of spectacular value, being mobile-viewed – recalling
Kafescioğlu’s visual lexicon276 – and worthy of depiction in their unscrupulous, and
sometimes hilarious ways to take part in public life. These passages do not depict
residential neighborhoods, but neighborhoods as bustling places of exchange, and as
crowded streets. The authorial gaze is on every district of the city, each giving a
different spectacle to both the author and the other denizens. It renders the street
experience into textual representation.
Kafescioğlu analyzes the changing perspectives in urban pictures of Istanbul
in early modernity. With the increase in the urban population in the latter half of the
275 See Appendix D, 12.
276 Kafescioğlu, “Picturing the City,” 152.
96
sixteenth century,277 cartographic depictions of Istanbul start to make use of new
perspectives.278 In Hünernâme, written by Seyyid Lokmân (d. ca.1601) and
illustrated by Nakkâş ‘Osmân, who was the head of the atelier of painters and
illuminators at the time, Istanbul is illustrated as a completely built-up urban area
within the city walls with courtyards, monuments, bazaars, and intricate webs of
streets that collide.279 The perspective in the picture, as suggested by Kafescioğlu,
puts forward the subjective, street-level experience of a dense urban environment,
inscribing the walking subject into the image.280
I suggest that the untitled nefsü’l-emrnâme of the Nuruosmaniye Library
pictures the same street experience in textual form. Neighborhoods follow each other
as in the maps, with depictions of the ill-manners and debaucheries that are unique to
those neighborhoods. At the same time, I am reminded of the maps hung on the walls
of classrooms in primary schools in Turkey, dotted with landmarks, local produce, or
men and women clad in traditional garments unique to provinces. Nefsü’l-emrs
create a similar symbolism, marking Istanbul’s neighborhoods with their
distinguishable immoralities and chicaneries, much more mobile and transitive,
however, than an educational map that pictures a static and idealized nation.
A shorter passage can be found in the copies of Niksârîzâde’s nefsü’l-emr,
where the author derides the festal masses:
The restless wanderers (gezendiler/gezendeler),281 who (in the extreme winter
cold or the extreme heat) roam and view Istanbul on the first day of the
holidays, Tophane on the second, and Eyüp on the third, jammed together
277 Çiğdem Kafescioğlu, “Mapping Istanbul,” 27.
278 Ibid, 19.
279 Ibid, 22.
280 Ibid, 30.
281 It is written as gezendi in the Hamidiye manuscript, and as gezende, meaning reptile, in the Hafız
Ahmed Paşa manuscript. The latter must be a copyist error.
97
with the scoundrels of those fetid local market (towns), pushing each other in
the tumult.282
Again in this passage, the denizens of Istanbul who desire to partake in the urban
sightseeing, viewing-walking the city and its neighborhoods, themselves become the
spectacle. Moreover, as Cemal Kafadar shows, there were established routines of
sightseeing at the time, as recounted by meddah stories, for which city tours for those
who newly arrived in the city had become a recurring theme.283 Kafadar continues
his example with passages from the Nuruosmaniye manuscript, one of which reviles
the urban spectators as “boylovers of the nature of cooks’ dogs that satisfy
themselves through their eyes, who hustle around Istanbul all day and boast ‘I have
seen so many sights today.’”284 This passage summarizes the early modern
Istanbulite mode of viewing quite skillfully. Istanbul, described as “a sea of people of
the gaze (ehl-i nazar deryâsı)” by Mustafa ‘Âlî,285 increasingly displayed this
indispensable aspect of its urbanite identities, who satisfied themselves through their
eyes, by the view, gazing and enjoying the spectacle, both the show performed in
festivities or coffeehouses286 and the scenes played by the daily urban theater, which
was ever livelier.
In the hustle and bustle of the nefsü’l-emrs’ intricate streets, many social
frictions are problematized too. One such passage reviles:
Those who ride their horses in the muddy streets; and those who sit by their
shops and torment the passers-by leaving their horses in the middle of a
crowded [street]; and the meaningless panders who sit by their shops and
282 See Appendix D, 13.
283 Kafadar, “Leisure and Pleasure,” 263.
284 Ibid, 264; “…ve bütün İstanbul’ı seğirdüp gezüp ‘Bu gün fülân kadar seyr eyledim!’ deyen
gözinden doyar aşçı köpeği tabî’atlu kulanparalar…” Devel, Risâle-i Garîbe, 25.
285 “Dirin Istanbul’a ben ehl-i nazar deryâsı; Kesret-i nâsa nazar nev’-i beşer deryâsı.” Mustafa ‘Âlî,
Divan, ed. İsmail Hakkı Aksoyak, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006), 309; Kafescioğlu,
“Mapping Istanbul,” 117.
286 Kafadar, “Leisure and Pleasure,” 260-1.
98
touch passers-by with their muddy boots and shoes [and spoil their
clothes].287
The street is treated as a transit space, where the flow gets occasionally disturbed.
Moreover, it is where different segments of the urban society encounter each other in
conflict, and yet, sometimes the problem for the authors is that there is no conflict,
where it should be. The authors accuse Muslim urbanites of greeting, doing business,
and hanging out with the “infidel” non-Muslims with no remorse:
The confused who dress up and go to drink wine at the taverns on holidays in
imitation of the infidels; and the irreligious who make merry with the infidels
in their blasphemous holidays; and the filthy who (when they come across an
infidel) converse in the infidel’s tongue despite they [both] know Turkish;
those who deserve to die, and say “My dear!” when doing business with an
infidel; and those who visit infidels at their homes and greet them in their
tongues; and those who respond when infidels salute them.”288
To explain the high level of aversion of Ottoman Muslims for Jews, Hakan Karateke
suggests that devşirme-soldiers who were stationed in cities with diverse populations
must have come into contact and conversed with local Christians in their mother
tongues, learning about the Christian anti-Jew lore like blood libels.289 While the
exact identities are not specified in the passages mentioned above, it is safe to
assume that conversations in languages from the Balkans, or in Greek, Armenian,
and Ladino were common between convert Muslims and non-Muslims. Thus, the
nefsü’l-emrnâmes only tangentially insult non-Muslims as secondary subjects, while
it aims for the Muslim urbanite, who perhaps showed marks of non-Muslim origins.
Another passage from a different section epitomizes this discomfort well: “the
Greeks, who convert to Islam in order not to pay the kharaj tax, and yet converse in
287 See Appendix D, 14.
288 See Appendix D, 15.
289 Karateke, “Ottoman Anti-Judaism,” 123.
99
Greek with other Greeks.”290 The modern reader should be careful here, as the author
rejects the Muslim identity of the aforementioned target group by calling them
Greek, as being Greek could equally be read as “Orthodox Christian.” Likewise,
Hacı Ahmed in his Makâle, derides “the lunatic pimps who speak to the infidels, who
know Turkish, in pig Latin291 (kuşdili).”292
Another interesting and unique aspect of the Nuruosmaniye manuscript is the
derision of the professional and artisanal groups of the city, just as şehrengîz and
sûrnâme:
The infidel bakers293 who do not clip their fingernails; and pastry sellers
(börekçi) who are inattentive to flies, and who prepare pastries with flies in
them; and the dairymen who add three okes (vakiyye) of water into milk, and
who will be submerged into water … and the bathhouse owners (hammâmcı),
who keep the bath cold and the clothes dirty … and the chief stokers294 who
do not provide shelter to the naked poor in the stokeholes in winter.295
4.2.2 Breaches in (gendered) spaces
While Artan and Mikhail analyze the categories of public and private with rather
theoretical tools, nefsü’l-emrnâmes suggest and necessitate a very different approach.
The argument for places as heterotopias with multiple possibilities, or searching for a
290 “…ve harâc korkusından Müslimân olup da gine Urum gördüğünde Urumca söyliyen Urumlar…”
Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 41.
291 It can be claimed that kuşdili, literally bird’s language, is the Turkish version of “pig Latin,” a
rendering of English done by playing with syllables and consonants of words.
292 “…ve Türkîce bilen kâfirlere kuş dilince söyliyen deli puştlara…” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 2.
293 Develi claims that bakers in Istanbul were mostly of non-Muslim origin in the early seventeenth
century, as reported by Kitâb-ı Mesâlih. Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 96.
294 As Tülay Artan reports, chief stokers (külhânbeyi) were bully characters who were allowed some
authority in the neighborhood in return for protection and keeping the public order. They would
provide food, shelter, and warmth to the homeless, orphans, etc. in the stokeholes of bathhouses.
Artan, “Forums of Expression,” 388-9.
295 See Appendix D, 16.
100
third category that is conveniently in between the two gets disrupted by the waves of
laughter of the nefsü’l-emr authors.
As Artan and Mikhail’s suggestions capture the early modern Ottoman urban
and spatial realities well, I will make use of their models. However, on account of the
pedantically critical and facetious nefsü’l-emrnâmes, a positive discourse interwoven
with ideas of spatial coexistence or multilayeredness seems suddenly problematic.
Nefsü’l-emrnâmes are emphatically disapproving of gendered juxtapositions of
public and private, and their disapproval covers not only spaces that directly conform
to the two categories of public and private, e.g. bazaar or house, but also such places
as coffeehouses or bathhouses, offered as nexal and/or liminal spaces by Mikhail and
Artan.296 This argument does not reject the actual coexistence or multilayeredness.
Contrarily, it acknowledges the urban reality of coexistence and proposes nefsü’lemrnâmes
as works that prove this phenomenon. However, given that the spatial
categories exist within mentalities, a study on public and private should not ignore
authorial grievances. Thus, my preference for the word “breach,” is solely one that
seeks to resonate with the nefsü’l-emr authors’ perspectives.
I should also clarify what instances I consider to be breached. After all, every
derision and criticism in nefsü’l-emrnâmes focuses on breaches of a kind in the social
life. However, several passages problematize not immoral behaviors or ill-manners
per se, but an untoward presence in a certain place and time. Even when the focus is
on behavior, emphasis on the spatial presence aggravates the ugly practice or deed.
This is best exemplified by the passage on smoking in the vicinity of the symbolic
power that emanates from the Palace, as the author of the Nuruosmaniye manuscript
296 Mikhail, “Coffee House,” 137, 160; Artan, “
101
reviles “those who, after embarking on a boat from Ahor Kapusı, start smoking
tobacco before leaving past the Sinan Paşa Mansion.”297 While the act of smoking is
deemed reproachable throughout the text, this passage aggravates it by situating it at
an untoward location. Hence, the smoker breaches a symbolic space in the city.298
Smoking is an interesting example. As a gaseous substance, it is extremely pervasive,
and always finds its way and sneaks into unlikely places, disturbing everyone in its
vicinity.
In this subchapter, I begin strolling around the gendered streets and
marketplaces, walk past the coffeehouses and baths in neighborhoods, and lastly get
inside the houses of the Istanbulite elite.
As Mustafa ‘Âlî reports, in the circumcision festival of 1582, a woman who
wanted to watch the spectacles, rode into the fairgrounds on horseback disguised as
an Ottoman subaşı. Someone from among the crowd noticed her true identity and
exposed her ruse, and eventually, she got arrested. She got released the next day,
after defending herself as a chaste woman, who just wanted to watch the festivities.
She also accepted her mistake of dressing up as a man, although she knew there were
many other women among the crowd who watched the spectacle.299 The woman,
who was conscious of the spatial and visual hierarchy of “the right to look,” wanted
to make use of the hierarchy in her favor by sneaking in disguise into the gendered
territory. Only when she backed down as a chaste woman, who was joyful in the
“veil” of purity,300 was she condoned by the establishment. This does not only tell
297 “Ahor Kapusında kayığına binüp Sinân Paşa Köşküni geçmeden duhân içenler…” Develi, Risâle-i
Garîbe, 23.
298 Ibid, 84.
299 Terzioğlu, “Circumcision Festival,” 94.
300 Kafescioğlu, “Picturing the Square,” 157.
102
the story of a woman in disguise, but also the male identity which indirectly gets
challenged and debilitated by the female, a theme which one also encounters several
times in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes.
Female visibility, and occasionally audibility, in public places, like squares,
bazaars, streets, and gardens of the city, is a theme that gets condemned in every
authorial version and copy of nefsü’l-emrnâmes. Interestingly, however, there are
only a few examples that revile women per se. In two Lâmiî Çelebi copies, and Hacı
Ahmed’s Makâle, one such passage ridicules “the putrid [women] who expose their
faces in marketplaces, thinking they are old hags.”301 However, I could not find any
other instance from the manuscripts which problematize female visibility in public
space without at the same time insulting the men as fathers or husbands of women.
Female visibility is always treated as an impudence allowed by men, who are
directly or indirectly reviled and ridiculed either as mollycoddles or cuckolds. İpek
Hüner-Cora, in her article on Hikâye-i Hâce Fesâd, written by the poet Sâbit (d.
1712), claims that the story of the rape of an Armenian woman by two villainous
men, Söz Ebesi and Hâce Fesâd, only secondarily mocks the woman, who is depicted
as a mere object of the male gaze and desire.302 It is her husband, who gets ridiculed
with derisive allusions to his Armenianness, like being a dung dealer303 (bokçu).304
The Armenian husband, who fails at protecting his wife, is blamed not only for
301 “…kendü özün koca karı zann idübde çarşularda burnun açan kokmuşlar…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’lemr
(MS), 3; “…kendüzin koca karı zann idüb çarşûlarda yüzin açan kokmışlara…” Lâmîi Çelebi,
Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 3; “…kendüyin koca karı zann idüb de çârşûda yüzin açub gezen kokmışlar(a)…”
Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 3.
302 Hüner-Cora, “Gendered Infidels,” 256.
303 As also mentioned by Hüner-Cora, Armenians are derided in the same way in the Nuruosmaniye
manuscript, as the author mocks “the Armenians, who, as dung dealers, dare be poets while drenched
in wet shit.” (…ve sulu bokçuluk ile boh olmuş iken şâ’irliğe yeltenen Ermenîler…) Develi, Risâle-i
Garîbe, 41.
304 Hüner-Cora, “Gendered Infidels,” 258.
103
allowing the rape of his wife but also for not having kept her in control before the
incident, as Söz Ebesi is described to have watched the woman and planned the rape
for long.305
Similarly, nefsü’l-emrnâmes usually use wives and daughters as objects
within derisions that are in fact, directed at men as incapable husbands, careless
fathers, or as effeminate men. The Nuruosmaniye manuscript facetiously describes
several urban areas ventured by couples and children. Likewise, the presence of
children, allowed or brought by their fathers, is treated as equally untoward and
reprehensible:
The pimps who accompany their wives and concubines, and go to Kâğıdhâne
to rinse clothes in summer; and those who join their wives and concubines,
and go to the wharf to buy linens with them; the panders who go to baths with
their children; and the debauchees, who take their little children (küçük
ma’sûm) on their laps and bring them to marketplaces, mosques, promenades,
and excursions.306
Men are reproached not only for allowing and, at times being the main agents of
female and infantile presence in public places, but also for joining them in their
unmanly or domestic activities, such as rinsing cloths or buying linens. Furthermore,
some examples more deliberately tease men as inferiors to their wives. In the nefsü’lemrnâmes
attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi and Hacı Ahmed, the authors mock:
The panders who walk behind their wives to a spectacle; and the impudent
and careless pimps, who allow (the voice of) their wives to be heard by
strangers in front of grocery stores and butcher shops by asking their wives
“Oh Lady ‘Âişe! How many okes of meat and how much rice and butter shall
we buy?”307
In these two passages, wives not only become open to view and audition but also are
depicted as superior to their husbands, who walk behind or hand on the responsibility
305 Ibid, 245-6, 259.
306 See Appendix D, 17.
307 See Appendix D, 18.
104
of the house economy. The matter of house economy is an interesting one, as more
than two centuries later, Ahmet Mithat Efendi (b. 1844 – d. 1912), in his Art of Being
a Father (Peder Olmak Sanatı) published in 1899, situates man in the center of the
house economy as the absolute decision maker of every domestic task, from washing
the baby’s diaper to selecting the good pepper in the market.308 Ahmet Mithat
Efendi’s work is influenced by Western ideas and literature and depicts the husband
as the “enlightened despot,” who should also enlighten his wife.309 Nevertheless, it
shows the possible continuation and/or transformation of the gendered phenomena of
the house economy and domestic decision making in the Ottoman family, when
compared with this nefsü’l-emr passage. Furthermore, the domestic responsibilities
also included the control over servants and slaves in addition to the family members,
especially in the case of the wealthy. In the Nuruosmaniye manuscript, the author
criticizes “the wealthy who do not question their servants’ whereabouts while they
(servants) restlessly run about to find whores in the streets without their masters
knowing.”310
There are other examples from the works that resonate with the derision of
men through inferiority to women. The shorter Lâmiî Çelebi copies mock “the
confused pimps who dress their wives in brocade and satin, while they do not even
have woolen clothes to wear.”311 The Nuruosmaniye manuscript, on the other hand,
epitomizes this physically:
308 Ahmet Mithat Efendi, Peder Olmak Sanatı, ed. Gizem Akyol, (İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 2013):
65-6.
309 Ibid, 62-4.
310 “…ve hizmetkârları sokak sokak yelüp orospu arar, ağasının haberi olmayup ‘Nerede idin?’
demeyen devletlüler…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 36.
311 “…kendüne giyecek ‘abâ bulamayub ‘avretine kemhâ giyüren şaşkun püzevenkler…” Lâmiî
Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MC), 2; “…ve enine giymeğe ‘abâ ve kuşanmağa ip bulamayupda ‘avretine atlas
ve kemhâ kaftan kuşak giyidüb kuşatan pâzenklere…” Lâmiî Çelbi, Nefsü’l-emr (MS), 5; “…kendine
‘abâ bulmayub ‘avretine kemhâ giyüren püzevenklere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (AÖ), 3.
105
The sons of heroes (bögüzâdeler)312 who marry two or three women and
settle them in the same home, and who get beaten up badly as their wives
pluck theirs beards, tear up their clothes and split their heads with tongs.313
In his extensive study on death in Istanbul, Edhem Eldem discusses a similar
phenomenon embedded in the gravestones of Istanbulite women. In the gravestone of
Naciye Hanım, who died on 26 August 1901, the elaborate and illustrious
inscriptions on her gravestone eulogize her only through the accomplishments and
public personae of her father Iskender Bey, and her husband Namık Bey. Eldem
defines cemeteries as extensions of the public space and claims that women, who
were almost exclusively limited to the private sphere, could only attain visibility in
this public domain, either as daughters or wives.314 Derisions in nefsü’l-emrnâmes
display the same attitude towards women, who are rendered into identity categories
that enable authors to mock men and question their manliness.
It is interesting to see that the nefsü’l-emr derision of women almost
exclusively juxtaposes them with their male relatives. Bearing in mind that the non-
Muslims were almost exclusively criticized for their encounters with the Muslim
urbanites, the picture gets clearer. The nefsü’l-emrs’ concern is the Muslim male
population of the city, who constitute the society and who are at the center of the
whole establishment. The authors make use of other identities as movie extras, who
in the background, come and go and set the humorous scene for the debaucherous
male Muslim subject at the leading role and in the center of the criticism.
312 Develi suggests the compound word bögüzâde/bügizâde means sons of (strong) heroes, as böke
means stronga dn heroic. Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 107.
313 See Appendix D, 19.
314 Edhem Eldem, Death in Istanbul: Death and Its Rituals in Ottoman-Islamic Cultures (Istanbul:
Ottoman Bank Archives and Research Centre, 2005), 144.
106
The extremity and unusualness of the Nuruosmaniye passage that ridicules
the woman who invites people to her wedding, exemplifies this. She is strongly
reviled, as she makes this great publicity, more so than the women who go to bazaars
with their husbands and children. She is depicted as alone and autonomous, with no
man to whom the author can transfer the fault of her untoward presence, visibility,
and audibility.315 When she assumes a central position of her own making, she
becomes the main target. The author of the manuscript was taken aback by the level
of her willing public presence.
Up to this point, I treated the categories of public and private as if they were
the mirror images of male and female identities. This, however, does not emancipate
men from the shackles of privacy. The great challenge of privacy is that everyone
carries their most private belongings wherever they go: their bodies. The ubiquity of
the body is perhaps the most basic and latent breach in the domain of the public. One
always has to contain one’s body within limits. I showed that the exposure of the
female face in the marketplace was treated as a “breach.” However, men are not
exempt from the necessary corporeal continence in the public sphere and are
ridiculed, more than women, when they expose their body parts. In one passage, the
Lâmiî Çelebi copies unanimously mock “the old catamites who expose a tuft of hair
out of their turbans, despite being bearded.”316 In Makâle, Hacı Ahmed berates
315 I wonder if the fact that she was calling out for her wedding feast had anything to do with her
solitary presence in the passage, as a woman at the liminal space in transition from the father’s domain
of power to the husband’s.
316 “…ve sakallu olub sarığından dışra perçem gösteren ‘atîk pûştlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr
(YB), 2; “…ve sakallu olupda saruğunın ardından perçem gösteren eski puştlara…” LâmiÎ Çelebi,
Nefsü’l-emr (MS), 4; “… ve sakallu olub sarığından dışra perçem gösteren ‘atîk pûştlara…” Lâmiî
Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 5; “…ve sakallu olubda sarığından dışra perçem gösteren eski
pûştlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 4; “…ve sakallı olub sarığından dışra perçem gösteren
‘atîk puştlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 3; “…ve sakallu olubda perçem gösteren eski
puştlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (AÖ), 3.
107
“those whose dicks will desiccate, and who erect and exhibit their insolent dicks in
their pants.” Another passage, again from the Lâmiî Çelebi copies revile “the passive
pederasts who expose their asses while bathing in the bathhouse.”317 Perhaps the
curse of flatulence in the initial section of maledictions should also be read along
these lines, as the absolute loss of corporeal control and letting one’s inner corporeal
privacy out at a gathering (meclîs). I take the argument a step further and propose
that the female body and presence could be approached with male corporeality in
mind, as wives, and also children, are treated almost as extensions of the male body,
not without the allegory of Eve being created from Adam’s rib. Söz Ebesi and Hâce
Fesâd perhaps rape the body of the Armenian husband in the story.
As I give the example of the bath, I arrive at the doors of Ottoman coffee- and
bathhouses, which Artan and Mikhail both designate as places that necessitate
different analytical tools beyond the categories of public and private.
Central to Mikhail’s argument on the coffeehouse is the residential
neighborhood. He suggests that Istanbulites saw their neighborhoods (mahalle) as
extensions of their untouchable individual private space, of their inner personal
domain.318 Strangers were immediately recognized and counted as outsiders, as
residents rarely ventured out of their neighborhoods, where all of their basic needs
could be met.319 The nineteenth and early twentieth-century Armenian author Zabel
Yessayan’s memoir, The Gardens of Silihdar, gives a similar account of her area of
movement that gradually expands as she grows. As the bedridden days of her infancy
317 “…ve hammâmda gasl iderken götün gösteren kekezlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 2;
“…ve hammâmda gasl iderken götün gösteren kekezlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 5;
“…ve hammâmda yıkanurken götin gösteren kekezlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (MK), 4; “…ve
hammâmda gasl iderken götün gösteren bî-şerm kekezlere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 3.
318 Mikhail, “Coffee House,” 146.
319 Ibid, 144.
108
end, their street opens up as a space where she can play, and gradually she starts to
visit the adjacent streets and neighbors.320 At the end of the book, she and her friend
Arshagouhi decide to visit the famous feminist author of the time Srpouhi Dussap,
and leave their neighborhoods.321 The neighborhood is described as an extension of
domestic privacy and safety, from which Yessayan manifestly broke apart with a
visit to feminist Dussap, who lived across the Bosphorus.
However, the suggestion of extension should not be overestimated. Mikhail
claims that Ottoman homes had a unidirectional relationship with the street and
neighborhoods. While vision and sound could travel into homes, the opposite was
ideally not allowed. Islamic laws regulated house and street relationships, pertaining
to structural matters like where a window could look.322 The author of the
Nuruosmaniye manuscript gives facetious examples to this unidirectional
relationship, as he mocks: “the panders who get built lattice windows that view the
street, saying ‘Both I and my wife are melancholic!”323 In another passage, he
ridicules “those who throw their sweepings on the roads; and those who allow [their
wives] to hang their motley gowns and lingerie on the street and towards the
neighbors’ side.”324 These passages show that the streets and neighbors adjacent to
one’s home were nevertheless considered within the domain of the public.
At the center of the neighborhoods was the coffeehouse. Mikhail argues that
coffeehouses were nexal spaces, which means that they collected, connected, and
320 Zabel Yessayan, The Gardens of Silihdar: A Memoir, ed. Judith A. Saryan and Joy Renjilian-
Burgy (Boston: AIWA Press, 2014): 68.
321 Ibid, 135.
322 Mikhail, “Coffee House,” 152-3.
323 “…ve ‘Ben de ehlim de sevdâyidür!’ deyü sokağa pençere kafes yapdurdan gidicikler…” Develi,
Risâle-i Garîbe, 28.
324 “…ve yol üzerine süpüründi dökenler; ve sokak üzerine konşuluktan tarafa ‘avartlarun alaca tonun
alaca kaftanın ‘avrat çamaşırın serdirenler…” Ibid, 44.
109
distributed rumors, gossips, and news from within and outside the neighborhood.
Coffeehouses were so central to the neighborhood life and culture that they were
usually the first businesses to be opened up in newly built neighborhoods throughout
the Empire.325
According to Mikhail, coffeehouses were where men gathered and socialized
in the privacy of their own, as poorer families did not afford the traditional separation
of haremlik and selamlık within their houses. In a way, the coffeehouse functioned as
a selamlık where men could host their fellows without disrupting the family privacy.
Thus, coffeehouses became somewhat second homes to poorer male denizens of
neighborhoods as centers of homosociality. In Makâle, Hacı Ahmed ridicules this
phenomenon not without some arrogance, deriding “the shameless who visit those
who pass their time killing lice (kehle cellâdı) and sleep in coffeehouses.”326
Coffeehouses were also bringing together men from different social and
economic strata and with different motivations to go there. This is why, just like the
street, coffeehouses too were places of encounter. For instance, Niksârîzâde mocks
“the disgraced addicts, who, unnecessarily [cause the coffeehouses to] get blamed by
the felicitous ones, although the purpose of going there is to gather with friends, and
to converse about learned matters, poetry, and witticisms.” 327 In this procoffeehouse
passage, Niksârîzâde directly alludes to the debates of the time, which
targeted coffeehouses as loci of illicit drug use and idleness and threatened to close
325 Mikhail, “Coffee House,” 138-9.
326 “…ve kahvehânede uyuyan kehle cellâdına ziyârete varan utanmazlara…” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 5.
327 “…ve kahvehâneye varmakdan maksûd yârânla haşr olub ‘ilmi ve şi’iri ve ba’zı letâif musahabeti
iken eshâb-ı sa’âdet mezemmetin iltizâm-ı mâ-lâ-yelzem eyleyen nekbetî tiryâkîlerin…” Niksârîzâde,
Nefsü’l-emr (HAP), 5-6; “…ve kahvehâneye varmakdan maksûd yârânla haşr olub ‘ilmi ve şi’iri ve
ba’zı letâif musahabeti iken eshâb-ı sa’âdet mezemmetin iltizâm-ı mâ-lâ-yelzem eyleyen nekbetî
tiryâkîlerin…” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (H), 7.
110
them,328 and speaks up as an insider from within the café culture. It shows that the
discomfort about the coffeehouses and coffeehouse clientele was not solely from
outside or from the high officials, who feared seditious fermentations,329 but from
among the elite coffeehouse enthusiasts, who had a certain vision for coffeehouses as
places of socialization, and who were dismayed by the presence of lower classes.
Contrary to what Cengiz Kırlı suggested earlier, Mikhail discusses that
coffeehouse talk included private-intimate gossipry more than public-political rumor
in its Habermasian sense.330 The coffeehouse was a space where men brought their
family issues, opened up about their private lives, and shared their daily troubles and
emotions. The prevalence of “feminine talk,” suggests Mikhail, invalidates a
gendered dichotomy of male-public and female-private as lenses with which to
examine the coffeehouses, as they were in a reciprocal and natural relationship with
the households of the neighborhood and the outside world at once.331 However, it is
necessary to add that these moments of opening were not always smooth or wellreceived.
The Nuruosmaniye manuscript problematizes the issue of advertising
and/or publicizing privacy in the following passage:
The panders who always talk about their homes; the Croats who say “My
family went to the bathhouse today;” and those who boast about themselves
going to the bathhouse; and those who allow their wives and concubines’
voices to be heard by the neighbors and in the streets.332
328 Terzioğlu, “Circumcision Festival,” 87; Artan, “Forums of Expression,” 383.
329 Kafadar, “Leisure and Pleasure,” 253-4.
330 Mikhail, “Coffee House,” 159-60.
331 Ibid, 137.
332 See Appendix D, 20.
111
In the Lâmiî Çelebi copies333 and Hacı Ahmed’s Makâle, the authors bash exactly at
this juncture where men brought too much privacy and feminine talk specifically
within the coffeehouse context:
The impudent debauchees in the coffeehouse, who say “Boy! [My] wife
requests henna at home!” instead of telling their servants in privacy; the
confused who say “Boy! Fetch [me] the large purse from home immediately!
I have run out of money!” in the coffeehouse or when with friends; and the
blokes, who brag about (kaftân biçen)334 their wives in the coffeehouse.335
Remembering Sariyannis’ suggestion that the seventeenth-century Kadızadeli
movement might have appealed to a profit-minded merchant class, comparable to
Protestant work ethic,336 I add that one perhaps needed to be neither a Kadızadeli nor
a profit-minded merchant to defend industrious endeavors in the seventeenth century.
Perhaps one should bear this industrious ethic in mind when trying to understand
what the nefsü’l-emr as an identity category suggested by Niksârîzâde might mean.
Feminine gossipry, as opposed to masculine rumor, and drugged laxity, as opposed
to caffeinated vigor, work against the nefsü’l-emr identity, that is reverse-built in the
works. Kafadar’s example of the grand vizier Koca Sinan Paşa (b. 1520 – d. 1596)
might be a good one to compare with the nefsü’l-emr gentleman, as Paşa selfreportedly
worked at nights for stately matters, portraying himself as a night owl in
his letters to the Sultan.337 Interesting on the part of nefsü’l-emrnâmes, nighttime is
missing from the works, as there are no depictions of nocturnal activities or
mischiefs. The night is when social and public life mostly came to a halt in
333 These examples found in Lâmiî Çelebi copies are pure copyist additions as Lâmiî Çelebi himself
cannot have seen coffeehouses, having died at least one decade before the earliest reports of
coffeehouses from the Empire in the mid-fifteenth century.
334 I could not find the idiom kaftân biçmek (to tailor robes) in dictionaries, but I assume that men
either eulogize or brag about their wives in this context, as kaftân was precious.
335 See Appendix D, 21.
336 Sariyannis, “Kadızadelis,” 263-4.
337 Kafadar, “Leisure and Pleasure,” 254-5.
112
premodern societies. Despite its becoming ever livelier in early modern Istanbul, as
Kafadar shows, the contrast that the night drew with the day and its outright
grotesque chaos under the sunlight, must have spared the night from nefsü’lemrnâmes’
mockery. As the people retreated to their homes’ privacy, the
disturbances railed in the social invectives eased down or, alternatively, surfaced up,
while the authors were writing their works in the calmness of the night.
As the nefsü’l-emr gentleman appears around the corner, I arrive at the house.
The house in nefsü’l-emrnâmes is the elite household without exception. While the
coffeehouse liberated men from their poor domestic environment,338 the elite usually
gathered at each others’ houses with domestic servants serving coffee or pouring
wine.339
Like Mustafa ‘Âlî’s Table of Delicacies (Mevâ’idü’n-Nefâ’is fî Kavâ’idi’l-
Mecâlis), nefsü’l-emrnâmes too take into the center the elite gathering and the table
manners, and as reverse works of etiquette, they emphasize the excluding aspect of
the etiquette even more. In nefsü’l-emrnâmes, guests are ridiculed for a wide array of
uncouth and hilarious behaviors at the table, from blowing one’s nose too loud like a
Frank horn,340 to pouring one’s remainder of soup back into the pot.341 The following
lines from the Nuruosmaniye manuscript ridicule the two opposite types of guests,
who could not find the golden mean of etiquette: “those who run to sit down to the
338 Mikhail, “Coffee House,” 143-4.
339 Ibid, 142.
340 “…ve bir kaç kimseler yanında makâm ile sümkürüp firenk borusı gibi bunını öttüren nâhemvârlar…”
Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 34.
341 “…ve kaşığında kalan ta’âmı yine ta’âm içine döken nâ-cinslere…” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 3.
113
meal before the host says ‘Please, sit down!’; and the inattentive who sit back out of
politeness, and drop [food] on the table napkin and their clothes.”342
One of the most recurring topics, however, is the guests’ relationship with the
servants. As the servants were considered as members of the host’s domestic and
private domain, guests had to abstain from exceeding a line concerning servants. The
following passage from the Nuruosmaniye manuscript exemplifies this, as the author
reviles “the brutes who look at the face of the servant young boys while the latter
serve coffee at a grandee’s house.”343 This also shows the homoerotic and/or
homosocial culture of the elite wine and coffee gatherings. As Mikhail suggests, both
in wealthy households and coffeehouses, coffee was served by attractive youths, just
like wine.344 Socratic continence was perhaps also necessary when being served a
cup of coffee, which probably was etymologically related to wine in the Arabic
language.345
4.3 Conclusion
In this chapter, I took into the center the urban space as represented in the nefsü’lemrnâmes,
and treated nefsü’l-emrnâmes as textual expressions of early modern
transformations in Istanbul’s urban identity, for which the notions of gaze, spectacle,
and viewing became inseparable features. While nefsü’l-emrnâmes make fun of
342 “…kibârlar evlerinde ta’âm kurulup sâhib-i hâne: “Buyurun!” demeden seğirdüp çökenler ve
“Buyurun” denildikte ‘aklınca zirâfet edüp gerü oturup beşkîr üzre, esbâbı üzre damladan bînedler…”
Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 26.
343 “…ve kibâr hânesinde tâze hizmetkârlar kahve verirken oğlanın yüzine bakan hayvânlar…”
Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 26.
344 Mikhail, “Coffee House,” 164-5.
345 Kafadar, “Leisure and Pleasure,” 248.
114
people who were ever more desirous of the spectacle, at the same time they give
glimpses of the authorial gaze upon the daily life out on the streets, marketplaces,
bath- and coffeehouses, depicted as chaotic, immoral, and hilarious loci of
socialization. I used instances from early modern festivities as discussed by
Terzioğlu and used the visualist vocabulary offered by Kafescioğlu, comparing it
with Mitchell’s article on world fairs.
I tried to comment on the discussions of the gendered categories of public and
private as analyzed and denounced as inefficient by Artan and Mikhail. I defended
the usefulness of the two terms and offered passages from nefsü’l-emrnâmes that
showed the validity and reliability of the two categories in the Ottoman urban space,
which was not independent of the mentalities that experienced it, while at the same
time making use of the concepts of heterotopia suggested by Mikhail, and liminality
by Artan.
The nefsü’l-emr identity, which will be discussed in the conclusion of this
thesis, has been questioned in this chapter concerning the “other” identities, like
women and non-Muslims of the city, who came to take secondary roles in creating
the responsible center figure of the male Muslim Istanbulite.
Lastly, in this chapter, I offered the early modern Ottoman genres of
şehrengîz, sûrnâme and letâifnâme as potential relatives to the nefsü’l-emrnâmes,
and at the same time considered exclusionary works of etiquette, such as ‘Âlî’s Table
of Delicacies, as works that could have influenced the making of the nefsü’l-emr
genre.
115
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
Throughout this thesis, the four authorial versions of the nefsü’l-emrnâme genre have
been analyzed. It has been argued that the seven manuscripts attributed to Lâmiî
Çelebi, the famous poet of the fifteenth-century Bursa, cannot have been written by
him, as they ridicule social phenomena that took place after his death in 1532. The
four authorial versions, based on their attributions in titles, have been divided into
two branches to highlight divergences within the genre. Lâmiî Çelebi copies, Hacı
Ahmed’s Makâle, and the anonymous Nuruosmaniye manuscript have been collected
under one rubric, named the Lâmiî Corpus. In Chapter 2, the divergences and
convergences of the manuscripts within the Lâmiî School have been exemplified
along with the basic structural elements that form the genre of nefsü’l-emr.
Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi’s unique style has been analyzed under a
different subsection as his version follows a different form and ridicules a different
set of people of the early modern Ottoman society. It has been claimed that
Niksârîzâde’s main target group is the pretentious people who undeservingly earn
themselves a place among the learned elite.
In Chapter 3, the argument has focused on the religious groups and matters,
including Sufis, Kızılbaş, and Kadızadelis, all of whom receive their share from
derisions in nefsü’l-emrnâmes. It has been argued that the nefsü’l-emrnâmes display
the Sunnitizing currents of their time, joining in discussions against antinomian
dervish piety, Kızılbaş, and illicit innovations (bid’at). However, as discussed, the
116
works also do not condone the fundamentalist views of the contemporaneous groups
like Birgivîs and Kadızadelis, who are not spared from the derisions.
In Chapter 4, the focus has shifted to the urban space and how the city and
urban society get represented in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes. It has been argued that
nefsü’l-emrnâmes are urban representations, similar to their literary relatives
şehrengîz, letâif, and sûrnâme. It has also been asserted that the paradigm of
spectacle has been a central topic in nefsü’l-emr literature. In that regard, Timothy
Mitchell’s “object-world” and Çiğdem Kafescioğlu’s “mobile-viewing” have been
helpful concepts to think with.
Furthermore, using passages from nefsü’l-emrnâmes, the usefulness of the
terms public and private for the early modern Ottoman social context has been
questioned. Contrary to Alan Mikhail and Tülay Artan’s denouncement of the terms
for failing to represent Ottoman social realities, I have argued that gendered notions
of public and private are concepts that do exist in the minds of the nefsü’l-emr
authors, who deride instances that can be considered as breaches in urban space.
These comprise only some of the topics, issues, groups, and practices that are
ridiculed and derided in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes. From sexuality to gender, to social
class and table etiquette, the wide array of topics problematized in the works needs a
much deeper investigation. As this thesis is also an attempt at introducing this highly
ignored genre to the larger scholarship, the topics covered have been wider.
Furthermore, future studies should analyze the manuscripts uncovered in this
thesis due to inaccessibility. As most of those manuscripts, which are listed in
Chapter 1, are seemingly attributed to Lâmiî Çelebi in library catalogs, the question
117
of his nefsü’l-emr authorship might get a clearer answer after analyses of all the
nefsü’l-emr manuscripts attributed to him.
Having laid out the main arguments of the thesis, I find it necessary to
provide an attempt at translation of the compound word “nefsü’l-emrnâme,” which
functions as the binding title of the works studied in this thesis.
Cemal Kafadar in his article on Sohbetnâme, a seventeenth-century diary
kept by a certain Seyyid ‘Osmân, claims that ego narratives and social observations
like those of Mustafa ‘Âlî increased in number and variety in the Ottoman Empire,
due to rapid social transformations and dislocations through the seventeenth
century.346 Kafadar adds that these new styles and genres that took the self or social
observations into center mostly went unmentioned in contemporaneous biographical
and literary studies, which preferred to function within the confines of recognized
conventions.347
Furthermore, Emine Fetvacı shows that the rising subjectivity was not only in
the first-person narratives but also in the long-standing traditions that were usually
deemed to be formal and static like Ottoman paintings. Fetvacı argues that author
and painter portraits became more visible in the early modernity, as they started to
attach their portraits in the books prepared for palace patrons, distinguishing their
works from other paintings and reminding themselves to the reader-beholder.348
Nefsü’l-emrnâmes are not ego narratives. However, as discussed in previous
chapters, they are expressions of the same social change and transformations in the
346 Cemal Kafadar, “Self and Others: The Diary of a Dervish in Seventeenth Century Istanbul and
First Person Narratives in Ottoman Literature,” Studia Islamica 69, (1989): 125-6.
347 Ibid, 126.
348 Emine Fetvacı, “Ottoman Author Portraits in the Early-modern Period,” in Affect, Emotion, and
Subjectivity in Early Modern Muslim Empires, ed. Kishwar Rizvi, (Leiden: Brill. 2017): 66-94.
118
Empire, coinciding with a time when diaries, sûrnâmes, şehrengîz, or travel books
were being written.
It is undeniable that nefsü’l-emrs’ primary purpose is to turn several groups of
others into amusing objects to be laughed at. Perhaps Mihirig’s reading of nafs alamr
as an “objective world” independent of the thinking mind,349 and Mitchell’s
concept of the “object-world” as pointing to outside reality,350 can be argued to be at
the center of the term nefsü’l-emr as applied in these nefsü’l-emrnâmes. What these
social invectives primarily do is to make known a truth, accepted by the authors to
exist either behind the pretentious covers of the immoral masses or in the genuine
acts and traits of the genteel. Hence, I suggest that the nefsü’l-emr, the meaning of
which I had opened into a discussion in Chapter 1, is concerned more with the idea
of truth applicable to both the ill-doers and the men of grace. Nefsü’l-emrnâmes not
only reveal the true faces of the charlatans, but also make known the “true”
gentleman, men of grace, or, perhaps the “friends of nefsü’l-emr.” Hence, nefsü’lemr
simultaneously designates a lowly other, worth of becoming an object to
humiliating waves of laughter and sets aside a sincere elite identity. Thus, I would
translate the name of the genre nefsü’l-emrnâme as fact books or the books of facts.
While the nefsü’l-emr descriptions are unidirectional, as discussed several
times throughout this thesis, the criticisms of immoral behaviors indirectly draw a
reverse picture of the elite demeanors. The self is not at the center in the nefsü’lemrnâmes,
nor is it as visible as the author portraits attached at the paintings as
Fetvacı suggests, except for some instances in the initial passages where the authors
349 Mihirig, “Typologies of Scepticism,” 14-6.
350 Mitchell, “World as Exhibition,” 227-8.
119
express feelings or when they designate some counter identity to which they
presumably belong. However, such pedantic construction of the other in the works
inevitably draws the image of the authorial identity and feelings of belongingness.
Thus, I suggest that for a document to be “ego,” perhaps reverse descriptions that
give indirect road maps to authors’ self-perception would also be alternatives. When
the authors ridicule this plethora of uncouth behaviors, from nose-picking to
foolishly borrowing money to organize a feast, the readers get also informed on the
authors, who, like the European travelers who, according to Mitchell, would try to
conceal themselves beneath the dark veil of their cameras, are cached behind their
pens. We navigate between their hilarious observations, but in every corner, we see
the authors.
However, the reverse construction of the authorial identity in the nefsü’lemrnâmes
does not need to stoop so low as to be defined solely in contrast to what
the impudent riff-raff do. When the texts end, it is the ability to laugh away at the
parade of these self-humiliating people, that separates and sets apart the “men of
grace.” Laughter has long been treated as the commoner’s endeavor, with crude
jokes and grotesque imagination. While my argument does not oppose that paradigm,
I suggest that in the nefsü’l-emrnâmes, laughter sets an almost aristocratic superiority
on the genuine elite’s part, turning others into crude jokes by which the true elite can
be amused at gatherings. This is where the Ottoman historiography on humor errs,
dismissing the language applied in these texts, becoming perplexed by what they call
worthless vulgarities, with which “even a pumpman would be ashamed of.”351 The
supposedly obscene, scatological, and/or lampooning language in these works, is
351 Levend, “Gülmece ve Yergi,” 40.
120
exactly what set the elite and/or genteel apart and above, locking the pretentious
mobs down in the fecal ground.
In conclusion, I suggest that the nefsü’l-emr concern is only secondarily the
manners. Written by and for a group of elite, who would already be well-informed on
the etiquette, nefsü’l-emrnâmes offer images of grotesque maledictions on hilarious
wannabes and use laughter as a barricade with which to distinguish the right from
wrong, genuine from fake, in a time of upward mobility and social transformations.
Nefsü’l-emrnâmes, I suggest, are written as manifestos of an identity crisis, out of a
need to reaffirm and remind the readers who is who.
121
APPENDIX A
ABBREVIATIONS OF MANUSCRIPTS
Authorial Attribution Library & Collection ID Abbreviation
Lâmiî Çelebi Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi – Mihrişah
Sultan 439
Nefsü’l-emr (MS)
Lâmiî Çelebi İBB Atatürk Kitaplığı – Muallim
Cevdet K.144
Nefsü’l-emr (MC)
Lâmiî Çelebi Milli Kütüphane - Yazmalar
Koleksiyonu A.264/3
Nefsü’l-emr (MK)
Lâmiî Çelebi Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi – Yazma
Bağışlar 6692
Nefsü’l-emr (YB)
Lâmiî Çelebi Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi – Hacı
Mahmud Efendi 2167
Nefsü’l-emr (HME)
Lâmiî Çelebi Milli Kütüphane – Adnan Ötüken İl
Halk Kütüphanesi 3757/2
Nefsü’l-emr (AÖ)
Lâmiî Çelebi İstanbul Üniversitesi Nadir Eserler
Kütüphanesi – TY.3182
Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ)
Hacı Ahmed Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi – Bağdad
404
Makâle
Niksârîzâde Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi – Hafız
Ahmed Paşa 362
Nefsü’l-emr (HAP)
Niksârîzâde Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi – Hamidiye
390
Nefsü’l-emr (H)
122
APPENDIX B
TRANSCRIPTIONS
Full transcriptions of the unpublished manuscripts used for this thesis can be found
below in the order in which they were presented in Table 1 in Chapter 1.
Corresponding folios are indicated with letter F. Punctuations are used to help the
reader make sense of the texts. Where the writers crossed off in the original texts are
represented here with a strikethrough. Passages that could not be read are represented
with ellipses. Modern Turkish transcriptions of the nefsü’l-emrnâmes are my own
with much-appreciated checks and help from my thesis advisor Derin Terzioğlu.
Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (MS)
(F1)
1 Sezâvâr-ı hamd ü sena ol pâdişâh-ı bî-hemtâya ve şehinşâh-ı zû’l-’izz ve’l-kibriyâya-
2 -dır ki dergâh-ı ‘âli ve bârgâh-ı müte’âlîsinden gerdânkeş ve cabbârlar
3 kelbden hor ve hakîr yürür ve hezâr ezhâr-ı hadâyık-ı salavât ol ‘andelîb-i
4 terennümserâ-yı bâğ-ı hakâyıkadır ki delâlet-i tarîk-i hidâyet ânun içün feth-i
5 bâb olmuşdur ki latîf edâlardan ve şirîn nidâlardan hevâ râgıbları ve dünyâ
6 tâlibleri hakkında “ed-dünyâ cîfetün ve tâlibühâ kilâbun” gelmişdir. Sebeb-i risâle-i
7 ‘acîbe ve mûcib-i tedkîk-i makâle-i garîbe oldur ki; elem ü şiddetden hâtırdar
8 idüb halkın kendü ‘aybları ile takayyüd itmeyüb erbâb-ı zarâfete haylî elem ve
9 ıztırâb virdikleri içün bî-ihtiyâr lîsânıma gelen nâ-şâyeste kelâmât
10 zuhûra getürüb şutûm-ı ma’kûle ile şetme başladım. Evvelâ usûldan
123
11 hâric olub dahî ta’lîm ile mukayyed olmayan cühelâya hüdâ-yı zû’l-meşan ve
12 pâdişâh-ı lem-yezelden ricâm budur ki; âb-evşâna vardıkda ol kuyuya
13 düşe ve kış günleri ‘azîm zifozlara uğraya ve kasıklarında kan
14 çıbanları çıkara ve câmehâbında kırk dâne yılan bula ve katır depmesine
15 dokuna ve çârsu içinde atıyla giderken başından saruğu düşe
16 ve ‘azîm meclisde bin dâne kavara vâkî’ olub bin dürlü ‘azîm hicâba
17 düşe, yâ’ni rüsvâ-yı ‘âlem olsun. Evvelâ hakîkat dâ’vâsı iden ehl-i
18 kisvet sûfîlere ve ‘ankâlık dâ’vâsın iden sîmurga sinek dimek
19 her ‘aceb kuş olanlara ve hidâye okuyup hidâyet bulmamış köy
20 fakîlerine, köle sûfîlerine ve yeniçeri mürâyilerine, ıstılâhât ve ‘ibârât
(F2)
1 söylerin sanub türkî sözü dahî idrâk idemeyen türk dânişmend-
2 -lerine, tekyegâhlarda celb-i dünyâ içün önüne çerâğ koyub oturanlara ve
3 evliyâdır diyenlere ve pîrliğinde aksakalın boyayub yiğitlenen kocalara ve
4 kızının gelin gibi yüzün yazan pîre-zenlere ve ölü helvasına, ıskat
5 akçesine göz karardub yılışan tarrârlara, yalancı emîrlere ve yalancı
6 pîrlere, ve emîrin azgunlarına ve dânişmendlerin kuzgunlarına ve
7 okunmayan da’vete varanlara, çerp pilavı destmâle koyanlara ve ta’âm
8 ortada iken bu dursun filan gelsün deyü hazır ta’âmı
9 kalduranlara ve yemeği kendü önüne çekenlere ve kaşıkta kalan
10 ta’âm bakıyyesini ta’âm içine dökenlere ve yemek evvelinde çok çok
11 sığır gibi su içenlere ve yemek yerken tükrüğün saça saça söz
12 söyleyenlere ve dahî ta’âm ortada iken fâtiha fırladanlara ve bahâ-
13 -dırum deyü başına kartal kanadı sokanlara, ve katır eğerine pâlden
14 takanlara, ve bargîr su içerken sıklık virenlere, ve çakşırsız mest
124
15 giyenlere, ve bir kimse bir sözü dimeden gamz iden kezzablara, ve bir muhabbeti
16 evvelinden dinlemeyüb tamâm olucak mahalde soran püzevenklere
17 ve kendü esbabın düzmeğe mukayyed olan hîzlere, ekâbir sofrasında
18 ta’âm sâhibinin hizmetkârların sofraya çağıran edebsizlere,
19 ve geda … baba nasûha kuş mısın dimeyübde âşikâre hokkasına
20 biber kadar afyon gıdâsın koyanlara, … ilin kitâbın okumağa deyü
21 elinde eski beze döndüren cühelâya, ve sofra üzerinde poh
(F3)
1 lakırdısın iden pohlu böceklere ve ba’z-ı sakîl gidilere, yârânın yârâna
2 koşduğun istemeyübde kendü gelüb sokulan yezidlere, yalan
3 şâhidliğine hâtır içün kezb ihtiyâr iden kezzâblara, ve sofrada
4 cümlesi bir sahanda yer iken gayrı ta’âma el uzunluğu iden dest-i
5 nâ-pâkı kuruyacaklara, tazının ve zağarın ağzından öpen murdarlara, senin
6 hakkına garîbân söyledi deyü münâfakat iden boğazından asılacaklara,
7 eline bir kaç akçe girmeğle kendü özün büyük âdem tabakasına koyup
8 kimse beğenmeyüb soğra görmüş köftehorlara, ve ferâce altına et
9 ve yahud balık saklayan murdarlara, kör fakîh mülevves tiryâkilere, ferâcesinin
10 yeniyle ve kuşağının ucuyla ağzın silenlere, ve çok çok kağrılub
11 tükren marîzlere, ve süd ve ayran ve çorba yerken kaşığın pek dolduran
12 ac gözlülere, ve muttasıl bıyığın düzmeğle mukayyed olan
13 kalâfatlara, ve gizlenüpde kapu yaruğundan bakan pîre-zenlere, kendü özün
14 koca karı zann idübde çarşularda burnun açan kokmuşlara, ve bayram
15 günlerinde saruğunın ardın önüne giyen hayvanlara, ve bir yola gitdikde
16 ferâcesinin yenin koltuğuna alan zarîf kuzgunlara, ve sakalın dişiyle
17 yolan dîvânelere ve sakalının ağın yolubda bıyığını kızılbaş bıyığına
125
18 döndüren kızılbaş gidilere, ve ölü ta’âmına varub koltuğuna çanak
19 kısub bekleyenlere, ve hıyarın ellisi altmışı bir akçeye iken azdır dahî
20 vir diyen insâfsızlara, ve bir kimesne bir şey okurken sen okuyamadın
21 getür ben okuyayım diyen edebsiz cühelâya, ve satranc bâbında leclâc
(F4)
1 geçinübde biri biri ardınca üc def’a yenilen yâdigârlara, ve “pilava yoğurt
2 koymak hakîr, hazz eylemezin” diyen ağzının dadın bilmenlere, ve lâgar bârgire
3 ‘abâyla binen gidilere, ‘âriyetî bârgir ve esbâb ile düğüne gidenlere, ve
4 konc(l)u cizme giyübde kof kof gezenlere, ve komsu kazâ kethüdalarına, …
5 kuzı kürkine zerdevâ yakalık koyanlara, ve mahkeme mahzarı olupda efendisi
6 var filan kimesne getür dedikde ol dahi temâm herîfi haklayub salıvir-
7 -dikden soğra geldikde dünyânın yalanın söyleyen kezzâblara, ve ba’z-ı yâran
8 bir hikâye bast iderken bunun aşağısı filandır diyen edebsizlere, ve henûz
9 ağzında hamr râyihâsı var iken namâz kılmak isteyen mel’ûnlara, ve meclisde
10 fâsık-ı mahrûm olup sofra kurudanlık iden ‘abdü’l-batn sığırlara,
11 ve ‘ilm mâ’rifetden bî-haber olupda ‘âlim geçinen merkeblere, odasın ve hizmetkâr-
12 -ların düzmeğle mukayyed olan hîzlere, ve sakallu olupda saruğunın ardından
13 perçem gösteren eski puştlara, ve hamâmda yıkanırken götün gösteren
14 puştlara, ve bin târihinden soğra evlenmek kasd iden har-ı lâ-yefhemlere, ve
15 maksûdı bir şahsa ziyâfet iken mecliste bir münâsebeti olmayan eşhâsı
16 dâhil iden idrâksizlere, kendü müflis iken mürâbaha ile akçe alupda ziyâfete
17 taklîd iden nekebâte, ve meclisinde kelâm itmeye kimesneye nevbet virmeyen
18 köpeklere, makremesi içine sümkürüp yine içine bakan hımârlara, kendüyi
19 bilmeyüb ve istihkâkı olmayubda sadr-ı â’lâyı gözeden mel’ûnlara, ve ba’z-ı
20 ta’âm iz’ân-ı pâk yenürken kaşık ile girişen ‘abdü’l-batn sığırlara,
126
21 ve bâ’z-ı kimesne yeniçeri sipâhi değil iken ol kıyâfetde gezen densizlere,
(F5)
1 türk dânişmendi ile kahvehâneye, bûzehâneye ve meyhâneye ve çârsu
2 bâzâr seyrine varan bî-mezâk civânlara, ve kîsesinde akçe olmayupda
3 nigâra ve civâna ‘âşık geçinen ahmaklara, ve ba’z-ı dilber dahî ‘âşıkına cefa
4 idüb gayrı ile konuşanlara, ve bâde meclisinde cömerdlenüb bir kimesneye
5 bir kazıyye bir câbe çekinübde irtesi peşîmân olan kurı kalâfatlara, ve
6 ba’z-ı gidiler, oğlıyla şarâb sohbeti idüb ‘avretine kadın oğlına
7 çelebi diyen kodoşlara, ve enine giymeğe ‘abâ ve kuşanmağa ip bulamayupda
8 ‘avretine atlas ve kemhâ kaftân kuşak giyidüb kuşadan
9 pâzenklere, duhân lülesi ağzında iken uyuklıyan pohlu böceklere,
10 başı kel âverdi bol hodbin zevâid lazlara, ve te‘vîl ile yemîn
11 iden mel’ûnlara, metâ’ına yalan şirâ katan Bâzîrgânlara, halk-ı
12 ‘âleme kendüyi dindâr inandırub elin hakkına tama’ iden mürâyîlere,
13 müselmân olupda meyhânecilik iden pelîdlere, kâhillik iden kâtiblere,
14 kitâbet bilürken bana mektûb yazıvir diyen küstâhlara, uzaktan
15 kız dileyüpde kış gününde düğün iden ahmâklara, ve düğüncülüğe
16 varan süfehâya, namâzda ta’dîl-i erkân itmeyen namâz uğrılayana,
17 ve câriyeyi gebe idübde yine satan müsülmânlığı kıttlara, ve mağlûb-u
18 keyf olupda pohuyla çekişen pohlı tiryâkîlere, poha denk olub
19 ekâbir hoş-âmedcilerine, ve ‘ulemâ meclisinde ehl-i ‘irfân âresinde
20 bilir geçinen cühelânın mürekkeblerine, ‘avreti ve niçe evlâdı var iken
21 yine evlenen köpeklere, ve serhadd emekdârı geçinübde battâl hikâyelerin
(F6)
1 tekrâr söyliyen sakîllere, kapucıların yalancılarına, nekbetî alay beğlerine,
127
2 ve müflis müteferrikalara, ve fâzîlların komsîlarına (?) nâîblerin telebbüslerine,
3 kethüdâların puştlarına, kahvehânede oturubda dünyâyı mezemmet
4 iden kallâşlara, meyhâne çalıcısına … sipâhîlerine, yeniçerilerin
5 dûşluksuz püzevenklerine, çorbacı odabaşı olan kodoşlara,
6 ‘acem oğlanının maryollarına, ve zemherîde karpuz ve yaz gününde yumurta
7 yiyenlere, abdâl usladan didikleri yağmurda yağmurluk giyinmeyübde dülbendden
8 makreme ile örten idrâksizlere, mâl-ı yetîm ve mâl-ı vakf ekl ü bel’ iden
9 bî-dînlere, aksakallu olupda fâhişelere mukayyed olan îmânsızlara,
10 başı kel olupda nâzik ‘arakçîn giyen arnavud hîzlerine, bir kimesnenin
11 ba’z-ı tuhfesi olupda satılığı değil iken elbette bunı bana sat diyen bî-meze
12 hayvânlara, ve bir yerde bir kimesne musâfir iken hâricden gelen musâfire “elbette
13 gel bizde kon” sâhib-i hânenin rızâsı yoğiken teklîf iden bî-’ârlara,
14 ba’de’t-ta’âm el yunurken leğen içine sümküren murdârlara, ve ziyâ-
15 -fetlerde zarîf peşkire elin silen eli kurıyacaklara, bayrâm günlerinde kız isteyen
16 ve gelinin seyre gönderen … kendi ma’yûb iken elin ‘aybıyla mukayyed olan
17 hodbînlere, namâz kılmayupda dâimâ elinde tesbîh getüren bî-namâzlara,
18 ekâbir yanına sokulub dâimâ yüzine medh iden rîş-handelere,
19 bu nefsü’l-emrde yazılan fi’l-cümle perhîz olmak üzre
20 kasd itmeyen ebterlerden her kim olursa bu risâle
21 dîbâcesinde olan vartalara ve ‘akîdlere … (illegible)
Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (MC)
(F1)
1 Sebeb-i risâle-i ‘acîbe ve mûcib-i makâle-i garîbe oldur ki elem ü şiddetden
2 hâtırdar idüb halkın halkın kendi ‘ayblarıyla takayyüd itmeyüb erbâb-ı zerâfete
128
3 hayli elem ve ıstırâb virdikleri içün bî-ihtiyâr lîsânıma gelen nâ-şâyeste
4 kelimât zuhûra getürüb ma’kûliyle şetme başladım. Evvelâ usûlden
5 hâric olub dahi ta’lîm ile mukayyed olmayan cühelâya hüdâ-yı zu’l-menândan
6 ve pâdişâh-ı lem-yezelden ricâ ve niyâzım budur ki âb-evşâna vardıkda kuyuya düşe
7 ve kış günleri ‘azîm zede uğraya ve zifozlara uğraya, ve kasık yerlerinde kan
8 çıbanları çıkara, ve câmehâbında kırk dâne yılanlar bula, ve katır depmesine
9 dokuna, ve çârsu içinde atıyla giderken başından saruğı düşe ve ‘azîm meclisde
10 bin dâne kavara vâki’ ola, bin dürlü ‘azîm hicâba düşüb hacâlet ile
11 rüsvâ-yı ‘âlem olsun. Evvelâ hakîkat da’vâsın iden ehl-i kisvet sûfîlere,
12 ve ‘ankâlık da’vâsın iden feleğe kelek simurga sinek dimez her ‘aceb kuş
13 olanlara, ve hidâye okutub hidâyet bulmamış köy fakilerine, ve yeniçeri
14 mürâyîlerine, ve ıstılâh-ı ‘ibârât söylerim sanub türkî sözü dahî
15 idrâk idemeyen türk dânişmendlerine, ve tekyegâhlarda celb-i dünyâ içün
16 önünde çırâk koyub okuyanlara, ve ana evliyâdır deyü sû’ idenlere, ve pîrlikde ak
17 sakalın boyayub yiğitlenenlere, ve kızının yüzün gelin gibi yazan pîre-zenlere, ve
ölü
18 helvasına ve iskat akçesine göz kızardub yılışan tarrârlara, ve yalancı emîrlere,
19 ve yalancı pîrlere, ve emîrin azgunlarına, ve dânişmendlerin kuzgunlarına, ve
okunmayan
20 da’vete varanlara, ve cerb pilâvı destmâline koyanlara, ve ta’âmı yârân önünden
kendi önüne
21 çekenlere, ve kaşık içinde kalan ta’âmı gerü ta’âm içine dökenlere, ve yemek
evvelinde
22 çok çok sığır gibi su içenlere, ve ta’âm yerken tükrüğün saça saça söz söyliyenlere,
23 ve katır izine pâldüm dakanlara, ve bârgîr su içerken ıslık virenlere, ve çakşırsız
mest
129
24 giyenlere, ve bir musâhebeti evvelinden dinlemeyüb soğra temâm olunca evvelini
soran püzevenklere,
25 ve kendü esbâbın düzen hîzlere, ve hokkasına büber kadar afyon koyanlara, ve ilin
kitâbın
26 emânet alub eski beze döndüren cühelâya, ve sofra ortasında murdar lakırdısı iden
(F2)
1 sakîl gidilere, ve yârânlar istemeyüb kendi gelüb sokulan ‘arsız gidilere, ve tazısının
2 ağzından öpen murdarlara, ve eline akçe geçüb kimesne beğenmeyen köfte-horlara,
3 ve ferâce altına et saklıyan murdârlara, ve yeniyle ve kuşağıyla ağzın silen
4 tabî’atsizlere, ve çok çok kağurub tüküren pislere, ve çorba içerken kaşığın
5 dolduran ac gözlülere, ve muttasıl bıyığın düzen kâlefatlara, ve sakalın ağın yolan
6 ve kırkan gidilere, ve hıyarın ellisi bir akçeye iken az diyen insâfsuzlara, ve satranc
7 başında leclâc geçinüb birbiri ardınca üç kerre yenilen yâdigârlara, ve yağır bârgîre
8 ‘abâ ile binen mendebûr gidilere, ve konclu cizme giyüb beylik beylik kof kof
9 gezen kuvâldâzlara ve ba’z-ı yârân bir hikâye bast iderken bunun aşağısı filandır
10 diyen edebsüzlere, ve ta’âmda sofra kurudan güvezlere, ve ‘ilm ü ma’rifetden bîhaber
olub
11 ‘âlim geçinen mürekkeblere, ve sakallu olubda perçemin göstüren eski puştlara, ve
bin
12 târihindensoğra evlenmek kasd iden har-ı lâ-yefhemlere, ve mürâbaha ile akçe alub
13 ziyâfet iden nekbetlere, ve yoklukda oruc dutan mürâyî köpeklere, ve meclisde
kimseye
14 kelam itdirmeyüb nevbet virmeyen kilâblara, ve makremesi içine tükürüb ya
sümkürüb
15 içine bakan hımârlara, ve yeniçeri olmayub ol kıyâfetde gezen densüzlere, ve
hizmetkârı
16 ac kendüsi habbeye muhtâc iken libâs-ı fâhire ilen … iden kalâylı kûzlara,
130
17 ve kîsesinde akçe olmayub nigâra ‘âşık geçinen ahmak yoluklara, ve ‘avretine
18 kadın oğluna çelebi diyen kodoşlara, kendüne giyecek ‘abâ bulmayub
19 ‘avretine kemhâ giyüren şaşkun püzevenklere, ve te’vîl-i yemîn iden mel’ûnlara,
20 ve kitâbet bilürken kâhillik idüb bana bir mektûb yaz diyen küstâhlara, ve kış
21 gününde düğün iden ahmaklara, ve namâzda te’dîl-i erkân itmeyen namâz
uğrılarına,
22 ve “câriye-yi gebe” idüb satan müsülmanlığı kıtlara, ve kürkiyle çekişen mühmelât
23 tiryâkîlere, ve ‘ulemâ meclisinde “bilürin” geçinen câhil merkeblere, ve ‘avreti ve
evlâdı
24 var iken yine evlenen mendebûrlara, ve nekbet alay beğilere, ve menhûs
kethudâlarına,
25 ve süflî çorbacı odabaşısı olanlara, ve ‘acem oğlanının maryollarına,
26 ve müflis müteferrikalara, ve nâ’iblerin telebbüslerine, ve kahvehânede dünyâ demi
iden
27 kallâşlara, ve zemherîde karpuz ağustosda yumurta yiyen … kadrin bilmeyenlere,
(F3)
1 ve aksakallu olubda fâhişelere hased iden îmânsuzlara, ve musâfir olubda
2 bir yerde “… bırakun ev sâhibi râzıdır” diyen bî-’ârlara, ve ba’de-
3 ’t-ta’âm el yurken leğen içine sümküren murdârlara, ve ziyâfetlerde latîf
4 peşkîrlere elin silen eli kuruyacaklara, ve bayramlarda karısın seyre göndüren
5 tarrârlara, ve kendi ma’yûb iken ilin ‘aybına mukayyed olan hodbînlere, ve namâz
6 kılmayub elinde tesbîh getüren bî-namâzlara, ve … sûret … tabân sûfîlere,
7 ve ekâbiri yüzine medh iden rîş-handelere, bu nefsü’l-emrde yazılan fi’l-cümle
8 perhîz kasd itmeyen ebterde her kim olursa bu risâle ibtidâsında zikr olan
9 vartalara uğraya, âmîn. Temme er-risâle.
131
Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (MK)
(F1)
1 Sezâvâr-ı hamd ü sena ol pâdişâhân-ı bî-hemtâya ve şâhinşâh-ı zû’l-’izz ve’lkibriyâyadır
ki dergâh-ı ‘âli ve
2 bârgâh-ı müte’âlîsinden gerdankeş ve cabbarlar kelbden hor ve hakîrlerdir ve hezâr-ı
hadâyık-ı salavât ol ‘andelîb-i terennüm-
3 -serâ-yı bâğ-ı hakâyık-ı hubebdir ki delâlet (ider) -i tarîk-i hidâyet ince feth-i bâb
olmuşdur ki latîf edâlardan ve şirîn
4 nidâlardan hevâ râgıbları ve dünyâ tâlibleri hakkında “ed-dünyâ cîfetün ve tâlibühâ
kilâbun” gelmişdir. Sebeb-i risâle-i ‘acîbe
5 ve mûcib-i tedbîr-i makâle-i garîbe oldur ki; bir seher dâr-ı dünyânın elem ü şiddetin
hâtıra idüb halkın
6 kendi ‘aybları ile takayyüd eylemeyüb erbâb-ı zarâfete elem virib hayle ıztırâb
virdiklerinden bî-ihtiyâr lisânıma
7 gelen nâ-şâyeste kelimât zuhûra gelüb biz-zarûrî şetme başladım. Evvelâ usûlden
hâric olub dahî ta’lîm ile
8 mukayyed olmıyan cühelâya hüdâ-yı zu’l-menândan ricâmdır ki âb-evşâna vardıkda
ol kuyuya düşe ve kış günlerinde
9 ‘azîm zifozlara uğraya, ve kasık yerlerinde kan çıbanları çıkara, câme-hâbına kırk
dâne kan çıbanları yılan gire,
10 katır depmesine uğraya dokuna, çârşu içinde atla giderken saruğı düşe, ‘azîm
meclisde bin tâne kavara vâki’
11 olub ‘azîm hicâba düşüb rüsvây ola. Hakîkat da’vasın rîş-hand ehl-i kisvet sûfilere,
bir dûd-ı âhdan tekye
12 külâhı urunmış ‘âşık meşreb sâfî dil levendlere, bir dûd-ı âhdan ‘ankâlık da’vâsın
iden sîmurga sinek dimez bir ‘aceb
13 kuş olanlara, efkâr-ı hiddete evkâr olub kerkes gibi bî-per ü bâl olmuşlara, ve hidâye
okumuş hidâyet bulmamış
132
14 fakîlere, köle sûfilerine şeyhlik iden şakîlere, çıkrığa çevrilmiş misvâklara, sufîyân
mürâyîlere, kara şemle
15 sarınub gâîb söylerin diyen etrâklara, ıstılâh ü ‘ibârât söylerin sanub türkî sözi dîvâra
kısub
16 deliklere koyanlara, köy be-köy ka’be sûretin gezdirib kapu kabu ibrâhîm destânın
okuyanlara, semâ’ ü safâ bilmez
17 Mevlevîlere ya’nî eliflü külâh urunub kara yerin gömgök evliyâsı görinüb çerâğ ü
‘ilm getürüb cerr ü cevr iden
18 Levlevîlere, Hızır İlyâs çevgânın getürenlere, tekye-gâhlar öninde celb-i dünyâ içün
önlerine çerâğ koyub oturanlara,
19 eyyâmı temmûzda mesâfe-i ba’ideden evg getüren beğlere, ve âhu postından tâc
urınub er oğlı geçinen köpeklere, deli şücâ’dan
(F2)
1 Deli Şücâhdan tâc ur giyenlere, ve yollarda oturub mezbelelerde oynar dîvânelere
evliyâdır diyenlere,
2 pirlikde ak sakalın henûz kırkıb yiğitlenen koca pelîdlere, pirâyelerle kız gelinler
gibi yüzin boyayan pîre-zenlere,
3 esrâr ‘âşıklarına, bûze-hâne köpeklerine ya’nî yâvuz bekrîlere, haşîş horlara, kumarbâzlara,
‘ayyârlara, şevl-i kadeh
4 cerrârlığın iden bî-‘ârlara, ölü helvâsına göz karardıb yılışan tarrârlara, yuvâdan
uçmamış bûn yavrılar
5 şikârına içün kebûter bâzlık iden nâ-bekârlara, yalancı pirlere, ve yalancı emîrlere,
‘avâmın azgunlarına ve
6 dânişmendin kuzgunlarına, okunmıyan da’vete varanlara, çerb pilâvı destmâle
saranlara, kadâyıf kaşığıyla
7 hoşâb yiyenlere, dahî ta’âm ortada iken fâtihâ okuyanlara, sofra çekilüb nân ni’met
dökülüb yemek
8 ortaya geldikden soğra “hele filân da gelsün” deyü hâzır ta’âmı koyub gâîbe
küyenlere, zarîf-i sipâhî
133
9 geçinüb sarı sofdan şalvar giyenlere, bahâdırım diyüb başına kartal kanadın
sokanlara, eğer katırına
10 pâldüm takanlara, ihtiyârla tüfenk getürenlere, tob tüfenk atılur kal’a nişângâhlarına
karşu âb-evşâne
11 oturanlara, bârgir su içerken sıklık virenlere, çakşırsız mest giyenlere, ve bir
kimseden bir sözi işidib
12 dahî gamz iden tiryâkîlere, ve ba’z-ı kimsenin evsâfın otururken dimeyüb doğrı
kalkub diyürenlere, ve bir
13 musâhebeti evvelinden dinlemeyüb tamâm olucak mahallde evvelin soran
pâzenklere, ve türkçe bilen kâfir dilince
14 söyliyen nâdânlara, ve kendi esbâbın düzmeğle mukayyed olan hîzlere, ve ekâbir
sofrasında ta’âm sâhibinin
15 hizmetkârların sofraya çağıran edebsizlere, ve gedâ yemede baba nasûha kuşu musun
diyübde
16 âşikâre hokkasına biber kadar afyon gedâ yiyen sefîh tiryâkîlere, ve elin kitâbun alub
eski beze
17 çeviren hayvânlara, ve sofra üzerinde poh lakırdısın iden pohlı böceklere, ve yâran
öninden kendi
(F3)
1 önine çekenlere, kaşığında kalan ta’âm bakıyyesin yine ta’âm koyanlara içine
dökenlere, ve yemek
2 evvelinde sığır gibi çok çok su içenlere ve ba’z-ı kimseyi göz habsine koyan bîkârlara,
ve ba’z-ı sakîl gidiler
3 bir yârânın yârâna kırışdığın istemeyüb de kendi gelüb sokulan hîzlere, ve yeni
dânişmend oldukda
4 velâ yanında edebsizlik iden harlara, yalan şâhidlerine ve hâtır içün kezb ihtiyâr iden
kezzâblara,
5 ‘ahd nedür bilmezlere, ve sofrada cümlesi bir sahandan yerken gayrı ta’âma el
uranlığın iden dest-i
134
6 nâ-pâki kurıyacaklara, tazının ve sığırın ağzın öpen murdârlara, zemmâmlara,
müfessellere, filân kimse
7 senün hakkına garâibât söyledi deyü münâfakat iden boğazından asılacaklara,
istimâlî lakırdılara pek pek
8 çığıran merkeblere, eline bir kaç akçe girmek ile kendüsin bir büyük âdem
tabakasında koyub kimse
9 beğenmiyen soğradan görmüşlere, ve ferrâcınun altına et veyâ balık saklayan
murdârlara, eşek ve dana sikenlere,
10 müsülmanlığın başın ağrıdıb kerevetü’l-kulûb olan uslûbsızlara, kör fakîlere,
mülevves tiryâkîlere,
11 kürkli ferrâcenin yeni ile ağzın silen köpeklere, ve çakşır içinde gömleğin edibde
sikin düzen siki
12 kurıyacaklara, ve çok çok kağırub tüküren marîzlere, ve süd yerken kaşığın pek
dolduranlara, muttasıl
13 bıyığın düzmeğle mukayyed olanlara, kalâfatlara, ve kapu yarığından gizlenib bakan
fertütlere, kendüzin
14 koca karı zann idüb çarşûlarda yüzin açan kokmışlara, ve gözlerin kömürle silinmiş
15 çilingir yüzüğüne döndüren ahrimanlara, ve bayrâm günlerinden sarığının ardın
enine giyen hayvânlara,
16 ve sakalının ağını yolubda ya’nî kızıl baş bıyığına döndüren kızıl başlara, ölü ta’âmı
içün koltuğuna
(F4)
1 çanak kısub bekleyenlere, hıyârın ellisi altmış bir akçeye iken azdır deyü “dahî vir”
diyenlere,
2 bir kimesne ba’z-ı nesne okurken “sen okuyamadın getür ben okuyayın” diyen
edebsizlere, “pilâva yoğurt
3 koymak hakîr, hazz eylemezin” diyen zarîflere, ârîk rüsvây bargîre âbâ ile binen
gidilere, ve elin bârgîriyle
135
4 ve gayrının esbâbıyla düğüne binenlere, koncı bol cizme ile giyenlere, komsu kazâ
kethüdâlarına ve çavûş
5 değilken çavûş geçinen merkeblere, beyâz kuzı kürkine zerdevâ yakalık koyanlara,
ceybine etmek üzüm
6 yumurta koyanlara, zurâfâ meclisinde kâfir dilince söyliyen mürtedlere, ve ba’z-ı
yârân bir hikâye bast iderken “bunın
7 aşağısı bu filândır” diyen edebsizlere, ve henûz ağzının hamr râyihâsı var iken
namâz kılmak isteyen mürâyîlere,
8 ve meclisde fâsık-ı mahrûm olubda sofra kurudanlık iden ‘abdü’l-batn sığırlara, ve
yârân odasında berş
9 hokkasının dibin gözteren berrâşlara, ve ‘ilm ü ma’rifetden bî-haber olub da ‘âlim
geçinen türklere, … odasın ve hizmetkârın
10 göstermeğle mukayyed olan cimrî musâfirlere, ve sakallu olubda sarığından dışra
perçem gösteren eski pûştlara,
11 ve hammâmda yıkanurken götin gösteren genezlere, ve bin târihinden soğra
evlenmek isteyen kasd iden har-ı lâ
12 yefhemlere, ve maksûdı bir şahsa ziyâfet iken meclise bir münâsebeti olamayan
eşhâsları dâhil iden
13 idrâksizlere, ve kendi tamâm müflis olupda mürâbaha ile akçe alub da … ziyâfet
taklîd iden nükesâ
14 nekebâte, ve mikdâr-ı kifâye sebeb-i ma’işeti var iken hindistân seferine kasd iden
bikle bâzirgânlara,
15 meclisde hiffet ihtiyâr iden galîzlere, ve şarâb meclisinde izhâr-ı fazîlet idüb
musâhebet-i ‘ilmiyye iden kasbe-i zarîf
16 yârâna, ve yağmurlı havâda salıncak ile takayyül iden iden yâdigârlara, ve bayramlık
‘âşıkı olmayubda salınçakçılar
17 koçsun makâmında yalnuz salınan civânlara, ve ashâbı-ı sa’âdetden mezemmetin
iltizâm-ı mâ lâ-yülzem eyleyen nekbetî
136
18 … ve meclisde lakırdı itmede kimseye nevbet değirmeyen Birgivîlere, ve
makremesinin içine tükürüb … (missing)
Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (YB)
(F1)
1 Sebeb-i risâle-i ‘acîbe ve mûcib-i dakâyık-ı garîbe oldur ki nâ-gâh bir hengâm-ı
seher dünyânın âlâm-ı şedâyidinden
2 ve mihen-i hadâyidinden idrâce-i hâtıra idüb ekser-i nâs kendü tühem ü ‘uyûbıyle
mukayyed olmayub erbâb-ı zarâfete
3 elem ve ashâb-ı letâfete endûh ü gam virdiklerinden nâşî bî-ihtiyâr ve bi’l-ıztırâr
lisânıma gelen nâ-şâyeste
4 kelimâtları zikr idüb girîbân-ı ihtiyârımdan dest-i tahammüli ‘adem-i tahlîs ve cürûb
ü şütûm-ı mütenev’îye şürû’ ü âgâz
5 eyledim. Evvelâ dâire-i usûlden hâric olub dahî ta’allüm-i ‘ilm ü âdâb ile mukayyed
olmıyan cühelâya cenâb-ı hazret-i
6 zû’l-menandan ricâ ve niyâzım budur ki; berây-ı efşân edebhâneye vardıkda ol çâh-ı
menhûsa düşe, ve zeker
7 ü hâyesi havâlibinde mükerrer ve müte’addid kan çıbanları çıka, ve câmeh(w)âbına
kırk ‘aded mâr-ı ef’î gire,
8 ve katır depmesine öküz süsmesine mülâkî ola ve dâbbe-süvâr tarîk ve asvâk içre
giderken başından
9 destârı düşüb ehl-i dükkân harâmzâdesinün sît ü sadâsıyla melâmet ü melâletine
uğraya, ‘âkıbet-i âlâm
10 bir meclis-i ‘azîmde mânend-i zebtâne zırta çeküb üftâde-i hicâb ü rüsvây ola, imdi
da’vât-ı sâlifât
11 ü muhâlifât kimlere ‘âid ü râci’ ola? Evvelâ hakîkat da’vâsıyla rîş-hand olub ehl-i
zerâfeti
137
12 ve erbâb-ı letâfeti kesüb biçen sûfîlere, ve her dûd-ı âhdan tekye urunmış ‘âşık
meşreb sâfî dil
13 levendlere, efkâr ü hiddetde evkâr ve vâdi-i hayretde bî-kâr olub kerkes kuşı gibi bîper
ü bâl olmuşlara,
14 ‘ankâlık da’vâsın idüb sîmurga sinek dimez “bir ‘acâyib kuş” diyen hodpesendlere,
ve Hidâye okumuşda
15 hidâyet bulmamış kör fakîhlere, çıkrıkdan çevrilmiş misvâk isti’mâl iden mürâyî
sûfîlere, ve
16 ıstılâhât ü ‘ibârât söylerim zann idüb türkî kelâmı dahî edâya kâdir olmayan türk
dânişmendlere,
17 karye be-karye ka’be-i mükerreme sûretin gezdirüb kapu kapu geyik destânın
okuyanlara, eliflü külâh
18 urunub kara yerin gömgök evliyâsı görünüb çerâğ ü ‘ilm ile habr ü halka ezâ ü cevr
iden
19 semâ’ ü safâ bilmez mevlevîlere, bir meclisde ahbâb ile sohbet iderken uyuyan
tiryâkî-i menhûs
20 nâ-halef eşerrlere, Hızır İlyâs çevgânın getürenlere, tekye-gâhlar öninde celb-i dünyâ
içün önine
21 çerâğ koyub oturanlara, eyyâm-ı temmuzun şiddet-i harâretinden mesâfe-i bâ’ideden
un/evg devşirüp
22 getüren peyklere, âhû postundan libâs ü sûret düzüb “er oğlı nefs oğlıyız, kazâya
siper
23 içün üç pâre nezr ve bir pâre kurbân gönder” deyü kerâmet kaydına düşen geyiklere,
ve anlara i’timâd
24 iden har-ı lâ-yefhemlere, ve deli şücâ’dan tâc giyenlere ve yollarda oturub
mezbelelerde oynar
25 dîvânelere evliyâdır diyenlere, ve pîrlikde aksâlın kırkub yâhûd pirliğin ihtifâ içün
boyalar
(F2)
138
1 sürüb sâhte yiğitlenen koca pelîdlere, pirâyelerle kız gelinler gibi boya ve tel ile
yüzlerin bezeyen pîrezenlere,
2 esrâr ü beng ‘âşıklarına, ve bûzehâneye gelenlere, ve haşhâşhorlara, ve
kumârbazlara, ve ölü
3 helvasına, düğün aşına, ıskat akçesine göz karardub yeğişen ‘ayyârlara, dahî
yuvadan
4 uçmamış bûn yavrular gibi şikâr içün kebûterbâzlık iden nâ-bekârlara, mücerred
oğlan saydına
5 âlet olmak içün ‘azîm bahâ ile kebûter iştirâ idüb oğlanları sayd iden mu’allim-i bîîmânlara,
yalancı
6 emîrlere ve kezzâb pîrlere, ‘avâmın azgınlarına ve dânişmendin kuzgunlarına, da’vet
olunmayan mahalle
7 varan eşeklere, yağlı pilâvı destmâline sarub yağın akıdarak hânesine götüren kedâçeşmlere,
8 kadâyıf kaşık ile ve hoşâbı pilâv kaşığıyla yiyenlere, dahî ta’âm ortada iken fâtiha
okuyan leffâflara,
9 sofra ortada ve ta’âm hâzir ü âmâde iken “hele katlanın filan kes dahî gelsün” deyü
intizâra düşen
10 harlara, sipâhî geçinüb sarı şalvâr giyen bî-edeblere, ve bahâdırım deyü başına kartal
kanadın sokanlara,
11 eğerli katırına pâldüm takanlara, ihtibâr ile tüfenk getürenlere, tob ve tüfenk
atılurken kal’e nişângâhlarına
12 karşu oturan eşek bahâdırlara, hayvanât su içerken sıklık viren sığırlara, ve
13 çakşırsız mest giyenlere, ve bir kimseden söz işidüb âhere gamz iden tiryâkî
mel’ûnlara, ve ba’z-ı kimsenin
14 evsâf-ı ‘uyûbın müvâcehesinde dimeyüb kalkub gitdiktensoğra hınzîrlara, ve bir
müsâhebeti ibtidâsından
15 dinlemeyüb tamâm olacak mahalde evvelini su’al iden pûzevenklere, ve türkçe bilir
kâfire küffâr lisânınca
139
16 söyliyen hinâzir-i bî-dînlere, ve kendi esbâbını düzmeğle mukayyed olan harlara,
kibâr sofrasında ta’âm sâhibinin
17 hüddâmın sofraya da’vet iden edebsizlere, ve bî-’ulûm ve bî-ma’ârif iken ‘âlim
geçinen bî-’ârlara, odasın ve
18 hüddâmın göstermek ile mukayyed olan cimrî murdârlara, hamâmda gasl iderken
götün gösteren kenezlere, ve
19 sakallu olub sarığından dışra perçem gösteren ‘atîk pûştlara, ve bin târihindensoğra
evlenüb
20 ‘avretden vefâ ma’mûl iden bî-’akllara, ve maksûdı ancak bir şahsa ziyâfet iken
mecliste münâsebetden dûrâ-dûr
21 olan şahs-ı le’îmi idhâl iden idrâksizlere, ve kendüsi tamâm müflis iken mürâbaha ile
akçe alub
22 âhere ziyâfet ve helvâ sohbeti iden nekbet me’âblara, ve mikdâr-ı kifâye cihet-i
ta’ayyüş var iken hindustân
23 seferin ihtiyâr iden tama’kâr sığır bâzirgânlara, ziyâde-i mürâbahaya tama’ idüb bin
derd ü mihnet
24 ile cem’ eylediği nukûd akçesin müflis olanlara kapdıran nâkislere, ve on gurûş ile
dükkâna oturub
25 anı dahî kapdırub soğra hüsrân ü sergerdân kalan katırlara, ve meclisde hiffet ihtiyâr
26 iden galîzlere, ve şarâb meclisinde ızhâr-ı fazîlet idüb müsâhebet-i ‘ilm ve
mübâhese-i ma’ârif ü tasavvuf
(F3)
1 iden eşek sûfîlere, ve yağmurlı günde salıncak salınan yâdigârlara, ve ‘âşıkı olmayub
bayrâmda
2 yalnız salıncağa binüb salınan fâhişelere, ashâb-ı sa’âdet mezemmetin iltizâm iden
nekbet-i zemmâm
3 ü nemmâm tiryâkîlere, ve meclisde mütekellim-i vahde ve çene defterdârı olub
kimseye nevbet değirmeyen hımârlara,
140
4 ve makremesinin içine sümkürüb yine nazâr iden esterlere, bir kimsenin cem’iyeti
gününde ev sâhibinden
5 iznsiz geleni istikbâl ve gideni teşyî’ ve makâm-ı hizmetde olanlara, kethüdâlık idüb
aşcı
6 ustalara dahî “şunı şöyle bunı böyle idin” diyen dü-kûn-ı fuzûli kuzgun gidilere,
7 ve tolma sahanın sofraya ve ortaya kodukdan soğra çârsûya yoğurt aramaya âdem
gönderen ile giden
8 mühmelâtlara, ve hâtunı önine düşürüb seyre giden deyyûslara, ve yolda kasâb ve
bakkâl
9 dükkanları önine gelince “yâ ‘âişe kadın! kaç vakıyye lahm ve nemikdâr pirinç ve
yağ alalım?” deyü çârsû yüzinde
10 ve nâ-mahrem muvâcehelerinde ‘avretinin sadâsın illere işitdiren ‘ârsız ve gayretsiz
pûzevenklere,
11 on on beş günde bir mest veyâ papuş çıkarub eski arastada cedîdi ile mübâdele iden
12 densiz sefîh hınzîrlara, ve dadı kadın pâyesiyle hânesinde âyna ile destârın saran
şaşkın
13 herîflere, ve yağmurlı günde destârını sıyânet içün kirli ve sümüklü makremesin pâk
14 destârı üstüne koyan merkeblere, karz akçe alub beş çifte kayık ile hisâr seyrine
giden
15 eblehlere, hadd-ı ‘ayârın bilmeyüb istihkâkı yoğiken sadr-ı ‘âlâ gözeden melâ’în ü
hubesâya,
16 ve ba’z-ı et’ime-i nefîse dest ile yenmek ‘âdet iken iz’ânsız ve sabrsız olub burun
fışırdısı ve
17 ağız şabırdısı ile girişüb sağa ve sola bakmayan ebü’l-batn geyiklere, ve dahî mûdan
18 bir eser yoğiken hilâl kadarca sakal başları izhâr iden densiz süfehâya, ve etrâk
dânişmendi ile
19 kahvehâneye ve bûzehâneye ve meyhâneye ve çârsûya ma’an giden bî-mezâk
hayvânlara, ve kîsesinde sîm ü zeri
141
20 olmayub nigâra ve civâna ‘âşık geçinen sığırlara, ve kaba türkî kelâma kâdir ve
zerâfetde mâhir değil iken
21 yollarda musâdif olduğı havânîne zen-dostlık ‘arz idüb “rabbim sen sakla benim
morlumı, kadınım
22 nereden işersin?” deyü pohlu pohlu zerâfetler iden eşeklere, bâde meclisinde cûd ü
sehâ aşikâr
23 idüb bir şey hibe idüb irtesi gün ayıldıkda pişmân olan kırd kırd kalâfatlara, ve
başmağının içine
24 ayağı sığmayub nısfı dışrada kalan cedîd şehr oğlanı puştlarına, kendü öz oğlı ile
25 bâde sofrasında hem kadeh olub musâhebet iden kâfir dînsiz gidilere, ve sovuğa
tahammüli yoğiken
(F4)
1 ‘üryân olub abdâl geçinen süfehâya, ve ‘avreti hennâ ısmârlayub tenhâda huddâmına
söylemek mümkin
2 iken kahve hânede “bre oğlan! evden hennâ sipâriş itdiler” diyen bî-’âr sefîhlere,
kahve
3 hânede veyâ hûd ahbâb yanında oğlanına “bre var, fi’l-hâl evden büyük kîseyi getür,
yanımızda
4 harclık kalmadı” diyen şaşkınlara, ve kahve hânede zevcesine kaftân biçen leke
herîflere,
5 ve kûcek oğlancığı olub mescîd-i şerîfe ma’ân götüren merkeblere, ve kibâr
sofrasından evvel
6 kalkubda ehl-i keyflik iden edebsizlere, ve başı kel olubda başına reng-âmiz mâi ve
çemenî
7 yeşil ‘arâkıyye giyüb başını nakkâş çenâğına müşâbih iden fodûllara, ve keyften
geçmiş tiryâkî yârânın
8 hâlini fehm itmeyüb savt-ı â’lâ ile çok çok su’al ve musâhebet iden densizlere,
9 ve bir kimesnenin tuhaf-ı makûlesinden olan bir şey’ini ma’ hazâ satılığı dahî olmasa
“elbetde şunı bana hibe
142
10 yâ hûd fürûht eyle” deyü teklîf-i mâ-lâ-yutâk iden câmûslara, ve ta’âm yenürken
âherin yedüğine
11 pek pek bakmağı ‘âdet iden bî-mezâklara, ve ba’de’t-ta’âm elini yuyub soğra liğen
içine sümük
12 besteleyenlere, ve ba’z-ı ziyâfetlerde latîf peşkirlere yağlı ellerin silen elleri
kuruyacaklara,
13 ve ‘ıyd günlerinde gelinlik kızlarını bayrâm seyrlerine götürenlere ve salıncağa
çıkaran deyyûslara,
14 ve bir kimesne bir hikâyeye başladıkda önüni alub “anın sonu şuna çıkar” deyü iskât
ve kendüsi
15 âhir bir hikâyeye başlayan bî-edeblere, ve bardakla su içübde yanında olan
kimesneye “tut
16 şu bardağı yire ko” diyen basîretsizlere, ve çârsû içinde kendüden büyük âdemin
ardınca
17 giderken râst geldüği âdemlere savt-ı ‘âlâ ile hâl hâtır soran eşeklere, ve bârgîr
18 üzerinde oturub musâhebet iden bî-rahmlere, ve bir kimesne hafiyye yazu yazarken
yazusına
19 bakan yüzi karalara, ve bir kimesnenin tarafından birine memhûr ve müşemma’
mektûb veyâ nâme veyâ tezkire
20 gönderüb ol gönderülen âdem mührin izâle idüb mahfîce okurken âherden “nedir
ol?” diyen veyâ hûd
21 “getür bende kırâ’at ideyim” diyen şeddelü eşeklere, ve ta’âm vaktini bilüb kibâr
ziyâretine varan
22 kuzgunlara, ve kibâr huddâmlarına ‘âşık geçinen yâ hûd hâne sâhibinin tâze oğlanı
yâ hûd karındaşı
23 yâ hûd dâmâdı, ahbâbının oğlı veyâ hûd akrabâsının oğlı ve bunun emsâlleriyle
24 latîf ve ‘âşıkâne sohbet iden pûzevenklere, ve tabl ü surna ile meclisde şarâb içüb
25 halkı âgâh iden bî-hicâblara, Bedî’ Kâsım içün birbirlerine mücâdele ve beynlerinde
bürûdet iden hayvânlara,
143
(F5)
1 ve tâze üzümün kabuğın ve kirazın çekirdeğin çıkarub avucı içine aldıkdan sonra
[sofra] içine döken
2 murdârlara, ve elinin enfiye bulaşığını yâ hûd tönbâki ıslağını sâhib-i hânenin şilte
yâ hûd mak’adına
3 silen edebsizlere, ve ahbâb ile havz başında yâ su kenârında otururken suya tüküren
câhillere,
4 ve koynunda olan sâ’atin habbelerini dışra sarkıtan yâ hûd yağlığın ucun gösteren
görmedik
5 fodûllara, ve kendü echel-i halkulllah olub âherin yanlışına ta’an iden eşeklere, ve
namâz kılmayub
6 nümâyiş içün elinde tesbîh götüren münâfıklara, ve dünyâda bir pîşe ihtiyâr itmeyüb
her kangı san’atı
7 müzâkere iderlerse andan haber virüb yine elinden bir san’at gelmeyen humekâya,
ve kendü ihtiyârıyla cellâd şâkirdi
8 olanlara, ve ‘avreti yanında tonsız yaturken “bana am vir” diyen bî-’ârlara, ve bâzâr
içinde kâfir ve
9 yahûdî tâifesinden şarâb akçesi isteyen bî-hayâlara, “ben cîvâna ancak dîdâr
‘âşıkıyım,
10 meyânından aşağı el urmam” diyen sefîh mahbûb-dostlara, bir civâna yâ bir nigâra
‘âşık geçinüb
11 tamâm murâdı üzre ele getürüb sadâkat kaydına düşüb fırsatı ganîmet bilmeyen
mecnûn süfehâya,
12 ve nice nice hizmetleri var iken ta’tîl idüb beher yevm kahve hâneye gelüb kendüyi
oturub
13 ahvâlin perîşân iden tenbel ve nuhûset tiryâkîlere, ve her bir kibârın yanına sokulub
dâimâ “siz
14 şöyle ve böylesiniz” deyü medh ü müdâhene iden bî-mezâklara, ve bir kibâr
meclisine varub kendüye duhân
144
15 getürdüklerinde nûş iderken nefîs nazîf yasdıkların ardına tüküren eşeklere, ve her
gün
16 bir gûne libâs giyüb illere göstermek ile mukayyed olan gücle görmüşlere,
muhassılü’l-kelâm
17 “nefsü’l-emrde ancak bana dokunmamış” diyen süfehâya ve nefsü’l-emr içinde
‘aybını bilübde ol ‘aybdan
18 kesilmeyen sığırlara, “bi’l-cümle bunları gözetmeyüb ve bu ‘uyûb ile muttasıf olanı
bulsam
19 toksan dâne kelb-i ‘akûra daladırdım” diyen ‘aklsızlara. Muhassıl-ı kelâm ve netîce-i
merâm
20 insân insân olduğı hasbiyle bu mezkûr ‘avâyibden kâdir olduğı
21 kadarca ictinâb ve perhîz ve ihtirâz itmek lâzımdır, belki ehem ve mühim ve
22 elzemdir. İmdi âdâb-ı hulkı beyân ve hâsıyyetin ‘ayân itmek
23 lâzım geldüği ecilden lâ cürmü ‘alâ kadri’t-tâka bu fasl-ı
24 hitâb müstetâba şürû’ yüzinden böyle ketb
25 ü tahrîr olundı. ‘Amel iden yârân-ı safâ ve ihvân-ı
26 pür-vefâ bizi hayr du’âdan ferâmuş
27 itmeyeler. Sene 1121 mim.
Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (HME)
(F1)
1 Sebeb-i risâle-i ‘acîbe ve mûcib-i dakâyık-ı garîbe oldur ki nâ-gâh bir hengâm-ı
seher
2 dünyânın âlâm-ı şedâyidinden ve mihen-i harâyir/hadâyidinden idrâc-ı hâtıra idüb
3 ekser-i nâs kendü tühem ve ‘uyûbıyle mukayyed olmayub erbâb-ı
4 zarâfete elem ve eshâb-ı letâfete endûh ü gam virdiklerinden nâşî
145
5 bî-ihtiyâr ve bi’l-ıztırâr lîsânıma gelen nâ-şâyeste kelimâtları zikr
6 idüb girîbân-ı ihtibârımdan dest-i tahammül-i ‘adem-i tahlîs ve cürûb ü
7 şütûm-u mütenevv’îye şürû’ ü âgâz eyledim. Evvelâ dâire-i usûlden
8 hâric olub dahî ta’lîm ü ‘ilm-i âdâb ile mukayyed olmayan cühelâya
9 cenâb-ı hazret-i zû’l-menândan ricâ ve niyâzım budur ki berâ-yı efşân
10 edebhâneye vardıkda ol çâh-ı menhûsa düşe, ve zeker ü hâyesi
11 havâlibinde mükerrer ve müte’addid kan çıbanları çıka, ve câmehâbına
12 kırk ‘aded mâr-ı ef’î gire, ve katır depmesine ve öküz süsmesine mülâkî
13 ola, ve dâbbe-süvâr tarîk ve asvâk içre giderken başından
(F2)
1 destârı düşüb ehl-i dükkân harâmzâdesinün
2 sît ü sadâsıyla melâmet ü melâlete uğraya, ‘âkıbet-i âlâm
3 bir meclis-i ‘azîmde mânend-i zebtâne zırta çeküb hicâb
4 ü rüsvây ola, imdi da’vât-ı sâlifât ü muhâlifât kimlere
5 ‘âid ü râci’ ola? Evvelâ hakîkat da’vâsıyla rîş-hand
6 olub ehl-i zerâfeti ve erbâb-ı letâfeti kesüb biçen sûfîlere,
7 her dûd-ı âhdan tekye [külâhı] urunmış ‘âşık meşreb sâfî
8 dil levendlere, efkâr ü haddinde evkâr ve vâdi-i hayretde
9 bî-kâr olub kerkes kuşı gibi bî-per ü bâl olmuşlara,
10 ‘ankâlık da’vâsın idüb sîmurga sinek dimez “bir ‘acâyib
11 kuş” diyen hodpesendlere, ve Hidâye okumuşda hidâyet
12 bulmamış kör fakîhlere, çıkrıkdan çevrilmiş misvâk isti’mâl iden
13 mürâyî sûfîlere, ve ıstılâhât ü ‘ibârât söylerim zann idüb
14 türkî kelâmı dahî edâya kâdir olmayan türk dânişmendlere,
15 karye be-karye ka’be-i mükerreme sûretin gezdirüb kapu kapu geyik
146
16 destânın okuyanlara, eliflü külâh urunub kara yerin
17 gömgök evliyâsı görünüb … ü ‘ilm ile habr ü halka ezâ ü cevr
18 iden semâ’ ü safâ bilmez mevlevîlere, bir meclisde ahbâb ile
19 sohbet iderken uyuyan tiryâkî-i menhûs nâ-halef eşerrlere,
(F3)
1 Hızır İlyâs çevgânın götürenlere, tekye-gâhlar öninde celb-i
2 dünyâ içün önine çerâğ koyub oturanlara, eyyâm-ı temmuzun
3 şiddet-i harâretinden mesâfe-i bâ’ideden un devşirüp
4 getüren peyklere, ve âhû postundan libâs ü sûret düzüb
5 “er oğlı nefs oğlıyız, kazâya siper içün üç pâre nezr
6 ve bir kurbân gönder” deyü kerâmet kaydına düşen geyiklere,
7 ve anlara i’timâd iden har-ı lâ-yefhemlere, ve deli şücâ’dan tâc
8 giyenler ve yollarda oturub mezbelelerde oynar dîvânelere
9 ve evliyâdır diyenlere, ve pîrlikde aksâlın kırkub yâhûd pirliğin
10 ihtifâ içün boyalar sürüb sâhte ile yiğitlenen koca pelîdlere,
11 pirâyeler ki kız gelinler gibi boya ve tel ile yüzlerin bezeyen
12 pîrezenlere, esrâr ü beng ‘âşıklarına, ve bûzehâneye
13 gelenlere, ve haşhâşhorlara, ve kumârbazlara, ve ölü helvasına,
14 düğün aşına, ıskat akçesine göz karardub yeğişen
15 ‘ayyârlara, dahî yuvadan uçmamış bûn yavrular şikâr
16 içün kebûterbâzlık iden nâ-bekârlara, mücerred oğlan
17 saydına âlet ve ‘azîm bahâ ile kebûter iştirâ idüb oğlanları
18 sayd eyleyen mu’allim-i bî-îmânlara, yalancı emîrlere ve kezzâb pîrlere,
19 ‘avâmın azgunlarına ve dânişmendin kuzgunlarına, da’vet
(F4)
147
1 olunmayan mahalle varan eşeklere, yağlı pilâvı destmâline sarub
2 yağın akıdarak hânesine götüren kedâ-çeşmlere, kadâyıf
3 kaşık ile ve hoşâbı pilâv kaşığıyla yiyenlere, dahî ta’âm
4 ortada iken fâtiha okuyan leffâflara, sofra ortada ta’âm
5 hâzir ü âmâde iken “hele katlanın filan kes dahî gelsün” deyü
6 intizâra düşen harlara, ve sipâhî geçinüb sarı şalvâr giyen
7 bî-edeblere, ve bahâdırım deyü başına kartal kanadın sokanlara,
8 eğerlü katırına pâldüm takanlara, ihtibâr ile tüfenk getürenlere, tob
9 ve tüfenk atılurken kal’e nişângâhlarına karşu oturan
10 eşek bahâdırlara, ve hayvanât su içerken sıklık viren
11 sığırlara, ve çakşırsız mest giyenlere, ve bir kimesneden söz işidüb
12 âhere gamz iden tiryâkî mel’ûnlara, ve ba’z-ı kimesnenin evsâf-ı
13 ‘uyûbın müvâcehesinde dimeyüb kalkub gitdiktensoğra
14 hınzîrlara, ve bir müsâhebeti ibtidâsından dinlemeyüb tamâm olacak
15 mahalde evvelini su’al iden pûzevenklere, ve türkçe bilir kâfire küffâr
16 lisânınca söğliyen hinâzir-i bî-dînlere, ve kendi esbâbını düzmeğle
17 mukayyed olan harlara, ve kibâr sofrasında ta’âm sâhibinin hüddâmların
18 sofraya da’vet iden edebsizlere, ve bî-’ulûm ve bî-ma’ârif
19 olub ‘âlim geçinen bî-’ârlara, odasın ve hüddâmın göstermek
(F5)
1 ile mukayyed olan cimrî murdârlara, ve hamâmda gasl iderken
2 götün gösteren kelezlere, ve sakallu olub sarığından dışra
3 perçem gösteren ‘atîk pûştlara, ve bin târihindensoğra evlenüb
4 ‘avretden vefâ ma’mûl iden bî-’akllara, ve maksûdı ancak
5 bir şahsa ziyâfet iken meclisine münâsebetden dûrâ-dûr olan
148
6 şahs-ı le’îmi idhâl iden idrâksizlere, ve kendüsi
7 tamâm müflis iken mürâbaha ile akçe alub âhere ziyâfet ve helvâ
8 sohbeti iden nekbet me’âblara, ve mikdâr-ı kifâye cihet-i ta’ayyüş var iken
9 hindustân seferin ihtiyâr iden tama’kâr sığır bâzirgânlara, ziyâde-i
10 mürâbahaya tama’ idüb derd [ü] mihnet ile cem’ eylediği nukûd
11 akçesin müflis olanlara kapdıran nâkislere, ve on gurûş ile
12 dükkâna oturub ânı dahî kapdırub soğra hüsrân [ü]
13 sergerdân kalan katırlara, ve meclisde hiffet ihtiyâr iden
14 galîzlere, ve şarâb meclisinde ızhâr-ı fazîlet idüb müsâhebet-i
15 ‘ilm ve mübâhese-i ma’ârif ü tasavvuf iden eşek sûfîlere, ve yağmurlı
16 günde salıncak salınan yâdigârlara, ve ‘âşıkı olmayub bayrâmda
17 yalnız salıncak binüb salınan fâhişelere, ashâb-ı sa’âdet
18 mezemmetin iltizâm iden nekbet zemmâm ü nemmâm tiryâkîlere, ve meclisde
19 mütekellim-i vahde ve çene defterdârı olub kimesneye nevbet değirmeyen
(F6)
1 hımârlara, ve makremesinin içine sümkürüb yine nazâr iden
2 esterlere, bir kimesnenin cem’iyeti gününde ev sâhibinden izinsiz
3 geleni istikbâl ve gideni teşyî’ ve makâm-ı hizmetde olanlara,
4 kethüdâlık idüb ve aşcı ustalara dahî “şunı şöyle
5 ve bunı böyle idin” diyen dü-kûn-ı fuzûli kuzgun
6 gidilere, ve tolma sahanın sofraya ve ortaya kodukdansoğra çârsûya
7 yoğurt aramaya âdem gönderen ile giden mühmelâtlara, ve hâtunı
8 önine düşürüb seyre giden deyyûslara, ve yol(d)a kasâb
9 ve bakkâl dükkanları önine gelince “yâ ‘âişe kadın! kaç vakıyye lahm ve nemikdâr
149
10 pirinç ve yağ alalım?” deyü çârsû yüzinde ve nâ-mahrem muvâcehelerinde
‘avretinin
11 sadâsın illere işitdiren ‘ârsız ve gayretsiz pûzevenklere,
12 on onbeşer günde bir mest veyâ bâbûş çıkarub eski
13 arastada cedîdi ile mübâdele iden densiz sefîh hınzîrlara,
14 ve dadı kadın pâyesiyle hânesinde âyna ile destârın saran
15 şaşkın herîflere, ve yağmurlı günde destârını sıyânet
16 içün kirli ve sümüklü makremesin pâk destârı üstüne
17 koyan merkeblere, karz akçe alub beş çifte kayık ile hisâr seyrine
18 giden eblehlere, hadd-ı ‘ayârın bilmeyüb istihkâkı yoğiken sadr-ı
19 ‘âlâ gözeden melâ’în ü hubesâya, ve ba’z-ı et’ime-i nefîse dest
(F7)
1 ile yenmek ‘âdet iken iz’ânsız ve sabrsız olub
2 burun fışırdısı ve ağız şabırdısı ile girişüb
3 sağa ve sola bakmayan ebü’l-batn geyiklere, ve dahî mûdan bir eser
4 yoğiken hâl-i kadrce sakal başları izhâr iden densiz
5 süfehâya, ve etrâk dânişmendi ile kahve hâneye ve bûze hâneye ve
6 meyhâneye ve çârsûya ma’an giden bî-mezâk hayvânlara, ve kîsesinde
7 sîm ü zeri olmayub nigâra ve civâna ‘âşık geçinen sığırlara,
8 ve kaba türkî kelâma kâdir ve zerâfetde mâhir değil iken yollarda musâdif
9 olduğı havânîne zen-dostlık ‘arz idüb “rabbim sen
10 sakla benim morlumı, kadınım nereden işersin” deyü pohlu pohlu
11 zerâfetler iden eşeklere, bâde meclisinde cûd ü sehâ aşikâr idüb
12 bir şey hibe idüb irtesi gün ayıldıkda pişmân olan
13 kırd kırd kalâfatlara, ve başmağının içine ayağı sığmayub nısfı
150
14 dışrada kalan cedîd şehr oğlanı puştlarına kendü öz oğlı
15 ile bâde sofrasında hem kadeh olub musâhebet iden kâfir dînsiz
16 gidilere, ve sovuğa tahammüli yoğiken ‘üryân olub abdâl geçinen
17 süfehâya, ve ‘avreti hennâ ısmârlayub tenhâda huddâmına söylemek
18 mümkin iken kahve hânede “bre oğlan! evde hennâ sipâriş itdiler”
19 diyen bî-’âr sefîhlere, kahve hânede yâ hûd ahbâb yanında oğlanına
(F8)
1 “bre var, fi’l-hâl evden büyük kîseyi getür, yanımızda harclık
2 kalmadı” diyen şaşkınlara, ve kahve hânede zevcesine kaftân
3 biçen leke herîflere, ve küccük oğlancığı olub mescîd-i şerîfe
4 ma’ân getüren merkeblere, ve kibâr sofrasından evvel kalkubda ehl-i
5 kehflik iden edebsizlere, ve başı kel olubda başına
6 reng-âmiz mâi ve çemenî yeşil ‘arâkıyye giyüb başını nakkâş çenâğına müşâbih
7 iden fodûllara, ve keyften geçmiş tiryâkî yârânın hâlini fehm itmeyüb
8 savt-ı â’lâ ile çok çok su’al ve musâhebet iden densizlere,
9 ve bir kimesnenin tuhaf-ı makûlesinden olan bir şey’ini ma’ hazâ satılığı
10 dahî olmasa “elbetde şunı bana hibe yâ hûd fürûht eyle” deyü
11 teklîf-i mâ-lâ-yutâk iden câmûslara, ve ta’âm yenürken âherin
12 yedüğine yan yan bakmağı ‘âdet iden bî-mezâklara, ve ba’de’t-ta’âm
13 elini yuyub soğra leğen içine sümük besteleyenlere, ve ba’z-ı
14 ziyâfetlerde latîf peşkirlere yağlı ellerin silen elleri kuruyacaklara,
15 ve ‘îd günlerinde gelinlik kızlarını bayrâm seyrlerine götürenlere ve sancağa
16 çıkaran deyyûslara, ve bir kimesne bir hikâyeye başladıkda önüni alub
17 “anın sonu şuna çıkar” deyü iskât ve kendüsi bir âhir hikâyeye
18 başlayan bî-edeblere, ve bir bardağla su içübde yanında olan kimesneye
151
19 “tut şu bardağı yire ko” diyen basîretsizlere, ve çârsû içinde
(F9)
1 kendüden büyük âdemin ardınca giderken râst geldüği
2 âdemlere savt-ı ‘âlâ ile hâl hâtır soran eşeklere, ve bârgîr
3 üzerinde oturub musâhebet iden bî-rahmlere, ve bir kimesne
4 hafiyye yazu yazarken yazusına bakan yüzi karalara, ve bir kimesnenin
5 tarafından birine memhûr ve müşemma’ mektûb veyâ nâme veyâ tezkire gönderüb
6 ol gönderülen âdem mührin izâle idüb mahfîce okurken
7 âherden “nedir ol?” diyen veyâ hûd “getür bende kırâ’at ideyim”
8 diyen şeddelü eşeklere, ve ta’âm vaktini bilüb kibâr ziyâretine
9 varan guzgunlara, ve kibâr huddâmlarına ‘âşık geçinen yâ hûd
10 hâne sâhibinin taze oğlı yâ hûd karındaşı yâ hûd dâmâdı veyâ hûd
11 ahbâbının oğlı veyâ hûd akrabâsının oğlı ve bunın emsâlleriyle
12 latîf ve ‘âşıkâne sohbet iden pûzevenklere, ve tabl ü surna
13 ile meclisde şarâb içüb halkı âgâh iden bî-hicâblara,
14 bedî’ ü kâsim içün birbirlerine mücâdele ve beynlerinde bürûdet iden
15 hayvânlara, ve tâze üzümün kabuğın ve kerâsın çekirdeğin
16 çıkarub avucı içine aldıkdansoğra sofra içine döken murdârlara,
15 ve elinin enfiye bulaşığını yâ hûd töbâki ıslağını sâhib-i hânenin
16 şilte yâ hûd mak’adına silen edebsizlere, ve ahbâb ile
17 havz başında yâ su kenârında otururken suya tüküren
(F10)
1 câhillere, ve koynunda olan sâ’atin habbelerini dışra sarkıtan
2 yâ hûd yağlığın ucun gösteren görmedik fodûllara, ve kendü
3 echel-i halku’l-lahdan olub âherin yanlışına ta’an iden eşeklere,
152
4 ve namâz kılmayub nümâyiş içün elinde tesbîh götüren münâfıklara,
5 ve dünyâda bir pîşe ihtiyâr itmeyüb her kangı san’atı müzâkere iderlerse
6 andan haber virüb yine elinden bir san’at gelmeyen humekâya, ve kendü
7 ihtiyârıyla cellâd şâkirdi olanlara, ve ‘avreti yanında
8 tonsız yaturken “bana ‘âmm vir” diyen bî-’ârlara, ve bâzâr
9 içinde kâfir ve yahûdî tâifesinden şarâb akçesi
10 isteyen bî-hayâlara, “ben cîvâna ancak dîdâr ‘âşıkıyım, meyânından
11 aşağı el urmam” diyen sefîh mahbûb-dostlara, bir civâna
12 yâ bir nigâra ‘âşık geçinüb tamâm murâdı üzre ele getürüb
13 sadâkat kaydına düşüb fırsatı ganîmet bilmeyen mecnûn süfehâya,
14 ve nice nice hizmetleri var iken ta’tîl idüb beher yevm kahve hâneye
15 gelüb kendüyi oturub ahvâlin perîşân iden tenbel ve nuhûset
16 tiryâkîlere, ve dahî bir kibârın yanına sokulub dâimâ “siz şöyle
17 ve böylesiz” deyü medh ü müdâhene iden bî-mezâklara, ve bir kibâr meclisine
18 varub kendüye duhân getürdüklerinde nûş iderken nefîs,
19 nazîf yasdıkların ardına tüküren eşeklere, ve her gün
(F11)
1 bir gûne libâs giyüb illere göstermek ile mukayyed olan
2 gücle görmüşlere, muhassılü’l-kelâm “nefsü’l-emrde ancak bana dokunmamış”
3 diyen süfehâya ve nefsü’l-emr içinde ‘aybını bilübde ol ‘aybdan
4 kesilmeyen sığırlara, “bi’l-cümle bunları gözetmeyüb ve bu ‘uyûbla muttasıf
5 olanı bulsam toksan dâne kelb-i ‘akûra daladırdım” diyen
6 ‘aklsızlara. Muhassıl-ı kelâm ve netîce-i merâm insân insân olduğı hasbiyle
7 bu mezkûr ‘avâyibden kâdir olduğı kadarca ictinâb ve perhîz ve ihtirâz
8 itmek lâzımdır, belki ehem ve mühim ve elzemdir. İmdi âdâb-ı
153
9 hulkı beyân ve hâsıyyetin ‘ayân itmek lâzım geldüği ecilden
10 lâ cürm ‘alâ kadri’t-tâka bu fasl-ı hitâb müstetâba şürû’
11 yüzinden böyle ketb ü tahrîr olundı. ‘Amel iden
12 yârân-ı safâ ve ihvân-ı pür-vefâ bizi
13 hayr du’âdan ferâmuş itmeyeler. Sene 1121 mim.
Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (AÖ)
(F1)
1 Sebebi risâle-i ‘acîbe ve mûcib-i tedkîk-i makâle-i garîbe oldur ki
2 elem ü şiddetden hâtırdar idüb halkın kendi ‘aybları ile
3 takayyüd itmeyüb erbâb-ı zarâfete hayli elem ve ıztırâb
4 virdikleri içün bî-ihtiyâr lisânıma gelen nâ-şâyeste
5 kelimâtı zuhûra getürüb şütûm-ı ma’kûle ile şetme
6 başladım. Evvelâ usûlden hâric olub dahî ta’lîm ile
7 mukayyed olmıyan cühelâya hüdâ-yı zu’l-menândan ve pâdişâh-ı
8 lem-yezelden ricâm budur ki; âb-evşâna vardıkda ol
9 kuyuya düşe, ve kış günleri ‘azîm berde uğraya zifoz-
10 -lara uğraya, ve kasık yerlerinde kan çıbanları çıkara,
11 ve câme-hâbında kırk dâne yılan bula, ve katır depmesine
12 dokuna, ve çârşu içinde atla giderken başından saruğı
13 düşe, ve ‘azîm meclisde bin dâne kavara vâki’ ola,
14 bin dürlü ‘azîm hicâba düşüb hacâletle rüsvây-ı
15 ‘âlem olsun. Evvelâ hakîkat da’vasın iden ehl-i
16 kisvet sûfîlere, ve ‘ankâlık da’vasın idüb “felek kelek,
154
17 simurga sinek” dimez her ‘aceb kuş olanlara, ve Hidâye
18 okuyub hidâyet bulmamış köy fakîhlerine, köle (kef vav lam he)
19 sûfilerine ve yeniçeri mürâyîlerine, ıstılâh ve ‘ibârât
20 söyleriz sanub türkî sözi dahî idrak idemeyen
(F2)
1 türk dânişmendlerine, tekye-gâhlarda celb-i dünyâ içün önine
2 çerâğ koyub oturanlara, ve ana evliyâdır diyenlere, ve pîrlikde
3 ak sakalın boyayub yiğitlenen kocalara, ve kızının gelin gibi
4 yüzin yazan pîre-zenlere, ölü helvasına ve ıskat akçesine
5 göz karardub yılışan tarrârlara, yalancı emîrlere, ve yalancı
6 pîrlere, emîrin azgunlarına, ve dânişmendlerin kuzgunlarına,
7 ve okunmayan da’vete varanlara, ve cerb pilâvı destmâle koyanlara,
8 ve ta’âmı yârân öninden kendü önine çekenlere, ve kaşıkda
9 kalan ta’âmı ta’âm için girü dökenlere, ve yemek evvelinde çok
10 çok sığır gibi su içenlere, ve yemek yirken tükrüğin saça
11 saça söz söyliyenlere, ve katır eyerine pâldûn takanlara,
12 ve bârgîr su içerken ıslık virenlere, ve mestsüz çakşır
13 giyenlere, ve bir musâhebeti evvelinden dinlemeyüb de tamâm olucak
14 mahallde soran pûzevenklere, ve kendi esbâbın düzen hîzlere,
15 ve hokkasına büber kadar afyon koyanlara, ve ilin kitâbın alub
16 eski beze döndüren cühelâya, ve sofra üzerinde murdâr
17 lakırdısın iden sakîl gidilere, ve yârânlar istemeyüb kendi
18 gelüb sokılan ‘arsızlara, ve tazının ağzından öpen murdâr-
19 -lara, ve eline bir akçe girüb kimesne beğenmeyen köfte-horlara,
20 ve ferâcesi altında et saklayan murdârlara, ve yeniyle ve kuşağıyla
155
21 ağzın silenlere, ve çok çok kağırub tükürenlere,
(F3)
1 ve çorba içerken kaşığın dolduran ac gözlülere, ve muttasıl
2 bıyığın düzen kalâfatlara, ve sakalının ağın yolan ve kırkan
3 gidilere, ve hıyarın ellisi bir akçeye iken az diyen insâf-
4 -suzlara, ve satranç bâbında leclâc geçinen birbiri ardınca
5 üc kerre yenilen yâdigârlara, ve yağır bargîre ‘abâ ile binen
6 gidilere, ve konclu çizme giyüb kof kof gezenlere,
7 ve ba’z-ı yârân hikâye bast iderken “bunın aşağısı filândır”
8 diyen edebsüzlere, ve ta’âmda sofra kurudanlık idüb
9 ‘abdü’l-batn sığırlara, ve ‘ilm ü ma’rifetden bî-haber olub da ‘âlim
10 geçinen merkeblere, ve sakallu olubda perçem gösteren eski puştlara,
11 ve bin târihindensoğra evlenmek kasd iden har-ı lâ-yefhemlere, ve mürâbaha
12 ile akçe alub ziyâfet iden nekbetlere, ve yoklukdan oruc dutan
13 mürâyî köpeklere, ve meclisde kimseye kelâm itdirmeyüb nevbet
14 virmeyen kuduz kilâblara, ve makremesi içine sümkürüb içine bakan
15 hımârlara, ve yeniçeri olmayub ol kıyâfetde gezen densüzlere,
16 ve hizmetkârı aç kendüsi habbeye muhtâc iken libâs-ı
17 fâhire ile kerr ü ferr iden kalaylu kuzlara, ve kîsesinde
18 akçe olmayub nigâra ‘âşık geçinen ahmak yolıklara,
19 ve ‘avretine kadun ve oğlanına çelebi diyen kodoşlara,
20 ve kendine ‘abâ bulmayub ‘avretine kemhâ giyüren pûzevenklere,
21 ve te’vil-i yemîn iden mel’ûnlara, ve kitâbet bilürken kâhillik
(F4)
1 idüb “bana bir mektûb yaz” diyen küstahlara, ve kış
156
2 güninde köye düğüne giden ahmaklara, ve namâzda ta’dîl-i erkân
3 itmeyen namâz uğrılarına, ve câriye gebe idüb satan müsülmanlığı
4 kıttlara, ve kürkiyle çekişen mühmelât tiryâkîlere, ve ‘ulemâ meclisinde
5 “bilürün” geçinen câhil merkeblere, ve ‘avreti ve evlâdı var iken
6 yine evlenen mendebûrlara, ve nekbetî alay beğilere, ve
7 kethüdâ berilerine, ve çorbacı oda başısı olan kodoşlara,
8 ve ‘acem oğlanın maryollarına, ve müflis müteferrikalara, ve nâiblerin
9 telebbüslerine, ve kahve hânede dünyâ dem iden kallâşlara,
10 ve zemherîde karpuz ve ağustosda yumurta yiyenlere, ak sakallu
11 olubda fâhişelere hased olan îmânsuzlara, ve musâfir
12 olubda bir yerde “elbetde bize kon, ev sâhibi râzıdır” diyen
13 bî-‘ârlara, ba’de’t-ta’âm el yurken leğen içine sümküren
14 murdârlara, ve ziyâfetlerde latîf peşkirlere elin silen
15 eli kurıyacaklara, ve bayrâmlarda karısın seyre göndüren
16 … ve kendi ma’yûb iken ilin ‘aybına mukayyed olan
17 hodbînlere, ve namâz kılmayub dâimâ elinde tesbîh getüren bî-namâzlara, ve
18 ekâbiri dâimâ yüzine medh iden rîş-handelere, bu nefsü’l-emrde
19 yazılan fi’l-cümle perhîz kasd itmeyen ebterden her kim olursa
20 bu risâle dibâcesinde olan vartalara uğraya, âmîn. Temmet er-risâle sene 1160
Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ)
(F1)
1 Şükr ü sipâs ol pâdişâh-ı bî-hemtâya ve şehinşâh-ı zu’l-’izz ve’l-kibriyayâdır ki
dergâh-ı ‘âli ve penâh-ı müte’aliden
157
2 gerdankeş olan cebâbire kilâbdan hor ve hakîrdir. Ve sad hezâr-ı ezhâr-ı hadâyık-ı
salavât ol ‘andelîb-i terennüm-serâ-yı
3 bâğ-ı hakâyık-ı habîbedir ki delâlet-i tarîk-i hidâyet içre futûhât-ı ebvâb olmuşdur ki
latîf edâlardan ve hûb
4 nidâlardan hevâ râgıbları ve dünyâ tâlibleri hakkında “ed-dünyâ cifetun ve tâlibuha
kilâbu” gelmişdir. Sebeb-i te’lif-i
5 risâle-i ‘acîbe ve mûcib-i dakâyık-ı garîbe oldur ki nâ-gâh bir hengâm-ı seher
dünyânın âlâm-ı şedâyidin ve mihen-i harâyirin
6 idrâc-ı hâtıra idüb ekser-i nâs kendü tühem ve ‘uyûbıyle mukayyedler olmayub
erbâb-ı zerâfete elem ve ashâb-ı
7 letâfete endûh ü gâm virdiklerinden nâşî bî-ihtiyâr ve bi’l-ıztırâb lisânıma gelen nâşâyeste
kelâmları zikr idüb
8 girîbân-ı ihtibârımdan dest-i tahammül-i ‘adem-i tahlîs ve hurûb ü şütûm-ı
mütenev’îye şürû’ ü âgâz eyledim. Evvelâ
9 dâire-i usûldan hâric olub dahî ta’lîm-i ‘ulûm ü âdâb ile mukayyed olmayan
cühelâya cenâb-ı hazret-i zu’l-menândan ricâ
10 ve niyâzım budur ki; berâ-yı efşân edebhâneye vardıkda ol çâh-ı menhûsa düşe, ve
eyyâm-ı şitâda ‘azîm zifozlara müsâdif
11 ola ve zeker ü hâyesi havâlibinde mükerrer ve müte’addid kan çıbanları çıka, ve
câmehâbına kırk ‘aded mâr-ı ef’î
12 gire, ve katır depmesine ve öküz süsmesine mülâkî ola, ve dâbbe-süvâr tarîk ü asvâk
içre
13 giderken başından destârı düşüb ehl-i dükkân harâmzâdesinin sît ü sadâsıyla
melâmete uğraya,
14 ve ‘âkıbet-i âlâm bir meclis-i ‘azîmde mânend-i zebtâne zırta çeküb üftâde-i hicâb ü
rüsvây ola, imdi da’vât-ı
15 sâlifât ü muhâlifât kimlere ‘âid ü râci’ ola? Evvelâ hakîkat da’vâsıyla rîş-hand olub
ehl-i zerâfeti
158
16 ve erbâb-ı letâfeti kesüb biçen sûfîlere, ve bir dûd-ı âhdan tekye külâhı urunmış ‘âşık
meşreb sâfî-dil levendlere,
17 ‘ankâlık iddi’âsın ider simurga sinek dimez bir ‘acâyib kuş olan hodpesendlere,
efkâr-ı hiddetde evkâr ve
18 vâdi-i hayretde bî-kâr olub kerkes kuşı gibi bî-per-ü-bâl olmuşlara, ve hidâye
okumuş hidâyet bulmamış fakîhlere,
(F2)
1 ve köle sûfîlerine ve şeyhlik iden abtal ve ebterlere, ve çıkrıkda çevrilmiş misvâk
isti’mâl iden sûfîlere,
2 ve başına şemd-i siyâhî sarınub “gâ’ib söğlerin” diyen etrâk-ı bî-idrâklere, ve
ıstılâhât ü ‘ibârât
3 söylerin zann idüb türkî kelâmı dîvâr deliklerine sokanlara, ve karye be-karye ka’bei
mükerreme sûretin gezdirüb
4 kapu kapu geyik destânın okuyanlara, ve elifli külâh urunub kara yerin göngök
evliyâsı görünüb
5 çerâğ ü ‘ilm ile habr ü halka izâ ü cefâ iden semâ’ ü safâ bilmez mevlevîlere, ve
Hızır İlyâs çevgânın getürenlere,
6 ve tekye gâhlar önünde celb-i dünyâ içün önine çerâğ koyub oturanlara, ve eyyâm-ı
temmuzun şiddet-i
7 harâretinde mesâfe-i ba’ideden evg devşirüb getüren peyklere, ve âhu postundan
libâs ü sûret
8 düzüb “er oğlu ve nefs oğluyuz, özge nerce kazâya siper içün üç pâre nezr ve bir
kurbân
9 göründü” diyüb kerâmet kaydına düşmüş köpeklere, ve ana i’timâd iden har-ı lâyefhemlere,
ve deli şücâ’dan
10 tâc giyenlere, ve yollarda oturub mezbelelerde oynar dîvânelere “evliyâdır”
diyenlere, ve pirlikde ak
11 sakalın kırkub yâ hûd pirliğin ihtifâ içün boyalar sürüb sâhte ile yiğitlenen koca
pelîdlere,
159
12 ve pirâyeler ki kız gelin gibi boya ve tel ile yüzlerin bezeyen pîre-zen menhûslara, ve
esrâr
13 ü beng ‘âşıklarına ve bûzehâne kelblerine, ve haşhâş-horlara, ve kumâr-bâzlara, ve
şevl-i kadeh cerrârlığın
14 iden bî-’ârlara, ve ölü helvâsına ve düğün aşına göz karardub yılışan ‘ayyâr-ı
tarrârlara, ve
15 dahî yuvadan uçmamış bun yavrular şikârı içün kebûter-bâzlık iden nâ-bekârlara, ve
mücerred
16 oğlan saydına âlet ü ‘azîm bahâ ile kebûter iştirâ idüb zenberekli kümesler ihdâs
eyleyen muğlem-i
17 bî-îmânlara, ve yalancı emîr ve kezzâb pîrlere, ‘avâmın azgunlarına ve dânişmendin
kuzgunlarına,
(F3)
1 da’vet olunmayan mahalle varan eşeklere, ve yağlı pilâvı destmâline koyub yağın
akıdarak hâneye
2 götüren kedâ-çeşmlere, kadâyıfı kaşık ile ve hoş-âbı pilâv kaşığıyle yiyenlere, ve
dahî
3 ta’âm ortada iken fâtiha okuyan nifâklara, sofra ortaya yayılub ta’âm hâzir ü âmâde
4 oldukda “hele katlan filan kes dahî gelsün” deyü intizâra düşen harlara, ve sipâhî
geçinüb sarı
5 şalvâr giyen bî-edeblere, ve bahâdırım deyü başına kartal kanadın sokanlara, eğerlü
katırına pâldüm
6 takanlara, ihtibâr ile tüfenk atılurken kal’e nişângâhlarına karşu oturan
7 eşek bahâdırlara, hayvanât su içerken sıklık uran sığırlara, ve çakşırsız mest
8 giyenlere, ve bir kimseden söz işidüb âhere gamz iden tiryâkî murdârlara, ve ba’z-ı
kimsenin
9 evsâf-ı ‘uyûbın otururken müvâcehesinde dimeyüb kalkub gitdiktensoğra verâsından
diyen hınzîrlara,
160
10 ve bir müsâhebeti ibtidâsından dinlemeyüb tamâm olacak mahalde evvelini su’al
iden pûzevenklere,
11 ve türkceyi bilür küffâra küffâr lisânınca söyliyen hanâzir-i bî-dînlere, ve kendü
esvâbın düzmek ile
12 mukayyed olan harlara, ve kibâr sofrasında ta’âm sahibinin hüddâmın sofraya da’vet
iden edebsizlere,
13 ve bî-‘ulûm ve bî-ma’ârif olub ‘âlim geçinen güsiste-‘inâna, ve otasın ve hüddâmın
göstermek ile mukayyed
14 olan cimrî murdârlara, ve sakallı olub sarığından dışra perçem gösteren ‘atîk
puştlara, ve hamâmda
15 gasl iderken götün gösteren bî-şerm kekezlere, ve bin târihinden soğra evlenüb
‘avretinden vefâ
16 ma’mûl iden bî-‘akllara, ve târih-i mezkûreden soğra evlenmek kasd iden nâdânlara,
ve maksûdı ancak
17 bir şahsa ziyâfet iken meclisine münâsebetden dûrâ-dûr olan şahs-ı leimi idhâl iden
idrâksizlere, ve
18 kendüsi tamâm müflis iken mürâbaha ile akçe alub âhere ziyâfet ve helvâ sohbeti
iden nekbet-me’âblara,
(F4)
1 ve mikdâr-ı kifâye cihet-i ta’ayyüş var iken hindustân seferin ihtiyâr iden tama’kâr
bâzirgânlara,
2 ve rîş-i tama’kâr yekûn müflis iken mısdâkınca ziyâde-i mürâbahaya tama’ idüb bin
derd ü mihnet ile cem’ eyledüği
3 nukûd akçesin müflis ehl-i hıdmetlere kapdıran nâkislere, ve on guruş sermâye ile
dükkâna oturub
4 anı dahî viresiye kapdırub soğra hüsrân ü ser-gerdân kalan katırlara, ve meclisde
hiffet ihtiyâr iden
5 galîzlere, ve şarâb meclisinde ızhâr-ı fazîlet idüb müsâhebet-i ‘ilm ve mübâhese-i
ma’ârif ü tasavvuf iden eşek sûfîlere,
161
6 ve yağmurlı günde salıncak salınan yâdigârlara, ve ‘âşıkı olmayub bayrâmda yalnız
salıncak binüb sallanan
7 “kocsun” makâmında salınan fâhişelere, ashâb-ı sa’âdet mezemmetin iltizâm-ı mâlâ-
yelzem eyleyen nekbet-i zemmâm ü nemmâm
8 tiryâkîlere, ve meclisde mütekellim-i vahde ve çene defterdârı olub kimesneye
nevbet değirmeyen … sülüsü’l-kavle mübtelâ
9 hımârlara, ve makremesinin içine tükürüb yâ sümkürüb yine açub içine nazâr iden
esterlere, bir kimesnenin
10 cem’iyeti gününde sâhibinin izinsiz, da’vetsiz, teklîfsiz kendüliğinden geleni istikbâl
ve kendüyi teşyî’ ve makâm-ı hıdmetde
11 olanlara, kethüdâlık idüb aşcı ustalara dahî “şunı şöyle bunı böyle eylen” diyen dükûn-
ı fuzûli
12 kuzgun gidilere, ve tolma sahanın sofraya ve ortaya kodukdan soğra çârşûya yoğurt
almağa gönderen
13 ve giden mühmelâtlara, ve hâtununı önine düşürüb seyre giden deyyûslara, ve yolda
kasâb ve bakkâl
14 dükkanları önine gelince “yâ ‘âişe kadın! kaç vakıyye lahm ve ne mikdâr pirinç ve
yağ alalım?” deyü çârşû yüzinde ve
15 nâ-mahremler muvâcehesinde ‘avretinin sadâsın illere işitdiren ‘ârsız ve gayretsiz
sâzende kodoşlara,
16 on beş günde bir mesh, pâbûş çıkarub eski arastada cedîdi ile mübâdele iden densiz
17 sefîh hîzlere, ve dadı kadın pâyesiyle hânesinde âyna ile destârın saran şaşkın
18 herîflere, ve yağmurlı günde destârın sıyânet içün kirli ve sümüklü makremesin pâk
destârı üstüne koyan merkeblere,
(F5)
1 karz akçe alub beş çifte kayık ile hisâr seyrine giden eblehlere, ve istihkâkı yoğiken
sadr-ı ‘âlâ gözeden
2 melâ’în ü hubesâya, ve ba’z-ı et’ime-i nefîse dest ile yenmek ‘âdet iken iz’ânsız ve
sabrsız olub burun
162
3 fışırdısı ve ağız şapırdısı ile girişüb sağa ve sola bakmayan ebü’l-batn geyiklere, ve
dahî mûdan
4 bir eser yoğiken hilâl-i kurca sakal başları izhâr iden densiz süfehâya, ve etrâk
dânişmendi ile
5 kahvehâneye ve bûzehâneye ve meyhâneye ve çârsûya ma’an giden bî-mezâk
hayvânlara, ve kîsesinde sîm ü zeri
6 olmayub nigâra ve civâna ‘âşık geçinen sığırlara, ve kaba türk kelâma kâdir ve
zerâfete mâhir değil yollarda
7 musâdif olduğı havânîne zen-dostlık ‘arz idüb “rabbim sen sakla benim morlımı,
kadınım nereden
8 işersin?” deyü pohlu pohlu zerâfetler iden ... bâde meclisinde cûd ü sehâ aşikâr ve
vâfir şey
9 hibe idüb irtesi gün hüşyâr oldukda pişmân olan kurı kalâfatlara, ve başmağının
içine
10 ayağı sığmayub nısfı dışrada kalan cedîd şehr oğlanı puştlara, ve kendü öz oğlı ile
bâde
11 sohbetinde hem kadeh olub “lahmüke lahmi” musâhebet iden kâfir ve dînsiz gidilere,
ve soğuğa tahammül idemeyüb
12 ‘üryân abdâl geçinen süfehâya, ve ba’z-ı güveyiğin ‘avreti hennâ isteyüb tenhâda
almak mümkin iken kahve hânede
13 hüddâmına “Bre oğlan! Var da filan sipâriş itdiler” diyen bî-’âr sefîhlere, kahve
hânede yâ hûd ahbâb
14 yanında oğlanına “Bre var, fi’l-hâl evden büyük kîseyi getür, yanımda harclık
kalmadı” diyen şaşkınlara,
15 ve kahvehânede zevcesine haftân biçen leke herîflere, ve kûçek oğlancığı alub
mescîde ma’ân getüren
16 merkeblere, ve başı kel olubda başına reng-âmiz mâi ve çemenî yeşil ‘arakıyye giyüb
başı nakkâş
163
17 çenâğına müşâbih olan fodûllara, ve otı geçmiş tiryâkî yârânın hâlini fehm itmeyüb
savt-ı â’lâ ile
18 çok çok musâhebet iden densizlere, ve bir kimesnenin tuhaf makûlesinden bir
yâdigârı olsa ma’ hazâ
19 satılığı dahî olmasa “elbetde şunı bana fürûht yâ hûd hibe eyle” deyü teklîf-i mâ-lâyutâk
iden câmûslara,
(F6)
1 ve ta’âm yenürken yek yek ağza bakmağı ‘âdet idinen bî-mezâklara, ve ba’de’tta’âm
el yunurken leğen içine
2 sümük bestehleyenlere, ve ba’z-ı ziyâfetlerde latîf peşkirlere yağlı ellerin silen elleri
kuruyacaklara, ve ‘îd
3 günlerinde gelinlik kızların bayrâm seyrlerine ve sancağa çıkaran göziyle
görmüşlere, ve bir kimesne bir hikâyeye
4 başladıkda önüni alub “anın sonu şuna çıkacakdır” deyü anı iskât ve kendüsi bir âher
hikâyeye
5 başlayan bî-edeblere, ve bardak ile su içübde yanında olan âdeme “tut yere koy”
diyen basîretsizlere,
6 ve çârşû içinde kendüden büyük âdemin ardınca giderken yolda râst geldüği
âdemlere savt-ı ‘âlâ ile hâl ü
7 hâtır soran eşeklere, ve bârgîr üzerinde oturub musâhebet iden bî-rahmlere, ve dâimâ
kahve hânede
8 nefîr h(w)âne çekenlere, ve bir kimesne hafiyyeten yazı yazarken yazısına bakan
yüzi karalara, ve bir kimesnenin
9 tarafından birine mührli ve müşemma’lı mektûb yâ nâme veyâ tezkire gönderüb ol
gönderülen âdem mührlerin izâle
10 idüb mahfîce okurken âherden “nedir ol?” diyen yâ “getür bende kırâ’at ideyim”
diyen şeddelü eşeklere,
11 ve ta’âm vakti geldikde vaktini bilüb kibâr ziyâretine varan kuzgun edebsizlere, ve
kibâr huddâmlarına
164
12 ‘âşık geçinen pûzevenklere, ve tabl ü surna ile meclisde şarâb içüb halkı âgâh iden
bî-hicâblara,
13 ve bedî’ kâsim içün birbirleri ile lec ve beynlerinde bürûdet iden hayvânlara, ve tâze
üzümün kabuğın
14 ve kerâsın çekirdeğin çıkarub avucı içine aldıkdan soğra yine sofra içine döken
murdârlara, ve kendü echel-i
15 halku’l-lahdan olub âherin yanlışına ta’an iden eşeklere, ve namâz kılmayub
nümâyiş içün elinde tesbîh
16 götüren münâfıklara, ve dünyâda bir pîşe ihtiyâr itmeyüb her kangı san’atı müzâkere
iderlerse andan haber virüb
17 yine de elinden bir san’at gelmeyen humekâya, ve kendü ihtiyârıyla cellâda şâkird
olan bî-dîn ve bî-merhametlere,
18 ve ilikleme meshi döndürüb tiz eskimesün deyü hısset belâsından öbür tarafını giyen
eşeklere, ve ‘avreti
(F7)
1 yanında tonsız yaturken “bana filan şeyi vir” diyen bî-’ârlara, ve bâzâr içinde kâfir
ve yahûdî tâifesinden
2 şarâb akçesi isteyen bî-hayâlara, “ben cîvâna ancak dîdâr ‘âşıkıyım, meyânından
aşağı el urmam” diyen sefîh mahbûb-dost
3 yârânlara, ve bir civâna yâ bir nigâra ‘âşık geçinüb tamâm murâdı üzre ele
getürdükde sadâkat kaydına
4 düşüb fırsatı ganîmet bilmeyen mecnûn süfehâya, ve nice nice hizmetleri var iken
ta’tîl idüb beher yevm kahve hâneye
5 gelüb kendüyi oturub ahvâlin perîşân iden tenbel ve nuhûset tiryâkîlere, ve dahî bir
kibârın yanına
6 sokulub dâimâ kendüyi yüzine “siz şöyle böylesiz” medh ü müdâhene eyleyen bîmezâklara,
ve bir kibâr meclisine
7 varub kendüye duhân getürdüklerinde nûş iderken nefîs, nazîf yasdıklar dibine
tüküren
165
8 eşek ve ebterlere, ve her gün bir gûne libâs giyüb illere göstermek ile mukayyed olan
gücle görmüşlere,
9 muhassılü’l-kelâm “nefsü’l-emrde ancak bana dokunmuş” diyen süfehâya ve
nefsü’l-emr içinde ‘aybını bilübde
10 ol ‘aybdan kesilmeyen sığırlara, “bi’l-cümle bunları gözetmeyüb ve bu ‘uyûbla
muttasıf olanı bulsam toksan
11 dâne kelb-i ‘akûra daladırdım. Muhassıl-ı kelâm ve netîce-i merâm insân insân
olduğı hasbiyle bu mezkûr ‘avâyibden
12 kâdir olduğı kadarca ictinâb ve perhîz ve ihtirâz itmek lâzımdır, belki ehem ve
mühim ve elzemdir. İmdi
13 âdâb-ı hulkı beyân ve hâsıyyetin ‘ayân itmek lâzım geldüği ecilden lâ cürmu ‘alâ
kadri’t-tâka bu fasl-ı hitâb
14 müstetâba şürû’ yüzinden böyle ketb olundı. ‘Amel iden yârân-ı bâ-safâ ve ihvân-ı
pür-vefâ bizi
15 hayr du’âdan ferâmuş itmeyeler. Târîh-i istinsâh 1299 be.
Hacı Ahmed – Makâle
(F1)
1 Makâle-i nefsü’l-emr kelimât-ı şetm ü letâifi … ba’z-ı tavâîfi kadh ü zemm
2 … ve lakin hakîkatde … kinâyâtı … olub
3 mecâzen ve hakîkaten âdâb ü … münderic olunmağın terkîm olundı.
4 Sebeb-i tenmîk-i risâle-i ‘acîbe ve mûcib-i terşîf-i makâle-i garîbe budur ki; bir
seher
5 dâr-ı dünyânın elem ü şiddetin hâtıra idüb halkın kendü ‘aybları ile eyleyüb
6 erbâb-ı zerâfete elem virüb haylî ıztırâb virdikleri bî ihtiyâr lisânıma gelen
7 nâ-şâyeste kelimât ve şetm tarîkıyle zuhûra gelüb bi’z-zarûrî kadh ü şetme âgâz idüb
166
8 söylemeğe başladım. Evvelâ usûlden hâric olub dahî ta’lîm ile mukayyed olmıyan
cühelâya
9 hüdâ-yı zu’l-menân hazretlerinden ricâm budur ki âb-efşân hâneye vardıkda ol
kuyuya
10 düşe, ve kış günlerinde ‘azîm zifozlara uğraya, ve kasık yirlerinde kan çıbanları
11 çıka, ve câme-hâbında kırk dâne yılan gire, ve katır depmesi dokuna ve çarşuda
12 at ile giderken sarığı düşe, ve ‘azîm bir meclisde otururken bedâ’ bir eyüçe
13 kavâre çalub yüzi kara olub hicâba düşüb rüsvây-ı ‘âlem ola. Zikr
14 olunan bed-du’âlar bu zikr olunacak gürûh üzerine vâki’ ola. Evvelâ hakîkat
15 da’vâsın iden ehl-i sâhib-i kisvet mukallak sûfîlere, ve
16 bir dûd-ı âhdan tekye külâhını urunmış ‘âşık meşreb sâfî dil olan zükûr
17 ü levendlere, efkâr-ı hiddetde evkâr olub kerkes gibi bî-per ü bâl olmuşlara,
18 ve Hidâye okumuş hidâyet bulamamış nekbet fakîhlere, cetrefil köle sû-
19 -flara, yine başına ‘aselî şemle sarub bir elinde tesbîh bir elinde ‘asâ gözleri
20 sürmeli bi-namâz şıhlık iden boğazından asılan şakîlere, çıkrıkda çevrilmiş
21 misvâkları sokunan ağacları götlerine sokulacak mürâyîlere, ve kara şemle sar-
22 -ınub götlerine kuyruk takınan mezhebsizlere, ve ıstılâhât ü ‘ibârât söylerin
23 sanub türk sözi dîvâra kısub deliklere koyan çetrefillere, ve köy
24 be-köy ka’be sûretin gezdirüb ve kapu kapu ibrâhim dâstânın okuyan
civânmerglere,
25 ve semâ’ ü safâ bilmez abdest tahâret yazınmaz cunub mevlevîlere, ya’nî eliflü
26 külâh urunub kara yerin gömgök evliyâsı görinüb çerâğ ü ‘alem getürüb
27 hazz ü cevr iden … Levlevîlere, Hızır İlyâs çevgânın getüren harlara, tekye gâh
28 -hlar öninde celb-i dünyâ içün önlerine çerâğ koyub târik-i salavat olan[lara]
(F2)
1 mesâfe-i ba’ideden getürür ahmak peyklere, ve âhu derisinden tâc u167
2 -runub er oğlı geçinen geyiklere, Veli Şücâ’dan tâc giyinen cânverlere,
3 yollarda oturub mezbelede oynar dîvâneler ki anlara evliyâdır diyen hayvânlara,
4 ve pîrlikde ak sakalın kazdırub yiğit geçinen koca köpeklere, pîrâyeler ki
5 kızlar gelinler gibi yüzin tarayub gezen fâhişe pîre-zenlere, esrâr yiyen bî-
6 mezheb ışıklara, bûze hâne köpeklerine, ya’nî yavız ve bekrî haşîş-hâr-
7 -lara, kumâr-bâz ‘ayyârlara, şevl-i kadeh cerrârlığın iden murdârlara, ölü helvasına
8 ve ıskâd-ı salavat akçesine göz göz karardub yılışan bî-‘ârlara, yuvadan
9 henûz uçmamış bûn yavruların şikâr içün kebûter-bâzlık iden bî-kârlara,
10 ve yalancı mezmûm pîrlere, ve yalancı bî-namâz ‘arsız nâ-cins emîrlere, ‘avâmın az-
11 -gun Allâhımın haşır neşir hışmına uğrayacaklara, ve da’vet olunmayan yere varan
12 utanmazlara, cerb pilâvı destmâline saran ‘ârsızlara, ve katâif ve
13 hoşâb kaşığıyla yiyen eblehlere, dahî ta’âm ortada iken fâtiha okuyan
14 yiğincek mürâyîlere, sofra çekilüb nân ü ni’met dökilüb yimek ortaya
15 geldikdensoğra, “hele filân dahî gelsün” deyü hâzır ta’âmı kıyub gâ’îbe koyan
16 ahmaklara, ve zarîf sipâhî geçinüb sarı sofdan şalvâr giyen zurna-
17 pâlara, bahâdırım deyü başına kartal kanadı sokunan dilsüzlere, eğer katırı-
18 -na pâldüm takan sefîhlere, ihtiyâr ile tüfenk getüren cûbânlara, tob tüfenk
19 atılurken kal’eler nişângâhlarında âb ü efşâne oturan göti
20 çıkacaklara, ve anatolı kâtiblerinden Miskî Çelebiler gibi zâhir akçe kuvvetiyle
yolda-
21 -şlık defterine geçen … ve kâfir havfından kan sıçanlara, ve
22 bârgîr su içerken sıklık viren humekâya, çahşırsız mest giyen …
23 bir kimesneden bir söz işidüb kendüyi rahmından mahrûm itmek içün gammâz-
24 -lık iden civânâmerg olacak bî-nevâllere, bir musâhebeti evvelinden dinlemeyüb
25 dahî tamâm olacak mahallde evvelin soran nekbetî tiryâkîlere, ve ba’z-ı kimesne168
26 -nin evsâfın otururken dimeyüb o rû kalkub diyüviren eblehlere,
27 ve türkîce bilen kâfirelere, kuş dilince söyliyen deli puştlara, kendü esbâbın
28 dürmeğle mukayyed olan hîzlere, ve kâbir sofrasında ta’âm sâhibinin hizmetkâ-
(F3)
1 -rın sofraya çağıran edebsizlere, gedâ yimede “baba nasûha koşmasınlar” diyüb
2 de tenhâda taşak kadar gedâ yiyüb âşikâre hokkasından büber kadar afyon yiyen
3 sefîhlere, ve ilin kitâbın icâzetsiz elinden alub da eski pere döndürüb
4 … hayvânlara, ve sofra üzerinde poh lakırdısın iden pohlı böçeklere, ve yârân
5 öninde kendüsin öğen sığırlara, ve kaşığında kalan ta’âmı yine ta’âm içine
6 döken nâ-cinslere, ve ilin sofrasında yemeğe oturdukda kolların sığayub
7 edebsizlik iden hocalara, ve yimek evvelinde sığır gibi çok çok su içen
8 öküzlere, ve ba’z-ı kimesneyi göz habsine koyan bî-kârlara, ve ba’z-ı bağalın
9 yârâna karışduğın yârân istemeyüb de kendü gelüb sokulan bezenklere,
10 ve kûcek oğlı alub eline ve karısı ardınca mevlevî hâne seyrine giden
11 deyyûslara, ve yalan şâhid olanlara, ve hatır içün kezb ihtiyâr idenlere, ‘ahdine
12 durmayan yalancılara, ve sofrada cümlesi bir yerde bir sahandan yerken gayrı
ta’âma
13 el uzunlığın iden dest-i nâ-pâki kuruyacaklara, tâze ve zağârın ağzın öpen
14 murdârlara, filân kimesne senin hakkında hezeliyât söyledi diyüb münâfakat ve
zemm-
15 -lik iden boğazından asılacaklara, esnâ-yı musâhebetde pek pek çağıran eşeklere,
16 eline bir kaç akçe girmeğle büyüklenen mühmelâtlara, ferrâcesinin altına et veyâ
balık
17 saklayan mellûnlara, eşek ve kısrak siken dînsiz yüzi karalara, ve müselma-
18 -nlığın başın ağrıdan kerîhü’s-savt olan uslûbsız okuyıcılara, kör
19 fakîrlere, mülevves tiryâkîlere, kürklü ferrâce yeniyle ağzın silen köpeklere,
169
20 çahşır içinde gönleğiyle edebden hâric sikin kald(ır)ub gösteren siki ku-
21 -ruyacaklara, ve çok çok kağırub tüküren marîzlere, ve süd yerken kaşığın
22 pek dolduran harîslere, muttasıl bıyığın düzen kaleflere, ve muttasıl sakalın
23 ağzına koyub iş idinen münâfıklara, gizlenüb kapu yarığından bakan
24 fertûte fâhişelere, kendüyin koca karı zann idüb de çârşûda
25 yüzin açub gezen kokmışlar(a), gözlerin kömürle çilingir büzüğüne döndüren
26 eblehlere, ve bayrâm güninde saruğının ardın önine giyen hayvânlara, ve
27 sakalının ağın yolub da bıyığını kızılbaş bıyığına döndüren mezheb-
28 -sizlere, öli ta’âmı içün koltuğına çanak sokub bekleyen nekbetîlere,
(F4)
1 ve öli ta’âmı içün ma’hûd günlerde kapuya bakub kaşık hâzırlıyan harîs
2 mahrûm şeyhlere, hıyârın ellisi bir akçeye iken “azdır, dahî vir” diyen komsulara,
3 “pilâva yoğurt komak hakîr, hazz eylemezin” diyen bî-mezâklara, arık ve rüsvây bâr-
4 -gîriyle ‘abâsı ile binen ebleh-i fânîlere, ve ilin bârgîriyle belki niçe esbâbla düğüne
5 giden ‘azîzlere, ve koncı bol çizme giyenlere, ve komsı kazâ kethüdâsı cehennem
peyklerine,
6 ve çavuş değil iken çavuş geçinen merkeblere, ve beyâz kuzı kürkine zerdevâ yaka
7 koyan bakarlara, ve zurefâ meclisinde kâfir dilince söyliyen mürtedlere, ve ba’z-ı
yârân
8 bir hikâye bast iderken “bunın aşağısı filân olsa gerekdir” diyen kendüyin
9 bilmez eşeklere, henûz ağzında hamr râyihası var iken namâz kılmak isteyen mürâ-
10 -yîlere, ve meclisde fâsık-ı mahrûm olub da sofra kurudanlık iden …
11 ve ba’z-ı sefih kimesne hâşâ mezkûresine hennâyı ve ... tenhâda almayub
12 da kahvehânede oğlanına “bre var işte evde filân istemişlerdir” diyen
13 edebsizlere, ve kahve hânede ve yârân mâbeyninde ve hidmetkârına “bre oğlan
170
14 var evden büyük kîse getür kîsemizde harclık kalmadı” deyü izhârlık
15 iden edebsiz züğürt bî-’ârlara, ve kahvehânede mezkûresine kaftan biçen
16 lekelere, ve kûcek oğlancığı olub da mescide bile götüren merkeblere,
17 başına kırmızı ve mâyî veyâ çemenî ‘arakçîn giyen kokmuşlara, ve bâde çok çok
18 içüb de dumanına bestehleyen yüzi karalara, ve otı geçmiş tiryâkî yârâna
19 çok çok musâhebet soran eşeklere, ve bir kimesnenin bir tuhfe nesnesi
20 olub hâlâ ki satılığı değil iken “elbette bana sat” diyen hımârlara, mahasıl-ı kelâm
21 ıtlâk üzere olan nefsü’l-emre “bana dokunman” diyüb bî-huzûr olan
22 süfehâya, ve nefsü’l-emr içinde kendü ‘aybın duyub da ol ‘aybdan kesilmeyen
23 sığırlara, ve berş ve afyon yenürken pek pek bakan gözi çıkacak hayvanâta,
24 ve ba’de’t-ta’âm el yunurken leğene sümküren bestelere, ve ba’z-ı ziyâfetlerde
25 peşkîr ile elin silen eli kuruyacaklara, ve bayrâm günlerinde gelinlik
26 kızlarını bayrâm seyrine çıkaran gidilere, ve bir kimesne bir hikâye duyurur-
27 -ken arkasından ol tamâm olmadın bir hikâye dahî başlayan köpeklere, ve bardağ
28 ile su içmeyüb de yanında olan âdeme “tut yere ko” diyen [i]drâksizlere,
(F5)
1 ve çârşûda giderken kendüden büyük âdem ardınca olub da yolda rast
2 gelen âdemin hâlin hâtırın sordukdansoğra selâm viren süfehâya,
3 ve kahvehânede uyuyan kehle cellâdına ziyârete varan utanmazlara, ve ekâbir
4 hidmetkârına ‘âşık geçinen köpeklere, ve bir kimesne hafiyye yazu yazarken
yazusına bakan
5 gözi çıkacak yüzi karalara, ve ta’âm zamânında ekâbirlere ve tabl ü sû(r)na ile
6 meclisde ‘ayş ü nûş iden ırgadlara, ve Bedî’ Kâsım içün bahis iden
7 leccâclara, ve tâze üzüm ve kerâs çekirdeğin çıkarub da avcunın içine aldıkda171
8 -nsoğra yine sofra içine döken müstekrehlere, ve kendüsi câhil belki echel-i
halkullah
9 iken ilin yanlışına ta’an iden ebter zavâllulara, ve namâz kılmayub da dâ’imâ elinde
10 tesbîh götüren münâfıklara, ve ekâbirden celb-i dünyâ içün müstehırlık iden
11 boşlıkdan … çıkmışlara, ve dünyâda bir san’atı ihtiyâr itmeyüb de
12 ıylancı ve hokkabâz olan merkeblere, ve bî-nazar saz faslı olurken ayağıyla
13 tahtaya veyâ ... kuruyacak dizlerine usûl dutan eli ayağı kuruyacaklara,
14 ve Dingoz kitâbına “dincûr” diyen ıstılâhâtı yerine getürmeyüb ıstılâha …
15 ve Preverdi kal’âsına “pire var oldı” diyenlere, beher hâl sözinde ve eğer hareketde
ve
16 evzâ’ ü etvâ[r]ında kendi mikdârın bilmeyen mikdârsızlara, ve kendi ‘aybın fikr
17 itmeyüb ilin ‘aybı ile mukayyed olan bî-‘âr ü iz’ânsızlara, ve ‘inâdına
18 musırr olub sözi dürüst değil iken ta’annut üzere olan Birgivîlere,
19 ve nâ-ma’kûl ve nâ-hemvâr olan ef’âl ü akvâlini terk itmeyüb de ma’kûl olan
20 pend ile müttezıh olmayan ‘ârsızlara, ve bi’l-cümle tavâîf-i mezbûreyi seksen
21 dâne kelb-i ‘akûra daladırdım ve boğazlarına kükürt torbasın asardım
22 ibtidâ-i bâlâda mezkûr şetmdensoğra işkence iderdim. Muhassıl-ı kelâm insân
23 olduğı haysıyyet ile ‘avâyib-i mezkûrdan kâdir olduğı mertebe hazer idüb
24 ihtirâz itmek lâzımdır ve ictinâb gerekdir. Lâ cürmü ‘alâ kadri’t-tâka
25 işbu fasl-ı kitâb-ı müstetâbdan istifâde mahz-ı fâide
26 ol ecilden kaleme getürilüb ketb ü terkîm olundı.
27 Ve allahu a’lem bi’s-sevâb … Hacı Ahmed fî … Yanya fî 1056 …. fî 1084.
Niksârîzâde – Nefsü’l-emr (HAP)
172
(F1)
1 Bu mes’ele beyânında e’imme-i Hanefîden cevâb ne vechiledir ki:
نه هر کس سزاوار باشد به صدر
کرامت به جاه است و منزل به قدر
به جای بزرگان دلیری مکن
چو سر پنجهات نیست شیری مکن
نه منعم به مال از کسی بهتر است
نه جاهل بجاه از کسی برتر است
خر از جل اطلس بپوشد خر است
4 ile ‘amel eylemeyüb makâm-ı sadîrin ve kendinin duracak ve oturacak yerin
bilmeyüb mikdârından
5 ziyâde hareket iden ve ‘abes yire söyleyen komîlerin ve fodulların ve mâ-halakları
‘ilm ü mâ’rifet
6 değil iken ‘ulûm ile takkayüd idüb beyn-el-enâm tamâm humk ü cehl ile meşhûr
oldukdan soğra ekâbire intisâb
7 veyâ hûd bir kavî yerden te’ehhül idüb ol tarîk ile tarîk-i ‘ilme duhûl başına destâr-ı
mermerşâhîden on kat
8 mikver-i hâşâ imâm-ı a’zam tâcı şeklinde kubbe-i hamâkat giyüb mecâlisde haddi
değil iken tasaddur idüb
9 ‘ilmi mükâleme olundukda ‘arzı tahammül idemeyüb bî-münâsib kelimât-ı beyhûde
iden ‘avret akıllu
10 cehelenin ve selîkası şi’ire dürüst olmayub ve ebeden ma’rifet ile münâsebeti
olmadıkdan soğra
11 sâhib-i mahlas ve şâ’ir olub keç ‘atâ ba’z-ı edânînin kâh menhâsın ve kâh fazîlet ü
hulkın medh idüb
12 kasîde deyüb câize ümîd eyleyen süfehânın ve sadr-ı ûlemâda humk ü cehl ile şehîr
olub makâm-ı ihtiyâcda
173
13 kendüye gelen mevâliye âdem geçinen behâyimin ve tahsîl-i ‘ilmde mantık ü kelâm
ü âdâb bahs-i lâzım iken
14 ‘ilmi Hidâyeden tahsîl eylemek isteyen ma’tûh çelebilerin ve henûz makâm-ı
istifâdede değil makâm-ı ifâdeye
15 kadem basub dershânelerde ince dânişmendlere meze düşen müderrislerin ve ebeden
şi’ir ile münâsebeti
16 olmayub:
نظیره گفتن اشعار حافظ شیراز
یقین بدان همه کیدی کر نحری در نجوریست
mükerrer iken
17 Hâce Hâfıza nazîre diyen türklerin ve yakalı sûf bi’l-külliye metrûk iken ağustosda
nâfe-i üşek
(F2)
1 yakalı sûf giyen bi-ma’nâ ve nev-heves mollaların ve hikmet ü kelâm ile türk aklının
kat’â münâsebeti
2 yok iken kelâm-ı mütâla’asın âhir ‘ömrine dek cehline rûpûş iden bi-idrâklerin ve
vahdet-i vücûd
3 mes’elesi tavr-ı aklda fehm olunmadığına ‘âmme-yi ‘ulemâ ittifâk eylemişken
husûsan isnâdü’l-beşer
4 ve’l-’aklü’l-hâdî ‘öşr olan muhakkak Cürcânî ‘aleyhi rahmetü’l-bâri Hâşiyye-yi
tecrîdinde mebhas-ı ziyâde-yi
5 vücûdda nass eylemişiken ve Hâce Hâfız-ı Şirâzî:
تو کز سرای طبیعت نمیروی بیرون
طریقت گذر توانی کرد کجا به کوی
6 buyurmuş iken ve kudvetü’l-’arifîn Hazret-i Şeyh Sa’dî kuddise sırrahu dahî:
مپندار سعدی که راه صفا
توان رفت جز بر پی مصطفی
174
buyurmuş iken ve yine fâzıl-ı mezbûr hâşiye-yi metâli’inde bahs-i hamd ü
8 şükrde tehzîb-i zâhir şerâi’-i nebevî ve nevâmis-i ilâhi isti’mâli ile olur deyü tahkîk
eylemişken
9 henûz ri’âyet-i şer’-i şerîf eylemeyüb tamâm nefs-i emmâre makâmına hizmet
iderken vahdet-i vücûd mes’elesinden
10 dem urub taklîd-i zındıka eyleyenlerün ve ba’z-ı hitâm-ı dünyâ içün anları tasdîk
iden kâzib-i nâ-dervişlerin
11 ve mahlası meşhûr olub şi’irini kimesne bilmez şâ’ir efendilerin ve evkât-ı şerîfesin
‘ilme sarf itmeyüb
12 şi’ir böceği olan haşarâtın ve eyyâm-ı ta’tîl ile sâir zamânı tefrika eylemeyüb dâimâ
şenlikçi olan
13 muksirlerin ve ba’z-ı nemmâm-ı sakîl ve mekrde olan eşhâsdan hatt sûretin gösterüb
mecâlis-i ‘irfâna dâhil
14 olmağa sebeb olan kâselilerün ve yektâ mikver-i destâr giymeğle ‘arz-ı tahsîl eyleye
…
15 eşhâsın ve mikver-i yektâ destar ile cüzh(w)ân şeklinde olan mukallid meze
müderrislerin ve fevku’l-hadd
16 gûl iken yârân-ı ‘aceme taklîd idüb tekellüm-ü farsî eyleyen harların ve üç yüz
yaşına kadem basmış iken
17 müderris-i nevheves olanların ve bir sohbet henûz nâ-tamâm iken bir niçe temhîd-i
mukaddime eyleyen ‘abdü’l-batn
18 ekûllerin ve maksûdı bir şahsı ziyâfet iken meclise münâsebeti olmayan eşhâsı idhâl
iden
19 lûtbâzların ve ‘ömr-ü nâzenînini dâimâ ziyâfete hasr iden yilkovanların ve maksûd
ehl-i ‘ilmi ziyâfet iken
20 kendin ve yâhûd odasın göstermek içün defterdârları ve ba’z-ı muhasebeci ve
mukâta’acıları
21 ziyâfete dâhil eyleyen nev-devletlerin ve kendi tamâm muflis iken mürâbaha ile
medyûn olub
175
(F3)
1 defterdârlar ziyâfetine taklîd eyleyen cimrî müderrislerin ve mertebesi … kazâ iken
tevcîh olundukda kabûl
2 eylemeyüb b’il-âhire niçe müdetten soğra nâçâr kabûl eyleyen nâ-kabûllerin ve
mikdâr-ı kifâye sebeb-i ma’işeti var iken
3 sefer-i Hindustân iden harîs ü hercâyîlerin ve tamâm ahlâk-ı zamîme ve hırs ile
muttasıf olub
4 târik-i dünya geçinen müstağni-şekl olan dervîş-i bî-endâm bî-nevâların ve tamâm
cehl ile câhil iken
5 kendüyi müderris-i hakîkî menzilesine tenzîl eyleyen fodûl-ı bî-ma’nâların ve
vâlidesi ‘ismetinde şübhesi
6 olub kendü ma’sûm şekl olan helâlzâdelerin ve … etrâf-ı … semt ma’nîdir …
7 vücûh-ı takdîm ve tâ’cîz ve tenâkuz-ı ı’râzı ‘ilm zann idüb tasnîfe cesâret iden ‘ilm
gedâ-çeşmlerinin
8 ve mezelik ve püzelik ile meclise dâhil olan girân-canların ve ‘ilm ma’nî iken şi’ir-i
‘arab
9 ve bir kaç mânusü’l-isti’mâl olmayan lugat bilmeği ‘ilm zann idüb kitâb içinde elfâzı
gazel bilir
10 bebe kitâb güğelerinin ve ile taklîd idüb müdakkik olan yârânı ‘ilmine i’tikâd
itdirmek
11 ister ehl-i zann belki ehl-i şekllerin ve mevzu’-ı bahs ‘ilm ü ma’rifet olmayub ol
makûle-i edânî ile lâf ü
12 güzâf eden mâ-lâ-ya’nî süfehânın ve tarîk-i ‘ilmde bir akçe değmez iken beyt’ülmâlden
mevâlî tekâ’üdi
13 itdirmeğe sebeb olan ehl-i insâfların ve tarîk-i ‘ilmi bu şekle koyan fazılanın ve dahî
makâm-ı ifâde ile
14 istifâdeyi tefrika eylemeyüb ve eylemek şânından olmayub dânişmend terbiye
eyleyen ebterlerin ve bin
176
15 tarihinden soğra ‘ilme ve tarîk-i ‘ilme heves iden ‘ukûl-u kâsıranın ve henûz
tasavvur-ı ‘ilm eylememişken
16 imtihân taleb iden lâ-ya’killerin ve tevâbi’i kâbil-i ‘ilm değil idüğin bilürken tarîk-i
‘ilme idhâl eylemeğle
17 tarîk-i ‘ilmi esâsından hadm eylemek ister koca günâhkârların ve ol makûle süfehâyı
mezelenen yârân-ı rinde
18 dil-gîr olan nâdânların ve ıtlâkı üzre olan nefsü’l-emrlere rencide-hâtır olan bîmeşreb
19 ve tâ’ife-yi rind ü evbâşı mevâ’îd bî-meze-i … ile tesliye iden kabâhat-i nâfehmlerin
ve ervâma
20 insân i‘tikâdında değil iken hem-meşreb olmak içün ervâma taklîd iden yārān-ı
‘acemin ve ebeden
21 yārān-ı ‘acemden hazz eylemek şānından değil iken taḳlīd ile huşke pilav puhte iden
nâ-puhtelerin
(F4)
1 ve sakalı ak olub henûz meleke-yi ‘ilmiyyesi kâmile olmayan tâlib-i ‘ilmlerin ve şehr
oğlanı mahbûbları ile ıhtılât
2 eylemeğe taklîd iden … alayının ve meyhânede perîşân büyük kirli destâr ü tecvîd
ile nağme
3 eyleyen türk dânişmendlerinin ve gazel taksîminde türkî şi’ir okuyan yârân-ı ‘acemin
ve farsî ile gazel
4 taksîm eyleyen ervâmın ve tamâm sıklet ile sakîl iken sıkletin sırr itmek içün
meclisde hiffet ihtiyâr eyleyen
5 galîzlerin ve şehr oğlanı mahbûbun odasına da’vet idüb babası dânişmendlerin
sohbete idhâl iden
6 hâne-perver çelebilerin ve izhâr-ı fazîlet idüb meclis-i şarâbda musâhabet-i ‘ilmiyye
iden türk dânişmendlerinin
7 ve karîhası pâk olmayub ehl-i ‘ilm şeklinde olan eşhâs ki üç dört yüz akçe sermâye
ile elmâs fürûş
177
8 olmak ister nâkısâtü’l-’akla teşbîh olunmuşdur ol makûle har-mühre-fürûş
katırcıların ve imlâsının
9 çelebîliğe tahammüli olmayub boğazı çehâr-penç ‘unsurı yağlı karacıların ve ‘ilm
şânından değil iken ‘ilme
10 takallut viren paşa ü defterdârzâdelerin ve “ لیس هذا اول قارورة كسرت في الاسلام ” mefhûmun
11 bilürken ‘acz ü kederinden tarîk-i ceheleye sülûk eylemek ister mevâlîzâdelerin ve ol
makûle ve imânda akrân
12 olan nâ-murâdlara destgîr olmıyan bî-hamiyyet zürefânın ve kudema’-i felâsefe ile
hem-ders olan
13 ak sakalı olub kırmızı mücevveze giyüb defterdâr olmak ister türk kâdılarının ve ehli
‘arz kahvehânesine
14 müdâvemet iden bî-’arzların ve mahzâ tarîk-i ‘ilmi ihyâ içün medrese binâ idüb
cemî’-i eşhâs
15 yanında müsâvî belki maksûdı ehl-i ‘ilme tevcîh iken nefsü’l-emri ol makûle sâhib-i
hayr olan
16 eshâb-ı sa’âdete sevk eylemeyen eshâb-ı ağrâzın ve ol makûle ef’âl ü akvâlinden
eshâb-ı devleti
17 hatt eyler i’tikâdında olan nâdânların ve … kavliyle ‘amel iden kibârın ve ders-i
‘âmme sebeb-i
18 ri’âyet olsun deyü i’râbdan hattı olmıyan eşhâsı idhâl eylemeğe sebeb olan ehl-i
insâfın ve
19 sebeb-i ri’âyet-i cehele olsun deyü tarîk-i ‘ilmde zamân i’tibâr iden mu’teberlerin ve
ehl-i ‘ilm ile
20 cehele ‘indallah ve ‘inde’n-nâs mümtâz iken ba’z-ı ağ’râz-ı fâsıla ile temyîz murâd
eyleyen bî-temyîzlerin
21 ve mensûb-u ileyhi gittikden soğra abrîz olduğun bilürken yine ma’ el-kerâhe tarîk-i
‘ilme duhûl eyleyüb
(F5)
178
1 zâhiren ve bâtınen mekrde olanların ve ehl-i ‘ilm ve müderris-i hakîkî olan selef-i
sâlihîne taklîd idüb
2 ancak ıstılâh-ı müderrisîni istifâde ve ‘ilmi ebeden ifâde eylemeyüb mecâlis-i
‘ulemâda cenâh-ı i’tibâr
3 eyleyen kuşların ve zamânede muhtâc-ı ileyh makâmına ikâmet idüb ra’nâlanan
gücle güzellerin
4 ve ‘inde’t-tahkîk muhtâc-ı ileyh bârî te’âlâ iken kendü gibi bir ‘âcizi muhtâc-ı ileyh
eğleyüb a’yâdde
5 ve sâ’ir zamânda … bir ulak bargîrine binüb bin dâne meclise girân-cân olanların ve
yağmurlı
6 havâda salıncak ile takayyüd eyleyen yâdigârların ve bir aylık ‘âşıkı olmayub
salıncakçılar
7 koçsun makâmında yalnız salınan güzellerin ve türk dânişmendi ile bayram ve
kahvehâne ve meyhâne
8 seyrine varan civânların ve şehr oğlanı rengine bed-şekl ve … köleleri ve anadolıdan
gelen türk
9 oğlanını zer ü züyûra gark iden ahriyân ve türk kâdılarının ve bayrâm seyrinde
evvelki gün
10 İstanbulun ve ikinci gün Tobhânenin ve üçüncü gün Eyyübündür deyü şiddet-i şitâda
ve yâhûd
11 şiddet-i harrda ol mevâzi’in esvâk-ı müntinesinden kendü gibi erâzil ile muhkem
itişüb gezen
12 güzendelerin ve bir dânesi dünyâya yiter iken üç nâbûd bî-meze karındaşını tarîk-i
‘ilme
13 sıklet virüb girân-cân olan Molla Gürânizâdelerin ve dünyâ bu şekle girdikden soğra
yine
14 ehl-i mansıb olmak ister nâdânların ve bu makûle bî-i’tibâr bî-ma’nâ …
15 firâr eylemeyüb karâr eyleyen bî-karârların ve seyyâretinde şübhe olub belki şübhe
olmayub ol
179
16 ‘ırk-ı pâke intisâbdan maksûd ahlâk-ı hamîde ile intisâf iken ümmet-i mehemmede
cefâ ve izâ iden
17 dâhillerin ve ‘ilm ile münâsebeti yoğiken mücerred şeref-i neseb ile tarîk-i ‘ilme
dâhil olmak ister
18 hâriclerin ve yârân odasına varub keyf ü … teklîf olundukda hokkanın dibin
19 gösteren berşîlerin ve eshâb-ı devlete varub bî-tekellüfâne kâh kahve ve kâh mâkûlât
ister
20 bebe köpeklerin ve fenâr kapusı ve dîngoz ve bunun emsâli elfâzı tağyîr idüb dîncûz
ve bâb-ı fânus
21 diyen kuşlahüddînlerin ve kahvehâneye varmakdan maksûd yârânla haşr olub ‘ilmi
ve şi’iri
(F6)
1 ve ba’z-ı letâif musahabeti iken eshâb-ı sa’âdet mezemmetin iltizâm-ı mâ-lâ-yelzem
eyleyen nekbetî tiryâkîlerin
2 ve ebeden ‘ilm ü ma’rifet ile münâsebeti yoğiken musannifîn-i ervâh-ı
tayyibelerinden havf ü hicâb eylemeyüb
3 kütüb-i nefîseyi cem’ ü habs iden muhtebislerin ve ekser-i evkâtını şenlikçilikde
geçirüb ‘ilm ü ma’rifet ile
4 takayyüd eylemeyüb mahzâ ‘örf ü izafeti ile nefsü’l-emr yârânı ‘ilmine i’tikâd
itdirmek ister
5 Nasreddin Hâcelerin ve kendi bî-haysiyyet iken odasına kendüyi ve yâhûd ta’âmını
ve hüddâmını
6 göstermek içün ‘ulema ve şu’arâyı da’vet idüb kendünün ve ta’âmının mezesin
çıkaran devletlü
7 endâmında olan müsrif mezelerin ve tiryâkî olan devletlü evinde bir kaç otı geçmiş
oda
8 bucağında dâimâ sâmit ü sâkit oturur … şekl kokonosların ve meclis-i şarâbda fâsıkı
180
9 mahrûm olub sofrada meze eyleyen hayvanâtın ve henûz ağzında hamr var iken
meclis-i şarâbdan kalkub
10 namâz kılmak isteyen mürâyîlerin ve bin târihinden soğra te’ehhül murâd eyleyen
koca puluçların, muhâsıl
11 bu zikr olunan ef’âl-i kabîha ve â’mâl-i şenî’a ile ‘amel iden tavâifin ihtiyâr itdikleri
evzâ’-ı
12 nefsü’l-emre mutâbık olacak olursa ‘avretim talâk-ı selâse ile mutallaka olsun diyen
rinde -ne lâzım olur- şer’en talâk vâkî’ olur mı?
Niksârîzâde – Nefsü’l-emr (H)
(F1)
1 Niksarizade Efendi Merhûmun Nefs’ül-Emrenâme
2 deyü yazdıkları sûret-i mes’îledir. Bu mes’ele beyânında e’imme-i Hanefîden
3 cevâb ne vechiledir ki, nazm:
نه هر کس سزاوار باشد به صدر
کرامت به جاه است و منزل به قدر
به جای بزرگان دلیری مکن
چو سر پنجهات نیست شیری مکن
نه منعم به مال از کسی بهتر است
نه حاهل بجاه از کسی برتر است
خر از جل اطلس بپوشد خر است
7 ile ‘amel eylemeyüb makâm-ı sadîrin ve kendinin duracak ve oturacak
8 yerin bilmeyüb mikdârından ziyâde hareket iden ve ‘abes yire söz söyleyen
(F2)
181
1 komîlerin ve fodulların ve mâ-halakları ‘ilm ü mâ’rifet değil iken ‘ulûm ile takkayüd
idüb
2 beyn-el-enâm tamâm humk ü cehl ile meşhûr oldukdan soğra ekâbire intisâb veyâ
hûd bir kavî
3 yerden te’ehhül idüb ol tarîk ile tarîk-i ‘ilme duhûl idüb başına destâr-ı
mermerşâhîden
4 on kat mikver-i hâşâ imâm-ı a’zam tâcı şeklinde kubbe-i hamâkat giyüb mecâlisde
5 haddi değil iken tasaddur idüb ‘ilm mükâleme olundukda ‘arzı tahammül idemeyüb
6 bî-münâsib kelimât-ı beyhûde iden ‘avret akıllu cehelenin ve selîkası şi’ire dürüst
7 olmayub ve ebeden ma’rifet ile münâsebeti yoğiken sâhib-i mahlas ve şâ’ir olub
8 kec ‘atâ ba’z-ı edânînin kâh menhâsın ve kâh fazîlet ü hulkın medh idüb
9 kasîde deyüb câize ümîd eyleyen süfehânın ve sadr-ı ûlemâda humk ü cehl ile şehîr
10 olub makâm-ı ihtiyâcda kendüye gelen mevâliye âdem geçinen behâyimin ve tahsîl-i
‘ilmde
11 mantık ü kelâm ü âdâb bahs-i lâzım iken ‘ilm-i hidâyeden tahsîl eylemek isteyen
ma’tûh
12 çelebilerin ve henûz makâm-ı istifâdede değil iken makâm-ı ifâdeye kadem basub
dershâne-
13 -lerde eyüce dânişmendlere meze düşen müderrislerin ve ebeden şi’ir ile münâsebeti
olmayub, nazm:
نظیره گفتن اشعار حافظ شیراز
یقین بدان همه کیدی کر نحری در بحوریست
15 mukarrar iken Hâce Hâfıza nazîre diyen türklerin ve yakalı sûf bi’l-külliye metrûk
16 iken ağustosda nâfe-i üşek kaplu sûf giyen bi-ma’nâ nev-heves mollaların ve hikmet
17 ü kelâm ile türk aklının kat’â münâsebeti yoğiken kelâm-ı mütâla’asın âhir ‘ömrine
18 dek rûpûş iden bi-idrâklerin ve vahdet-i vücûd mes’elesi tavr-ı aklda
182
19 fehm olunmadığına ‘âmme-yi ‘ulemâ tahkîk ü ittisâk eylemişken husûsan üstâdü’lbeşer
ve’l-’akl-ı
20 hâdî ‘aşer olan muhakkik Cürcânî ‘aleyhi rahmetü’l-melekü’l-bârî Hâşîyye-yi
Tecrîdinde
21 mebhas-ı ziyâde-yi vücûdda nass eylemişiken ve Hâce Hâfız-ı Şirâzî, nazm:
تو کز سرای طبیعت نمیروی بیرون
کجا به کوی طریقت گذر توانی کرد
23 ve kudvetü’l-’arifîn Şeyh Sa’dî kuddise sırrahu, nazm:
مپندار سعدی که راه صفا
توان رفت جز بر پی مصطفی
(F3)
1 buyurmuşken ve yine fâzıl-ı
2 mezbûr hâşiye-yi matla’ında bahs-i hamd ü şükrde tehzîb-i şerâi’-i nebevî ve
nevâmis-i
3 ilâhi isti’mâli ile olur deyü tahkîk eylemişken henûz ri’âyet-i şer’-i şerîf eylemeyüb
4 tamâm nefs-i emmâre makâmına hizmet iderken vahdet-i vücûd mes’elesinden dem
urub
5 taklîd-i zendeka eyleyenlerün ve ba’z-ı hitâm-ı dünyâ içün anları tasdîk iden kâzib-i
6 nâ-dervişlerin ve mahlası meşhûr olub şi’irini kimesne bilmez şâ’ir efendilerin ve
7 evkât-ı şerîfesin ‘ilme sarf itmeyüb şi’ir böceği olan haşarâtın ve eyyâm-ı
8 ta’tili ile sâir zamânı tefrika eylemeyüb dâimâ şenlikçi olan muksirlerin ve ba’z-ı
9 tamâm sakîl ve mekrde olan eşhâsdan hatt sûretin gösterüb mecâlis-i ‘irfâna dâhil
10 olmağa sebeb olan kâselilerün ve yektâr mikver-i destâr giymeğle ‘arz-ı tahsîl
eyleyen komi
11 eşhâsın ve ve mikver-i yektâr destar ile cüzh(w)ân şeklinde olan mukallid meze
müderri183
12 -slerin ve fevku’l-hadd gûl iken yârân-ı ‘aceme taklîd idüb tekellüm-ü farsî eyleyen
harların
13 ve üç yüz yaşına kadem basmış iken müderris-i nevheves olanların ve bir sohbet
henûz nâ-tamâm
14 iken bir niçe sohbet temhîd-i mukaddime eyleyen ‘abdü’l-(matlab)batn ekûllerin ve
maksûdı
15 ehl-i ‘ilmi ziyâfet iken kendin veyâ hûd otasın göstermek içün defter
16 dârları ve ba’z-ı muhâsebeci mukâta’acıları ziyâfete dâhil eyliyen nev-devletlerin
17 ve kendi tamâm muflis iken mürâbaha ile medyûn olub defterdârlar ziyâfetine
18 taklîd iden cimrî müderrislerin ve mertebesi … kazâsı iken tevcîh olundukda
19 kabûl eylemeyüb b’il-âhire nice müdetten soğra nâçâr kabûl eyleyen nâ-kabûllerin
ve
20 mikdâr-ı kifâye sebeb-i ma’işeti var iken sefer-i Hindustân eyleyen harîs hercâyîlerin
ve tamâm
21 ahlâk-ı zamîme ve hırs ile muttasıf olub târik-i dünya geçinen müstağni
22 şekl dervîş-i bî-endâm ve bî-nevâların ve tamâm cehl ile câhil iken müderris-i
23 hakîkî menzilesine tenzîl eylemeyen fodûl-u bî-ma’nâların ve vâlidesi ‘ismetinde
şübhesi
(F4)
1 olub kendü ma’sûm şekl olan helâlzâdelerin ve mezelik ve püzelik
2 ile meclise dâhil olan girân-canların ve ‘ilm ma’nî iken şi’ir-i ‘arab ve bir kaç
mânusü’l-
3 isti’mâl lügât bilmeği ‘ilm zann idüb kitâb içinde gazel bilir kitâb güğelerinin
4 ve eyle taklîd idüb müdakkik olan yârânı ‘ilmine i’tikâd itdirmek ister ehl-i zann
belki
5 ehl-i şekllerin ve mevzu’-ı bahs ‘ilm ü ma’rifet olmayub ol makûle-i edânî ile
6 lâf ü güzâf eden mâ-lâ-ya’nî süfehânın ve tarîk-i ‘ilmde bir akçe değmez iken
184
7 beyt’ül-mâlden mevâlî tekâ’üdi nâmına toksan ve yüz akçe ekl eyleyen helâl
8 hârların ve ol makûle-i nüfûs zâyi’eye mevâlî tekâ’üdin itdirmeğe sebeb olan
9 ehl-i insâfların ve tarîk-i ‘ilmi bu şekle koyan fazılanın ve dahî makâm-ı ifâde ile
10 istifâdeyi tefrika itmeyüb ve tefrika eylemek şânından olmayub danişmend
11 terbiye eyleyen ebterlerin ve bin tarihinden soğra ‘ilme ve tarîk-i ‘ilme heves iden
12 ‘ukûl-u kâsıranın ve henûz tasavvur-ı ‘ilm eylememişken imtihân taleb iden lâ-
13 ya’killerin ve tevâbi’i kâbil-i ‘ilm değil idüğin bilirken tarîk-i ‘ilme idhâl eylemeğle
14 tarîk-i ‘ilmi esâsından hadm eylemek ister koca günâhkârların ve ol makûle
15 süfehâyı mezelenen yârân-ı rinde dil-gîr olan nâdânların ve ıtlâk üzre
16 olan nefsü’l-emrlere rencide-hâtır olan bî-meşreb ve tâ’ife-yi rind ü evbâşı
17 mevâ’îd pey-meze ile tesliye iden kabâhat-i nâ-fehmlerin ve ervâma insân
i‘tikâdında
18 değil iken hem-meşreb olmak içün ervâma taklîd iden yārān-ı ‘acemin ve ebeden
19 yārān-ı ‘acemden hazz eylemek şānından degül iken taḳlīd ile huşk pilav puhte
20 iden nâ-puhtelerin ve sakalı ak olub henûz meleke-yi ‘ilmiyyesi kâmil olmıyan
21 tâlib-i ‘ilmin ve şehr oğlanı mehbûbları ile ıhtılât eylemeğe taklîd iden …
22 alayının ve meyhânede perîşân büyük kirli destâr ü tecvîd ile nağme iden
23 türk dânişmendlerinin ve gazel taksîminde türkî şi’ir okuyan yârân-ı
(F5)
1 ‘acemin ve farsî ile gazel taksîm iden ervâmın ve tamâm sıklet ile sakîl iken
mahfiyyen
2 mahzâ sıkletin sırr itmek içün meclisde hiffet ihtiyâr eyleyen galîzlerin
3 ve şehr oğlanı mahbûbun odasına da’vet idüb babası dânişmendlerin sohbete
4 idhâl iden hâne-perver çelebilerin ve izhâr-ı fazîlet idüb meclis-i şarâbda
5 müsahebet-i ‘ilmiyye iden türk dânişmendlerinin ve karîhası pâk olmayub
185
6 ehl-i ‘ilm şeklinde olan eşhâs ki üç dört akçe ile elmâs fürûş ü
7 olmak ister nâkısâtü’l-’akla teşbîh olunmuşdur ol makûle hurda-fürûş
8 katırcıların ve imlâsının çelebîliğe tahammüli yoğiken boğazı çehâr-penç ‘unsurı
yağlı
9 kara çelebilerin ve ‘ilm şânından değil iken ‘ilme takallut viren paşa ü
10 defterdârzâdelerin ve “ ”لیس هذا اول قارورة كسرت في الاسلام
11 mefhûmun bilürken ‘acz ü kederinden tarîk-i ceheleye sülûk itmek ister
12 mevâlîzâdelerin ve ol makûle “imânda ikrâr-ı nâ-murâdlara destgîr olmıyan
13 bî-hamiyyet zürefânın ve kudema’-i felâsefe ile hem-ders olan ak sakallu olub
14 kırmuzı mücevveze giyüb defterdâr olmak ister türk kâdılarının ve
15 ehl-i ‘ilm [ü] ‘arz kahvehânesine müdâvemet iden bî-’arzların ve mahzâ
16 cemî’-i eşhâs yanında müsâvî belki maksûdı ehl-i ‘ilme tevcîh iken nefsü’l-emri
17 ol makûle sâhib-i hayr olan eshâb-ı sa’âdete sevk eylemeyen eshâb-ı
18 ağrâzın ve ol makûle ef’âl ve akvâlinden eshâb-ı devleti hatt eyler i’tikâdında
19 olan nâdânların ve eşbâh kavliyle ‘amel iden kibârın ve ders-i ‘âmme sebeb-i
20 ri’âyet olur deyü i’râbdan hattı olmıyan eşhâsı idhâl eylemeğe sebeb
21 olan ehl-i insâfın ve sebeb-i ri’âyet-i cehl olsun deyü tarîk-i
22 ‘ilmde zamân i’tibâr iden mu’teberlerin ve ehl-i ‘ilm ile cehele ‘indallah ve ‘inde’n-
23 -nâs mümtâz iken ba’z-ı ağ’râz-ı fâsıla ile temyîz murâd eyleyen bî-temyîzlerin
(F6)
1 ve mensûb-u ileyhi gittikden soğra abrîz olduğun bilürken yine ma’ el-kerâhe
2 tarîk-i ‘ilme duhûl eyleyüb zâhiren ve bâtınen mekrde olanların ve ehl-i ‘ilm ve
müderris-i
3 hakîkî olan selef-i sâlihîne taklîd idüb ancak ıstılâh-ı müderrisîni istifâde (ifâde) ve
4 ‘ilmi ebeden istifâde (ifâde) itmeyüb mecâlis-i ‘ulemâda cenâh-ı i’tibâr eyleyen
kuşların
186
5 ve zamânede muhtâc-ı ileyh makâmına kendin ikâmet idüb ra’nâlanan gücle …
6 güzellerin ve ‘inde’t-tahkîk muhtâc-ı ileyh bâri te’âlâ iken kendü gibi bir ‘âcizi
muhtâc-ı ileyh
7 makâmına ikâmet idüb a’yâdde ve sâ’ir zamânda bir ulak bargîrine
8 binüb bin firâr bin meclise girân-cân olanların ve yağmurlı havâda salıncak
9 ile takayyüd iden yâdigârların ve bir aylık ‘âşıkı olmayub salıncakçılar koçsun
makâmında
10 yalnız salınan güzellerin ve türk dânişmendi ile bayram ve kahvehâne ve meyhâne
seyrine
11 varan civânların ve şehr oğlanı renginde bed-şekl ve … kölelerin ve anadolıdan
12 gelen türk oğlanın zer ü züyûra gark iden ahriyân-ı zarîf türk
13 kâdılarının ve bayrâm seyrinde evvelki gün İstanbulun ve ikinci gün Tobhânenin
14 ve üçüncü gün Eyyübündür deyü şiddet-i şitâda ve yâhûd şiddet-i harrda ol
15 mevâzi’in esvâk-ı müntinesinden kendü gibi erâzil ile muhkem itişüb gez de
16 gezendilerin ve bir dânesi dünyâya yiter iken üç nâbûd pey-meze karındaşını idhâl
17 ile tarîk-i ‘ilme sıklet virüb girân-cân olan Molla Gürânizâdelerin
18 ve dünyâ bu şekle girdiktensoğra yine ehl-i ‘ilmim deyü mansıb olmak ister
nâdânların ve bu
19 makûle bî-i’tibâr bî-ma’nâ … firâr eylemeyüb karâr eyleyen
20 bî-karârların ve seyyâretinde şübhesi olub belki şübhesi olmayub lakin ol
21 ‘ırk-ı pâke intisâbdan maksûd ahlâk-ı hamîd ile intisâf iken ümmet-i mehemmede
22 izâ ve cefâ üzre olan dâhillerin ve ‘ilmde münâsebeti yoğiken mücerred şeref-i
23 neseb ile tarîk-i ‘ilme dâhil olmak ister hâriclerin ve yârân odasına
(F7)
1 varub keyf-i … teklîf olundukda hokkanın dibin gösteren berşîlerin
2 ve eshâb-ı devlete varub bî-tekellüfâne kâh kahve ve kâh mâkûlât ister …
187
3 ... ve fenâr kapusı ve Dîngoz ve bunun emsâli elfâzı tağyîr idüb dîncûz
4 ve bâb-ı fânus diyen kuşlahüddînlerin ve kahvehâneye varmakdan maksûd yârânla
5 haşr olub ‘ilmi ve şi’iri ve ba’z-ı letâif musahabeti iken eshâb-ı sa’âdet
6 mezemmetin iltizâm-ı mâ-lâ-yelzem eyleyen nekbetî tiryâkîlerin ve ebeden ‘ilm ü
ma’rifet ile münâsebeti
7 yoğiken musannifîn-i ervâh-ı tayyibelerinden havf ü hicâb eylemeyüb mahzâ ‘örf ü
8 izafeti ile nefsü’l-emr yârânı ‘ilmine i’tikâd itdirmek ister Nasreddin Hâce-
9 -lerin ve kendi bî-haysiyyet iken odasına kendüyi ve yâhûd ta’âmını ve hüddâmını
gö-
10 -stermek içün ‘ulema ve şu’arâyı da’vet idüb kendünün ve ta’âmının mezesin
11 çıkaran müsrif … mezelerin ve tiryâkî olan devletlü evinde bir kaç otı
12 geçmiş oda bucağında dâimâ sâmit ü sâkit oturur şihân-şekl kokonosların ve
13 meclis-i şarâbda fâsık-ı mahrûm olub sofrada meze ekl iden hayvanâtın
14 ve henûz ağzında âsâr-ı hamr var iken meclis-i şarâbdan kalkub namâz kılmak ister
15 mürâyîlerin ve bin târihinden soğra te’ehhül murâd eyleyen koca puluçların, muhâsıl
bu zikr
16 olunan ef’âl-i kabîha ve â’mâl-i şenî’a ile ‘amel itdikleri evzâ’-ı nefsü’l-emre
17 mutâbık olacak olursa ‘avreti talâk-ı selâse ile mutallaka olsun diyen rinde
18 -ne lâzım olur- şer’en talâk vâkî’ olur mı? Beyân buyurulub müsâb
19 olasız, allahu a’lem bi’s-sevâb. Temmet. ‘Alî bin Ebi Tâlib, keremallahu vechu.
188
APPENDIX C
FACSIMILES OF MANUSCRIPTS
Figure C1. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (MS)
Figure C2. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (MS) 2
189
Figure C3. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (MS) 3
Figure C4. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (MC)
190
Figure C5. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (MC) 2
Figure C6. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (MK)
191
Figure C7. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (MK) 2
Figure C8. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (YB)
192
Figure C9. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (YB) 2
Figure C10. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (YB) 3
193
Figure C11. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (HME)
Figure C12. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (HME) 2
194
Figure C13. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (HME) 3
Figure C14. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (HME) 4
195
Figure C15. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (HME) 5
Figure C16. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (HME) 6
196
Figure C17. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (AÖ)
Figure C18. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (AÖ) 2
197
Figure C19. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (AÖ) 3.
Figure C20. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ)
198
Figure C21. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ) 2
Figure C22. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ) 3
Figure C23. Lâmiî Çelebi – Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ) 4
199
Figure C24. Hacı Ahmed – Makâle
Figure C25. Hacı Ahmed – Makâle 2
200
Figure C26. Hacı Ahmed – Makâle 3
Figure C27. Niksârîzâde – Nefsü’l-emr (HAP)
201
Figure C28. Niksârîzâde – Nefsü’l-emr (HAP) 2
Figure C29. Niksârîzâde – Nefsü’l-emr (HAP) 3
202
Figure C30. Niksârîzâde – Nefsü’l-emr (HAP) 4
Figure C31. Niksârîzâde – Nefsü’l-emr (H)
203
Figure C32. Niksârîzâde – Nefsü’l-emr (H) 2
Figure C33. Niksârîzâde – Nefsü’l-emr (H) 3
204
Figure C.34 Niksârîzâde – Nefsü’l-emr (H) 4
205
APPENDIX D
TRANSLATED REFERENCES
1. “Pes imdi sebeb-i te'lif-i risâlet-i 'acîbe ve mûcibe-i tedkîk-i makâle-i garîbe
oldur ki halkın sefâhatine nazar edüp ve lağviyyâtını istimâ' eyleyüp elem
şiddetin hâtıra edüp herkesi gendi 'aybları ile takdîr eyleyüp erbab-ı zirâfete
hayli elem ve ıztırâb verdükleri ecilden bi-ihtiyār lisânıma gelen nâ-şâyeste
zuhûra gelüp şütûm-ı mugallaza ile şetm-i azîme başladım.” Lâmiî Çelebi,
Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 1.
2. “Evvelâ usûlden hâric olub dahî ta’lîm ile mukayyed olmıyan cühelâya hüdâyı
zu’l-mennândan ve pâdişâh-ı lem-yezelden ricâm budur ki; âb-evşâna
vardıkda ol kuyuya düşe, ve kış günleri ‘azîm berde uğraya zifozlara uğraya,
ve kasık yerlerinde kan çıbanları çıkara, ve câme-hâbında kırk dâne yılan
bula, ve katır depmesine dokuna, ve çârşu içinde atla giderken başından
saruğı düşe, ve ‘azîm meclisde bin dâne kavara vâki’ ola, bin dürlü ‘azîm
hicâba düşüb hacâletle rüsvây-ı ‘âlem olsun.” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr
(AÖ), 1.
3. “Usulden hâric olup iz’andan bi-haber ve edebden berî olup dahi terbiye ve
ta’lim erkanîle mukayyed olmayan cehele dilerim Ol Padişah-ı Lemyezelden
ki ‘uşana’ vardıkta ayağı sürçüp ol kuyuya düşüp boynu altında kala, ısıcak
günde kabız ve sovuk günde ishale uğraya, yaz günleri sıtmaya, kış güni
sancıya uğraya; çıkmaz sokaktan kelb-i 'akur ardın alup eteğin yırtup baldırın
bir yanundan bir yanına diş geçüre ve taraçık sokaktan katır çiftesine ve deve
206
depmesine ve öküz süsmesine uğraya ve kalabalık çarşu içinde giderken
yağmurlı havada atının ayağı sürçüp başından sarığı düşüp risvãy, çamurlı
yolda giderken kolı zifüre uğraya, Kasığı yerinde ve hayaları yerinde kaz
yumurtası gibi kan çıbanları çıkara ve cami‘ saçağı altında yaturken yılan ve
çiyan, ‘akrep birle kehleden, pireden gayri tahta biti, sivri sinek şerrine
uğraya. Genç iken uyuz sakallanup tonuz ola, kocalıkta puşt ola, bir utanacak
yirde boş bulunup bin dane kavara vaki‘ olup hicāba düşe ya'ni rüsvay ‘âlem
olup ol meclise bir dahi varaçak yüzi sureti kalmaya.” Develi, Risale-i
Garibe, 19.
4. “Muhassıl-ı kelâm insân olduğı haysıyyet ile ‘avâyib-i mezkûrdan kâdir
olduğı mertebe hazer idüb ihtirâz itmek lâzımdır ve ictinâb gerekdir. Lâ
cürmu ‘alâ kadri’t-tâka işbu fasl-ı kitâb-ı müstetâbdan istifâde mahz-ı fâide ol
ecilden kaleme getürilüb ketb ü terkîm olundı.” Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 5;
“Muhassıl-ı kelâm ve netîce-i merâm insân insân olduğı hasbiyle bu mezkûr
‘avâyibden kâdir olduğı kadarca ictinâb ve perhîz ve ihtirâz itmek lâzımdır,
belki ehem ve mühim ve elzemdir. İmdi âdâb-ı hulkı beyân ve hâsıyyetin
‘ayân itmek lâzım geldüği ecilden lâ cürmü ‘alâ kadri’t-tâka bu fasl-ı hitâb
müstetâba şürû’ yüzinden böyle ketb ü tahrîr olundı.” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’lemr
(YB), 5; “Muhassıl-ı kelâm ve netîce-i merâm insân insân olduğı
hasbiyle bu mezkûr ‘avâyibden kâdir olduğı kadarca ictinâb ve perhîz ve
ihtirâz itmek lâzımdır, belki ehem ve mühim ve elzemdir. İmdi âdâb-ı hulkı
beyân ve hâsıyyetin ‘ayân itmek lâzım geldüği ecilden lâ cürm ‘alâ kadri’ttâka
bu fasl-ı hitâb müstetâba şürû’ yüzinden böyle ketb ü tahrîr olundı.”
Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 11; “Muhassıl-ı kelâm ve netîce-i merâm
207
insân insân olduğı hasbiyle bu mezkûr ‘avâyibden kâdir olduğı kadarca
ictinâb ve perhîz ve ihtirâz itmek lâzımdır, belki ehem ve mühim ve elzemdir.
İmdi âdâb-ı hulkı beyân ve hâsıyyetin ‘ayân itmek lâzım geldüği ecilden lâ
cürmu ‘alâ kadri’t-tâka bu fasl-ı hitâb müstetâba şürû’ yüzinden böyle ketb
olundı.” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 7.
5. “Günâhından, hatâsından rücû’ etmeyüp tâ’ib ve tâhir olmayanlar; ve
‘Cümlemize dokanmış!’ deyüp hakîkatine nazar etmeyenler; ve bu kadar
eşyâyı arayup, cem’ edüp, yazup, okuyup, dinleyüp, bununla kâdir olduğı
mertebe etmeyenler; ve bunı okıyup yağrına dokunup, cerb çalup bana borclu
olanlar. Temmet fî sene 1132.” Hayati Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 45.
6. “Muhâsıl ‘bu zikr olunan ef’âl-i kabîha ve â’mâl-i şenî’a ile ‘amel iden
tavâifin ihtiyâr itdikleri evzâ’-ı nefsü’l-emre mutâbık olacak olursa ‘avretim
talâk-ı selâse ile mutallaka olsun’ diyen rinde ne lâzım olur, şer’en talâk vâkî’
olur mı?” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (HAP), 6; “1 “Muhâsıl bu zikr olunan
ef’âl-i kabîha ve â’mâl-i şenî’a ile ‘amel itdikleri evzâ’-ı nefsü’lemre
mutâbık olacak olursa ‘avreti talâk-ı selâse ile mutallaka olsun diyen
rinde ne lâzım olur- şer’en talâk vâkî’ olur mı? Beyân buyurulub
müsâb olasız, Allahu a’lem bi’s-sevâb.” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (H), 7.
7. “…ve vahdet-i vücûd mes’elesi tavr-ı aklda fehm olunmadığına ‘âmme-yi
‘ulemâ tahkîk ü ittisâk eylemişken husûsan üstâdü’l-beşer ve’l-’akl-ı hâdî
‘aşer olan muhakkik Cürcânî -‘aleyhi rahmetü’l-melekü’l-bârî- Hâşîyye-yi
Tecrîdinde mebhas-ı ziyâde-yi vücûdda nass eylemişiken ve Hâce Hâfız-ı
Şirâzî, nazm … ve kudvetü’l-’arifîn Şeyh Sa’dî kuddise sırrahu, nazm …
buyurmuşken ve yine fâzıl-ı mezbûr Hâşiyye-yi Matla’ında bahs-i hamd ü
208
şükrde tehzîb-i şerâi’-i nebevî ve nevâmis-i ilâhi isti’mâli ile olur deyü tahkîk
eylemişken henûz ri’âyet-i şer’-i şerîf eylemeyüb tamâm nefs-i emmâre
makâmına hizmet iderken vahdet-i vücûd mes’elesinden dem urub taklîd-i
zendeka eyleyenlerün ve ba’zı hitâm-ı dünyâ içün anları tasdîk iden kâzib-i
nâ-dervişlerin…” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (H), 2-3; “…ve vahdet-i vücûd
mes’elesi tavr-ı ‘aklda fehm olunmadığına ‘âmme-yi ‘ulemâ ittifâk
eylemişken husûsan üstâdü’l-beşer ve’l-’aklü’l-hâdî ‘aşer olan muhakkik
Cürcânî ‘aleyhi rahmetü’l-bâri Hâşiyye-yi Tecrîdinde mebhas-ı ziyâde-yi
vücûdda nass eylemişiken ve Hâce Hâfız-ı Şirâzî … buyurmuş iken ve
kudvetü’l-’arifîn Hazret-i Şeyh Sa’dî kuddise sırrahu dahî … buyurmuş iken
ve yine fâzıl-ı mezbûr hâşiye-yi metâli’inde bahs-i hamd ü şükrde tehzîb-i
zâhir şerâi’-i nebevî ve nevâmis-i ilâhi isti’mâli ile olur deyü tahkîk
eylemişken henûz ri’âyet-i şer’-i şerîf eylemeyüb tamâm nefs-i emmâre
makâmına hizmet iderken vahdet-i vücûd mes’elesinden dem urub taklîd-i
zendeka eyleyenlerün ve ba’z-ı hitâm-ı dünyâ içün anları tasdîk iden kâzib-i
nâ-dervişlerin…” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (HAP), 2.
8. “…ateş-berest Hindûlar; ve ‘Bilürem yel değirmeni, ammâ suyı nereden
gelür?’ [deyen] Bosna[lı]lar; ve olur olmaz Kazağun boyunun urmayup
İslâmbol’a getüren Tatarlar; ve köpek aslı Kalmuklar; ve Müslimân olmayan
Uruslar; ve Boğdan’un hâ’ini; ve Ulah’un hırsızı; ve Leh’ün cühûdı; ve
Moskov’un nûrsızı; Nemçe’nin harâmzâdesi; Macar’un ‘inâdcısı, ‘Abaza’nun
deli bakçuvânı; Çerkes’ün sikalusı (?); Gürci’nün kürek çekmeğe bilmezi;
Cühûd’un hîlebâzı; âdem aldamadukça etmek yimeyüp poh yeyecek
îmânsızlar; ve cihar-yâr-ı güzîn rızvânullahi te’âlâ ‘aleyhim ecma’în
209
hazretlerine sebb eden cühûd eşeği Revâfiz Kızıl baş mel’ûnlar.” Develi,
Risâle-i Garîbe, 41.
9. “…Süleymân Han nâmenin mefhûmundan âteş-pâre olup bin hemyân mâlı
cümle İslambol Yahudîlerine elçi huzûrunda bezl edüp bir habbe kalmadı.
Elçiye hitâb edüp buyurdılar kim: ‘Rafızî rûz-ı kıyâmet har bûd zîr-i Yahûd.’
Böyle olıcak size süvâr olacak Yahûd tâifesi efendilerinize malınız nasîb ola
kim, rûz-ı kıyâmette size süvâr oldukta mahmız ü tâziyâne urmayalar. Yohsa
sizcileyin târikü’s-salât kavim câmi’ hayrâtında ‘alâkaları ne ola?” Evliya
Çelebi, Seyahatname, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi, 1. Cilt, Bağdad
304, 44b.
10. “…ve hergün beş vakitte âbdest ibriği ile görüşmeyüp sovuk havada soyunup
güreş tutan eşekler; ve ok atmağa ta’lîm edemeyüp cirid oynamağa mâ’il olan
hoyradlar; ve okumağa mukayyed olmayup da tâvla ve şatranc ve mankala
oynayan mel’ûnlar; ve hazret-i Kur’ânı ve Risâleyi ve sâ’ir Tevârih-i Taberî
okuymayup Şâhnâme ve Hamzanâme okıyan kezzâblar; ve dünyâsına ve
âhiretine fâ’ide olmayan su’âl ve cevâb ile günlerin geçüren ozanlar; ve tenhâ
sokaklarda ve câmi’ önlerinde aşuk oynayanlar; ve tophânelerde kumâr
oynayan Firenkler…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 32-3.
11. “…ve düğün etmeğe kalkup iptidâ okuyuculığa ‘Avrat Bâzârı’n, Çukur
Hammâm’ın ve Hazret-i Eyyûb’un çenârın dört kerre dolanup “Düğüne
okuram, seyre ne kadar âdem gelür gider benim de düğünüme ol kadar âdem
gelsün!” deyen şeytân masharası, sokak sipürgesi, zıbukçıların okuyucısı…”
Devel, Risâle-i Garîbe, 44.
210
12. “…ve Ayak Kapusının puştı içün Yeni Kapunın hammâmında bohlu havzına
giren cüvânmerg olası mehmelâtlar; Cibâli Kapusında kömüri ısladup taş
toprak katanlar…ve Zindân Kapusında dolaşup oropsu kurtaran
kürekçiler…ve Balık Bâzârında midye ve istiridye ve engeç ve estakoz yeyen
nâ-pâkler…ve Gümrük’te ‘Âh uşaklar, dadılar! Savulun yoldan!’ deyen
Kastamonılı sırık hammâlları...ve Cihângîrde dilber sevüp her gün Tophâneye
geçüp ol yokuşa tırmaşan ayağı geyinli püzüvenkler…” Develi, Risâle-i
Garîbe, 22-3.
13. “…ve bayrâm seyrinde evvelki gün İstanbul’un ve ikinci gün Tobhâne’nin ve
üçüncü gün Eyyûbündür deyü şiddet-i şitâda ve yâhûd şiddet-i harrda, ol
mevâzi’in esvâk-ı müntinesinden kendü gibi erâzil ile muhkem itişüb gezen
gezendelerin…” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (HAP), 5; “…ve bayrâm seyrinde
evvelki gün İstanbul’un ve ikinci gün Tobhâne’nin ve üçüncü gün
Eyyûbündür deyü şiddet-i şitâda ve yâhûd şiddet-i harrda, ol mevâzi’in
esvâk-ı müntinesinden kendü gibi erâzil ile muhkem itişüb gez de
gezendilerin…” Niksârîzâde, Nefsü’l-emr (H), 6.
14. “…ve çamurlu günde sokakta beygir koşturanlar; ve beygiri çoklık ortasında
koyup yuların eline alup dükkân kenarına oturup gelene geçene ıztırâb
verenler; ve pabucun ve çizmesin çıkarmadın dükkân kenarına oturup gelüp
geçene ayağın çamurın süren bî-ma’nâ gidiler…” Devel, Risâle-i Garîbe 39.
15. “…ve bayram güni geyinüp kuşanup meyhâne[ye] varup şarâb içen ve
kefereye taklîd eden müşevveşler; ve keferenün küfrî güni kefere ile ‘işret
eden dînsizler; ve kefere gördükte Türkçe bilürken kefere lisânı ile söyleşen
pelîdler; ve kâfir ile alış veriş iderken: “Cânım!” deyen cânı çıkasılar; ve kâfir
211
evine varup keferece selâm verenler; ve kâfir gelüp selâm verdükte selâm
alanlar…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 33.
16. “…ve tırnakların kesmeyen etmekçi kâfirler; ve sinek gözetmeyüp sinekli
börek yapan börekçiler; ve bir süde üç vakiyye su katan suya gark olacak
südciler…ve hammâmı sovuk ve esbâbı nâ-pâk tutan hammâmcılar…ve kış
güni çıblak fakiri külhâna komayan külhâncılar…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe,
40.
17. “…ve yaz günleri Kâğıdhâne’ye karısıyle ve cariyesiyle bez çırpmağa varan
kodoşlar; ve ‘avratıyle ve cariyesiyle iskeleye ketân almağa bile gidenler; bir
eline çocuğun ve bir eline bohçasın alup hammâm kapusına varan deyyûslar;
ve küçük ma’sûmı çarşuya ve câmi’e ve mescide ve ba’zı mesîreye ve
seyrâna kucağına alup getüren sefîhler…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 24.
18. “…ve hâtunı önine düşürüb seyre giden deyyûslara; ve yol(d)a kassâb ve
bakkâl dükkânları önine gelince ‘Yâ ‘Âişe Kadın! Kaç vakiyye lahm ve
nemikdâr pirinç ve yağ alalım?’ deyü çârsû yüzinde ve nâmahrem
muvâcehelerinde ‘avretinin sadâsın illere işitdiren ‘ârsız ve gayretsiz
pûzevenklere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 6; “…ve hâtunı önine
düşürüb seyre giden deyyûslara, ve yolda kasâb ve bakkâl dükkanları önine
gelince “yâ ‘âişe kadın! kaç vakıyye lahm ve nemikdâr pirinç ve yağ alalım?”
deyü çârsû yüzinde ve nâ-mahrem muvâcehelerinde ‘avretinin sadâsın illere
işitdiren ‘ârsız ve gayretsiz pûzevenklere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr
(YB), 3; “…ve hâtununı önine düşürüb seyre giden deyyûslara, ve yolda
kasâb ve bakkâl dükkanları önine gelince “yâ ‘âişe kadın! kaç vakıyye lahm
ve ne mikdâr pirinç ve yağ alalım?” deyü çârşû yüzinde ve nâ-mahremler
212
muvâcehesinde ‘avretinin sadâsın illere işitdiren ‘ârsız ve gayretsiz sâzende
kodoşlara…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 4.
19. “…ve iki üç ‘avratı nikâhile alup bir evine içine koyup biri sakalın yolup, biri
yakasın yırtup ve birisine maşa ile başını yarduran bögüzâdeler…” Develi,
Risâle-Garîbe, 28.
20. “…ve dâimâ evi tarafından müzâkere eden deyyûslar; “Bizimküler bu gün
hammâma gittiler.” deyen Hırvadlar; ve gendünün hammâma gitmesiyle
‘âleme iftihâr edenler; ve ‘avratının ve cariyesinün sesini komşuluğa ve
sokağa işi[d]düren[ler]…” Develi, Risâle-i Garîbe, 29.
21. “…ve ba’z-ı güveyiğin ‘avreti hınnâ isteyüb tenhâda almak mümkin iken
kahvehânede hüddâmına “bre oğlan! Var da filân sipâriş itdiler” diyen bî-’âr
sefîhlere, kahvehânede yâ hûd ahbâb yanında oğlanına “bre var, fi’l-hâl
evden büyük kîseyi getür, yanımda harclık kalmadı” diyen şaşkınlara, ve
kahvehânede zevcesine haftân biçen leke herîflere, ve kûçek oğlancığı alub
mescîde ma’ân getüren merkeblere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (İÜ), 5;
“…ve ‘avreti hınnâ ısmârlayub tenhâda huddâmına söylemek mümkin iken
kahve hânede “bre oğlan! evden hınnâ sipâriş itdiler” diyen bî-’âr sefîhlere,
kahvehânede veyâ hûd ahbâb yanında oğlanına “bre var, fi’l-hâl evden büyük
kîseyi getür, yanımızda harclık kalmadı” diyen şaşkınlara, ve kahve hânede
zevcesine kaftân biçen leke heriflere, ve kûcek oğlancığı olub mescîd-i şerîfe
ma’ân götüren merkeblere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (YB), 4; “…ve
‘avreti hınnâ ısmârlayub tenhâda huddâmına söylemek mümkin iken kahve
hânede “bre oğlan! evde hınnâ sipâriş itdiler” diyen bî-’âr sefîhlere, kahve
hânede yâ hûd ahbâb yanında oğlanına “bre var, fi’l-hâl evden büyük kîseyi
213
getür, yanımızda harclık kalmadı” diyen şaşkınlara, ve kahve hânede
zevcesine kaftân biçen leke herîflere, ve küccük oğlancığı olub mescîd-i
şerîfe ma’ân getüren merkeblere…” Lâmiî Çelebi, Nefsü’l-emr (HME), 7-8;
“ve ba’z-ı sefih kimesne hâşâ mezkûresine hınnâyı…tenhâda almayub da
kahvehânede oğlanına “bre var işte evde filân istemişlerdir” diyen
edebsizlere, ve kahve hânede ve yârân mâbeyninde ve hidmetkârına “bre
oğlan var evden büyük kîse getür kîsemizde harclık kalmadı” deyü izhârlık
iden edebsiz züğürt bî-’ârlara, ve kahvehânede mezkûresine kaftan biçen
lekelere, ve kûcek oğlancığı olub da mescide bile götüren merkeblere…”
Hacı Ahmed, Makâle, 4.
214
REFERENCES
Ahmed, S. (2016). What is Islam? The importance of being Islamic. Oxford,
England: The University of Princeton Press.
Ambros, E.G. (2015). Life, love and laughter: in search of Ottomans’ lost poetic
language. Istanbul, Turkey: The Isis Press.
And, M. (1982). Osmanlı şenliklerinde Türk sanatları. Ankara, Turkey: Kültür ve
Turizm Bakanlığı.
And, M. (2000). 40 days 40 nights: Ottoman weddings, festivities, processions.
Istanbul, Turkey: Toprakbank.
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of
nationalism. London, England: Verso.
Andrews, W.G. & Kalpaklı, M. (2005). The Age of beloveds: love and the beloved in
early-modern Ottoman and European culture and society. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Baltacıoğlu-Brammer, A. (2014). The Formation of Kızılbaş Communities in
Anatolia and Ottoman Responses, 1450s-1630s. International Journal of
Turkish Studies, 20, 21-48.
Baltacıoğlu-Brammer, A. (2020). Neither victim nor accomplice: the Kızılbaş as
borderland actors in the early modern Ottoman realm. In Historicizing Sunni
Islam in the Ottoman Empire, c. 1450–c. 1750 (pp. 423-450). Leiden, The
Netherlands: Brill.
Bashir, S. (2011). Sufi Bodies: Religion and Society in Medieval Islam. New York,
NY: Columbia University Press.
Clayer, N. (2002). Münîrî Blegrâdî, Un représentant de ‘ilmiyye dans la région de
Belgrade, fin XVIe - début du siecle. Frauen, Bilder und Gelehrte, 549-568.
215
Dankoff, R. (2006). An Ottoman mentality: the world of Evliya Çelebi. Leiden, The
Netherlands: Brill.
Develi, H. (1997). XVIII.yy İstanbul’a dair Risale-i Garibe. Istanbul, Turkey:
Kitabevi.
Duran, R. (1992). Nefsü’l-emr risaleleri. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya
Fakültesi Felsefe Bölümü Dergisi, 14, 97-106.
Durbilmez, B. (2017). Âşık edebiyatının oluşumu ve gelişiminde Alevi-Bektaşi
zümrelerin yeri ve önemi. Alevilik Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13, 57-86.
Edou, J. (1996). Machig Ladbrön and the Foundations of Chöd. Ithaca, NY: Snow
Lion Publications.
Eldem, E. (2005). Death in Istanbul: death and its rituals in Ottoman-Islamic
cultures. Istanbul, Turkey: Ottoman Bank Archives and Research Centre.
Esir, H.A. (2001). Lâmi’î Çelebi’ye isnat edilen bir eser: Risâle-i nefsü’l-emr-i
Lâmi’î. İlmî Araştırmalar, 12, 111-120.
Fetvacı, E. (2017). Ottoman author portraits in the early-modern period. In K. Rizvi
(Eds.), Affect, emotion, and subjectivity in early modern Muslim Empires (pp.
66-94). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.
Filan, K. (2013). Religious puritans in Sarajevo in the eighteenth century. OTAM, 33,
43-62.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York, NY:
Random House.
Gölpınarlı, A. (1985). 100 soruda tasavvuf. Istanbul, Turkey: Gerçek Yayınevi.
Gölpınarlı, A. (1931). Melâmîlik ve Melâmîler. Istanbul, Turkey: Devlet Matbaası.
216
Güven, H.F. (1997). Klâsik Türk şiirinde hiciv (Doctoral dissertation). Gazi
University, Ankara, Turkey.
Hacı Ahmed. (1646/7). [Nefsü’l-emrnâme]. Topkapı Palace Library (Bağdad 404),
Istanbul, Turkey.
Hâs, İ. (2002). Menâkıbnâme-i Hasan Ünsî. Ankara, Turkey: Kültür Bakanlığı
Yayınları.
Havlıoğlu, D. (2015). The magic of a joke: Humor and gender in Islamicate Ottoman
aesthetics. In A. Foka & J. Liliequist (Eds.), Laughter, humor, and the
(un)making of gender: Historical perspectives (pp. 103-120). London,
England: Palgrave.
Kabbani, M.H. (2004). Classical Islam and the Naqshbandi Sufi Tradition.
Washington DC: ISCA.
Kafadar, C. (1989). Self and others: the diary of a dervish in seventeenth century
Istanbul and first person narratives in Ottoman literature. Studia Islamica, 69,
121-150.
Kafadar, C. (2014). How dark is the history of the night, how black the story of
coffee, how bitter the tale of love: the changing measure of leisure and
pleasure in early modern Istanbul. In A. Öztürkmen & E.B. Vitz (Eds.),
Medieval and early modern performance in the Eastern Mediterranean (pp.
243-265). Turnhout, The Netherlands: Brepols.
Kafadar, C. (2017). Kendine ait bir Roma: Diyar-ı Rum’da kültürel coğrafya ve
kimlik üzerine. Istanbul, Turkey: Metis.
Kafescioğlu, Ç. (2014). Viewing, walking, mapping Istanbul, ca. 1580. Mitteilungen
Des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 56(1), 17-35.
Kafescioğlu, Ç. (2020). Picturing the square, streets, and denizens of early modern
Istanbul: practices of urban space and shifts in visuality. Muqarnas, 27(1),
139-177.
217
Karamustafa, A.T. (1994). God’s unruly friends: dervish groups in the Islamic later
middle period 1200-1550. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
Karateke, H.T., Çıpa, H.E., & Anetshofer, H. (Eds.). (2018). Disliking tthers:
Loathing, hostility, and distrust in premodern Ottoman lands. Boston, MA:
Academic Studies Press.
Knysh, A. (2017). Sufism: a new history of Islamic mysticism. Oxford, England:
Princeton University Press.
Köprülü, M.F. (1930). XVII. Asır saz şairlerinden kayıkçı kul Mustafa ve genç
Osman hikâyesi. Istanbul: Turkey: Evkaf Matbaası.
Kut, G. (2003). Lâmiî Çelebi. Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Anskilopedisi, 27, 96-7.
Lâmiî Çelebi. (Unknown Date). [Nefsü’l-emrnâme]. Süleymaniye Manuscript
Library (Mihrişah Sultan 439), Istanbul, Turkey.
Lâmiî Çelebi. (Unknown Date). [Nefsü’l-emrnâme]. Taksim Atatürk Library
(Muallim Cevdet K.144), Istanbul, Turkey.
Lâmiî Çelebi. (1709). [Nefsü’l-emrnâme]. Süleymaniye Manuscript Library (Yazma
Bağışlar 6692), Istanbul, Turkey.
Lâmiî Çelebi. (1709). [Nefsü’l-emrnâme]. Süleymaniye Manuscript Library (Hacı
Mahmud Efendi 2167), Istanbul, Turkey.
Lâmiî Çelebi. (18th-century). [Nefsü’l-emrnâme]. National Library of Turkey
(Yazmalar Koleksiyonu A.264/3), Ankara, Turkey.
Lâmiî Çelebi. (1746). [Nefsü’l-emrnâme]. National Library of Turkey (Adnan
Ötüken İl Halk Kütüphanesi 3757/2), Ankara, Turkey.
Lâmiî Çelebi. (1882). [Nefsü’l-emrnâme]. Istanbul University Rare Books Library
(TY.3182), Istanbul, Turkey.
218
Levend, A.S. (1971). Divan edebiyatında gülmece ve yergi (hezl ve hecv). Türk Dili
Araştırmaları Yıllığı – Belleten, 18, 37-45.
Mihirig, A.A. (2020). Typologies of scepticism in the philosophical tradition of
kalam. Theoria, 1-36.
Mikhail, A. (2007). The heart’s desire: gender, urban space, and the Ottoman coffee
house. In D. Sajdi (Eds.), Ottoman tulips, Ottoman coffee: leisure and
lifestyle in the eighteenth century (pp. 133-170). London, England: Tauris
Academic Studies.
Mitchell, T. (1989). The world as exhibition. Comparative Studies in Society and
History, 31(2), 217-236.
Mithat, A. (2013). Peder olmak sanatı. Istanbul, Turkey: Dergâh Yayınları.
Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi. (Unknown Date). [Nefsü’l-emrnâme]. Süleymaniye
Manuscript Library (Hafız Ahmed Paşa 362), Istanbul, Turkey.
Niksârîzâde Mehmed Efendi. (19th-century). [Nefsü’l-emrnâme]. Süleymaniye
Manuscript Library (Hamidiye 390), Istanbul, Turkey.
Özyıldırım, A.E. (2011). Garîb ma’nâlar, acîb hayâller: Latîfî ve Âşık Çelebi
tezkirelerinden hareketle belagat terimi olarak ‘garîb’ sıfatı. In H. Aynur & A.
Niyazioğlu (Eds.), Âşık Çelebi ve şairler tezkiresi üzerine yazılar (pp. 147-
165). Istanbul, Turkey: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları.
Özyıldırım, A.E. (2018). Mertebe-i mizaha yetmek. In H. Aynur, M. Çakır, H.
Koncu & A.E. Özyıldırım (Eds.), Hicve revâ, mizaha mâyil: Güldürücü
metinleri anlamak (pp. 15-21). Istanbul, Turkey: Klasik.
Özyıldırım, A.E. (2017). Mâşî-zâde Fikrî Çelebi ve Ebkâr-ı Efkâr’ı: on altıncı
yüzyıldan sıradışı bir aşk hikâyesi. Istanbul, Turkey: Dergâh Yayınları.
Salgırlı, S. (2003). Manners and identity in late seventeenth century Istanbul
(Unpublished MA thesis). Sabancı University, Istanbul, Turkey.
219
Sariyannis, M. (2012). The Kadızadelis as a social and political phenomenon: the rise
of a ‘mercantile ethic’?. In A. Anastasopoulos (Eds.), Political initiatives
from the bottom-up in the Ottoman Empire (pp. 263-289). Rethymno, Greece:
Crete University Press.
Sheridan, M.D. (2018). I curse no one without cause: identity, power, rivalry, and
invective in the early 17th-century Ottoman court (Doctoral dissertation).
İhsan Doğramacı Bilkent University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Terzioğlu, D. (1995). The imperial circumcision festival of 1582: an interpretation.
Muqarnas, 12, 84-100.
Terzioğlu, D. (2002). Man in the image of God in the image of times: Sufi selfnarratives
and the diary of Niyâzî-Mısrî (1618-94). Studia Islamica, 94, 139-
165.
Terzioğlu, D. (2013). How to conceptualize Ottoman Sunnitization: a
historiographical discussion. Turcica, 44, 301-338.
Tezcan, N. (1979). Bursalı Lâmiî Çelebi. Türkoloji Dergisi, 7, 305-344.
Turan, F. (2007). Onaltıncı yüzyıl Osmanlıcasında argo: Niksarizade ve entelektüel
hayatın eleştirisi, ‘Nefsü’l-Emr-Nâme’ isimli eseri. In IV. Uluslararası Türk
Dili Kurultayı Bildirileri (pp. 1825-1834). Ankara, Turkey: Türk Dili
Kurumları Yayınları.
Woodhead, C (Eds.). (2012). The Ottoman world. New York, NY: Routledge.
Yessayan, Z. (2014). The Gardens of Silihdar: a memoir. Boston, MS: AIWA Press.