Şifâî Mehmed Dede (öl. 1081/1671) ve Öncesindeki Şârihlerin Mesnevî’nin Birinci Beytine Dair Yorumlarının İncelenmesi ve Karşılaştırılması
Comparing and Analyses the Comments of Shifaī Mehmed Dede (d. 1081/1671) and previous Commentators about Mathnawi’s First Couplet

Summary/Abstract: Mathnawi is one of the most important texts that influenced Turkish literature in Anatolia, such that many translations and commentaries have been written to understand it better due to its reputation. The journey of Mathnawi in Turkish literature begins with story translations by Gol-shahri (d. 838/1435). However, since Mathnawi's depth of meaning and highly sophisticated frame of reference, several commentaries followed. Therefore, in order to understand it, commentaries followed translations. The beginning of this tradition goes back as early as the 15th century poetic commentary Mathnawi-i Muradiya by Mu‘īn al-Dīn Mustafa (15th c.) which is on the first volume of Mathnawi. Commentaries of Mathnawi can be divided into poetry and prose. In addition, there are commentaries on compilations like Jazira al-Mathnawi. There are commentaries written on the first two couplets, the first eighteen couplets, the first volume or any volume and all of six volumes of Mathnawi. In these commentaries, information about the Persian grammar has been given, exam-ples have been brought to couplets with stories, the symbols pointed by the couplets have been explained, the verses quoted by the couplets have been shown, what it means have been explained. In addition, the place of the couplet of Mathnawi in culture have been exemplified by quoting verses, couplets, ghazals and rubais from Persian and Turkish works. The language of the commentaries was Turkish, the commentators were living in similar places, growing in a similar culture, and reading the same books. This is why their comments are close and similar. Also, the Mathnawi texts are not very different from each other and there was a tradi-tion to analyze Mathnawi. For this reason, there is an inevitably parallelism in the comments. In some texts, similarity can go up to the sentence level. Shifaī Mehmed Dede is one of the commentators who want to explain the Mathnawi in brief and simple way in the 17th century. Later, we see Muhammed Murad Molla (d. 1264/1848) who wrote a commentary in his style in the 19th century. Previously, by Haji Pirī (d. 1049/1640) and Abu Su‘ud Sa‘dullāh (d. 16th) were written commentaries similar in style. In their works, it is seen that in some places Persian poetry quotes are used to explain the couplet. Even though most of the commentators claimed to serve the Turks who cannot read and understand Mathnawi in Persian, but the meaning of such quotations was not provided. Therefore, it is essential to have a certain knowledge of the language even when reading these commentaries. The small quotations of Shifaī are verses and hadiths and he occasionally provided some explanations for them. On one hand, Shifaī's concise commentary provides an advantage not to bore the reader, on the other hand, it is often missing in explaining issues. As he acknowledges at the beginning of his com-mentary, he was influenced by Mustafa Muslih al-Dīn Surūrī (d. 969/1562) and Ismail Rusuhi Ankaravī (d. 1041/1631-2). The fact that Shifaī explicitly states what he does not approve of com-mentators whom he was influenced, we are able to more clearly compare them with the commentary of Shifaī. When we compare commentaries of the same Mathnawi couplets of Surūrī and Ankaravī with Shifaī’s, we have seen places where words, idioms, sentences, and quotations that are not in the Mathnawi text overlap. Furthermore, we have seen the existence of partially similar and unique commentaries. After that, we asked the question of whether any author had similar words, ex-pressions, idioms, or sentences with another author before Shifaī Mehmed Dede. This question was followed by following questions: In order to comment Mathnawi, Shifaī what kind of original meaning he had contributed, what did he say different from other commentaries and who was affected by whom and how. In order to answer all these questions, we not only made a ranking according to the written dates of the commentaries written until Shifaī Mehmed Dede but also for the sake of comparison we limited ourselves with the first couplet of Mathnawi. Sorting is as follows: Mu‘īn al-Dīn Mustafa, Dede Omar Rushanī (d. 892/1486-87), Muslih al-Dīn Surūrī, Ilmī Dede (d. 1019/1611), Abu Su‘ud Sa‘dullāh, Haji Pirī, Shami Shamullāh (d. 1011/1602-03), Abd al-Majīd Sivasī (d. 1048/1639), Sabuhi Ahmed Dede (d. 1057/1647), Isma‘il Rusūhī Anka-ravī, Haji Ilyas-zāda (d. 1034/1625), ‘Abd Allāh Bosnavī (d. 1053/1644), Sarī ‘Abd Allah Afandī (d. 1071/1661), Ibrahīm Javrī Afandi (d. 1064/1654), Aga-zāda Mehmed Afandi (d. 1063/1652-53) and Shifaī Mehmed Dede (d. 1081/1671). We compared the commentaries after sorting them by their commentators. In the first couplet, we examined the key terms like ‘nay’, ‘separations (judāyīhā’)’, ‘listen’ as well as the story of Mathnawi’s creation, the grammar of the first couplet, and information about copy differences. We compared and analyzed them under titles. When the commentaries were read in order, the following questions could be answered: Whose interpreta-tion is similar to whose, who said what before whom, has the meaning remained the same or has it changed, and what is the commentator's own commentary. If the inclusion of a comment in the text disrupted the narration, then it was written in the footnote. In the comments for the first couplet, there are three things in exchange for the nay metaphor. These are Mawlānā himself, saints, and the Prophet. It can be thought that the first of these is meant primarily. Because in the first copy we have, Mawlānā calls himself ‘īn nay/this nay’. Use of saint and wise are also proper, in my opinion. The meaning expressed with Mawlānā thus ex-pands towards others because they are the heirs of the prophet. On the other hand, we think that commentators are trying very hard to establish a relationship between the Prophet and nay. Here ‘abjad’ was used to bring the distant meaning closer. This kind of comments do not coincide with the metaphor of nay. The meaning of Prophet, who is claimed to be the equivalent of the nay metaphor, returns to the saints. This is an indication of it. The answer to the question of why the Mathnawi was started with ‘bish’nov/listen’ points to the prophet and his successor, saint. While they are obliged to fulfill the ‘read’ order of the Quran, the others are obliged to listen to them. We exemplified that this relationship is parallel to the Mathnawi style with the couplets we quote from Mathnawi and we tried to provide the relationship with the second couplet.

• Details
• Contents