Nihālī Ca'fer Çelebi, a Major Representative of the Mekteb-i Vuḳū' in Early 16th-Century Ottoman Poetry

Nihālī Ca‘fer Çelebi, a Major Representative of the Mekteb-i Vuḳū‘ in Early 16th-Century Ottoman Poetry On Altıncı Yüzyıl Başlarında Osmanlı Şiirinde Mekteb-i Vukû‘ Ekolünün Önde Gelen Temsilcilerinden Biri, Nihâlî Ca‘fer Çelebi BENEDEK PÉRI Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. ([email protected]om), ORCID: 0000-0002-3415-5532. Péri, Benedek. “Nihālī Ca‘fer Çelebi, a Major Representative of the Mekteb-i Vuḳū‘ in Early 16th-Century Ottoman Poetry.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 294-313. Araştırma Makalesi / Research Article Submitted/Başvuru: 01.09.2025. Accepted/Kabul: 13.11.2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17650221. Abstract: The imperial classical Ottoman literary tradition emerged in the second half of the 15th century as part of an ambitious project aimed at establishing an imperial cultural identity. Timurid literary models, especially the influence of Mīr ‘Alī-şīr Nevā’ī (d. 1501), played a significant role in its formation and development. By the first half of the 16th century, Ottoman poetry had crystallized into its own distinct tradition, which, according to contemporary sources, already included elements not found in other classical poetic traditions. However, the analysis of contemporary poetic texts suggests that the cultural exchange between the centuries old Persianate and the budding Ottoman cosmopolises remained continuous despite the political conflicts between the Ottomans and the Safavids, and it strongly appears that representatives of Ottoman literary life remained well aware of the prevailing literary trends in the Iranian world. Although Turkish literary historiography does not acknowledge it, there is strong evidence to suggest that the literary style known as mekteb-i vuḳū‘, which was gaining increasing popularity and dominance in the Iranian literary sphere—particularly in ghazal poetry—also attracted adherents among Ottoman poets. One of the most significant representatives of the “realist style” was Nihālī (d. 1542), who became famous primarily for his poems addressed to artisan beloveds. This study focuses on Nihālī’s poetry, its textual predecessors, and its place in early 16th-century Ottoman poetry. Keywords: Ottoman, ghazal, Nihālī, mekteb-i vuḳū‘. Özet: Osmanlı klasik edebiyat geleneği, imparatorluk kültürel kimliğinin inşasını hedefleyen bir projenin parçası olarak on beşinci yüzyılın ikinci yarısında ortaya çıkmıştır. Bunun oluşumunda ve gelişiminde, özellikle Mîr ‘Alî Şîr Nevâyî’nin (ö. 1501) etkisiyle model alınan Timurlu edebî geleneği önemli bir rol oynamıştır. On altıncı yüzyılın ilk yarısına gelindiğinde ise dönemin kaynaklarına göre diğer klasik şiir geleneklerinde bulunmayan unsurları da bünyesinde barındırmaya başlayarak Osmanlı şiiri kendine özgü bir geleneğe dönüşmüştür. Bununla birlikte, dönemin edebî metinlerine dayanan analizler, Osmanlılar ile Safevîler arasındaki siyasi çatışmalara rağmen, yüzyıllardır süregelen İranî edebiyat geleneği ile gelişmekte olan Osmanlı kozmopolit merkezleri arasındaki kültürel alışverişin kesintisiz biçimde sürdüğünü göstermektedir. Görünüşe göre Osmanlı edebî muhitinin temsilcileri, İran edebî dünyasında hâkim olan eğilimlerin farkında olmaya devam ediyorlardı. Her ne kadar Türk edebiyat tarihçiliğinde bu konuya değinilmemiş olsa da, İran edebiyatında—özellikle gazel şiirinde—gittikçe yaygınlaşan ve baskın hâle gelen mekteb-i vukû‘ olarak bilinen edebî üslubun Osmanlılar arasında da takipçileri olduğu açık biçimde görülmektedir. “Realist üslubun” en önemli temsilcilerinden biri, özellikle zanaatkâr sevgililere hitaben yazdığı şiirleriyle ün kazanan Nihâlî’dir (ö. 1542). Bu makale, Nihâlî’nin şiirlerine, bu şiirlerin metinsel öncüllerine ve bunların on altıncı yüzyıl başlarında Osmanlı şiirindeki yerine odaklanmaktadır. Anahtar Kelimeler: Dîvân edebiyatı, gazel, Nihâlî, mekteb-i vukû‘. 296 Though by profession Nihālī was a qualified Islamic scholar, a medrese teacher (müderris), authors of biographical anthologies (teẕkires), which are among the most important sources of Ottoman literary history, depict him as a true libertine who completely disregarded the societal expectations placed on müderrises. He is described as a witty and sociable figure, full of life, who did not disdain drinking wine and engaging in frivolous homosexual relationships (şāhidbāzī). 1 His habit of mocking others often brought trouble upon him, and he lost his position several times. Ḳınalızāde Ḥasan Çelebi (d. 1582) characterized Nihālī’s poetry with words that perfectly reflected the poet’s entire personality. Since most of his poems and words were filled with mockery and licentiousness, he didn’t have the possibility to steer the steed of his [poetic] talent away from this field and turn the reins of his intention toward the field of seriousness.2 One of Nihālī’s ghazals preserved either in part or in its entirety in most of the contemporary teẕkires excellently exemplifies everything that Ḳınalızāde wrote about his poetry. Ḥammāma girdi gördüm o nāzük-beden güzel Şu şöyle dėyicek yėri yoḳ cümleten güzel “I have seen that the fine-bodied beauty entered the public bath, There is no reason to criticise anything, he is wholly beautiful.” Ṣoyındı ġonçe gibi çıkup sebz-i cāmeden Bir sūsenī fūta ile aḳ pīrehen güzel “He shed his green dress like a budding flower. He put on a blue apron and a white shirt, that beauty.” 1 Kınalızâde Hasan Çelebi, Tezkiretü’ş-Şu‘arâ, ed. Aysun Sungurhan (Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2017), 874. In Sungurhan’s edition of Kınalızāde Ḥasan çelebi’s teẕkire the term şāhidbāzlıḳ “maintaining a homosexual relationship” appears as şāhbāzlıḳ, which seems to be a mistake. For the various terms used to denote homosexual relations in the Persianate cosmopolis see Sīrūs Şemīsā, Şāhidbāzī der Edebiyāt -i Fārsi (Tehran: Intişārāt-i Firdevs, 1381 [2002]), 13-14. 2 “Ekser-i eş‘ār u maḳāli hezl ü mücūn ṭarzında ‘ıyān olmaġın semend-i ṭab‘ını ol vādīden mün‘aṭif edüp ‘inān-ı himmetini vādī-i cidde munṣarif etmege imkān olmamışdur.” Kınalızâde Hasan Çelebi, Tezkiretü’ş-Şu‘arâ, 875. For the term mucūn and its social meaning see Zoltán Szombathy, Mujūn: Libertinism in Medieval M uslim Society and Literature (London: Gibb Memorial Trust, 2013). 297 Péri, Benedek. “Nihālī Ca‘fer Çelebi, a Major Representative of the Mekteb-i Vuḳū‘ in Early 16th-Century Ottoman Poetry.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 294-313. Kim sā‘idini kimisi sāḳın güzel dėdi Ben bildügüm o bir yiridür cümleden güzel “Some said his forearms were beautiful, others [said] his calves, But I knew that [certain] place of his was the most beautiful of all.” Kim sā‘idini kimisi sāḳın güzel dėdi Ben bildügüm çü pehlūsıdur cümleden güzel “Some said his forearms were beautiful, others [said] his calves, But I knew that his side was the most beautiful of all.” Sevmez güzel ḳocaldı dėmişsin Nihālī’yi İñen güzelsin ay iki gözüm iñen güzel “It seems you said, ‘Nihālī doesn’t love beauties, he has grown old’. You are very beautiful, ah my love, very beautiful.”3 Nihālī’s poem begins with an ordinary event: the beloved enters a bathhouse. Unlike poets composing ghazals in the classical style—where love is treated as a universal theme and often serves merely as a pretext for the display of poetic talent— the poet articulates his own emotions in a distinctly personal and unambiguously explicit manner. The beloved is not an imagined figure but an ordinary flesh-andblood person. The language of the poem is simple, and, unlike ghazals following the style that became fashionable in the Timurid period, it is free from rhetorical intricacies, complex and sophisticated tropes. It is evident that the depiction of an ordinary event, a human beloved grounded in everyday life, and the use of plain language collectively anchor Nihālī’s ghazal in the realities of his time. These traits were all characteristic of the ghazal style that was becoming increasingly popular in Iran at the turn of the fifteenth–sixteenth centuries, which contemporary literary critical sources refer to as mekteb-i vuḳū‘, that is the “realist style”. The emergence of the “realist style” in Persian language classical poetry is generally traced to the works of Bābā Fiġānī (d. 1519), and is considered to have evolved into a distinct literary current through the contributions of Şehīdī Ḳumī (d. 1528), Lisānī Şīrāzī (d. 1533), and Şeref Cān Ḳazvīnī (d. 1560).4 Writing about Fiġānī’s poems, Paul Losensky highlights their simple language, the playful sensuality within them, and the fact that Fiġānī’s ghazals often unfold from everyday events, and the beloveds appearing in them are flesh-and-blood 3 I am grateful to Edith Gülçin Ambros for her insightful comments and helpful suggestions regarding the translations of the poetic quotations. 4 Aḥmed Gulçīn-i Ma‘ānī, Mekteb-i Vuḳū‘ der Şi‘r-i Fārsī (Meşhed: Dānişgāh-i Firdevsī, 1374 [1995]), 5. 298 beauties.5 Descriptions summarizing the characteristics of mekteb-i vuḳū‘ similarly outline the defining features of the style, and interestingly enough all these features can be found in Nihālī’s ghazal quoted above.6 Before considering whether the trend that came to dominate ghazal poetry in Iran may have exerted an influence on Ottoman poets, a prior question must be addressed: should the poem by Nihālī quoted here be regarded merely as an isolated instance of individual poetic expression, or does it, in fact, reflect broader literary tendencies within early sixteenth-century Ottoman poetry? The available evidence suggests that Nihālī’s poem was not an isolated example of a style closely resembling the mekteb-i vuḳū‘. Edirneli Naẓmī’s (d. ca. 1585) naẓīre (‘imitation poem, poetic reply’) anthology compiled in 1524 preserves a network of imitation poems that employ the same poetical framework– namely the metre mużāri‘-i müsemmen-i aḫreb-i mekfūf-i maḥẕūf (- - . | - . - . | . - - . | - . -), the rhyme -en and the redīf güzel (‘nice’).7 According to Naẓmī the base poem was composed by Isḥāḳ Çelebi (d.1538), a close acquaintance of Nihālī, with whom he visited Selīm I. (r. 1512–1520) during the Egyptian campaign (1516–1517) to entertain the ruler with their always cheerful and witty company.8 This makes the absence of Nihālī’s poem from the anthology all the more striking. The poetic replies listed by Naẓmī were composed by Müftī-zāde Rūḥī (d. 1521), Bahārī (d. 1551), Mu‘īdī (d. after 1546),9 Rāzī (d. 1534), Lāmi‘ī (d. 1532), Iznikli Derūnī (d. 1544) , Helākī (d. between 1572–1576), Gedāyī (d. after 1563), Ḫıżrī (d. ca. 1518) and Naẓmī himself. The imitation network also appears in Pervāne Beg’s anthology compiled in 1560.10 The author of the base 5 Paul E. Losensky, Welcoming Fighani: Imitation and Individuality in the Safavid-Mughal Ghazal (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 1998), 82, 88, 222. 6 See e.g. Shafī‘ī Kadkanī, “Persian Literature (Belles Lettres) from the Time of Jāmī to the Present Day,” in History of Persian Literature from the Beginning of the Islamic Period to the Present Day, ed. George Morrison (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 147-148; Gulçīn-i Ma‘ānī, Mekteb-i Vuḳū‘, 3. 7 Edirneli Nazmî, Mecmaʻu’n-Nezâ’ir: Inceleme–Tenkitli Metin, ed. Mehmet Fatih Köksal (Ankara: T. C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2012), 1613-1620. 8 Âşıḳ Çelebi, Meşâ‘irü’ş-Şu‘arâ, ed. Filiz Kılıç (Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2012), 133. 9 Mu‘īdī’s dīvān contains another poem that fits into the -en güzel naẓīre network. Gülçin Ta nrıbuyurdu, “Mu’îdî: Dîvân. Metin–Çeviri” (PhD diss., Kocaeli University, 2012), 259. 10 Pervâne b. Abdullah, Pervâne Bey Mecmuası, ed. Kamil Ali Gıynaş (Ankara: T. C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2012), 1744-1748. 299 Péri, Benedek. “Nihālī Ca‘fer Çelebi, a Major Representative of the Mekteb-i Vuḳū‘ in Early 16th-Century Ottoman Poetry.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 294-313. poem in this collection is Lāmi‘ī and the cadre of the authors of naẓīres comprises Isḥāk Çelebi, Müftī-zāde Rūḥī, Bahārī, Laṭīfī (d.1582), Gedāyī, Ża‘īfī (d. after 1557),11 Naẓmī, Nihālī, Zārī, Derūnī (d. 1544) and Helākī. A collection of imitation networks preserved in the Nadir Eserler (Rare Works) collection of the Library of Istanbul University and bearing the ownership stamp of Maḥmūd I (r. 1730–1754), which was compiled in the first half of the sixteenth century, includes the -en güzel naẓīre network as well. The unnamed compiler of this anthology put Isḥāḳ Çelebi’s ghazal on top of his list followed by naẓīres by Rūḥī, Rāzī, Derūnī, Helākī, Laṭīfī, Gedāyī and Naẓmī.12 Another naẓīre anthology compiled by an unidentified editor in the late sixteenth–early seventeenth centuries and preserved in the Süleymaniye Library also contains this network. However, in this collection the first poem in the list is Nihālī’s ghazal followed by the poems of Isḥāḳ Çelebi, an unidentified author, Naẓmī and Derūnī.13 These data clearly show that Nihālī’s ghazal, considered one of his best known poems by the authors of the biographical anthologies, wasn’t the first to which the -en güzel framework was applied and thus it cannot be termed an exceptional creation but rather a piece that fits perfectly into the literary landscape of early sixteenth-century Ottoman literary life. The comparative analysis of the -en güzel ghazals’ texts appears to reinforce the view that the compilers of the first three naẓīre anthologies mentioned above are justified in excluding Nihālī as the author of the base poem. It is clear even at first sight that several of the poems are textually related as the ghazals of Isḥāḳ Çelebi, Rūḥī, Ḫıżrī and Laṭīfī start with the same hemistich (mıṣrā‘): Ḥammāma girdi nāz ile bir sīm-ten güzel (“A silver-bodied beauty coquettishly entered the public bath”). Since poets often use the first couplet of imitation ghazals as a kind of title—through which they simultaneously inform readers via intertextual references that their poem is a poetic reply and also name the model texts—it is 11 Only one of Ża‘īfī’s ghazals is included in the anthology. Kamil Akarsu, “Za’ifi Divanı: Metin, Tahlil ve Sistematik Endeks” (PhD diss., Gazi University, Ankara, 1989), 161-162. 12 [Cāmi‘ ün-Nezāʼir], Library of İstanbul University-Nadir Eserler Ms. NEKTY01547, ff. 319a-320a. 13 Metin Samancı, “Mecmū‘a-i Neẓā’ir (vr. 150b-250a) (Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi H. Hüsnü Paşa 1031): Inceleme–Tenkitli Metin” (Master’s thesis, Marmara University, 2013), 123-125. 300 highly likely that the author of the base poem of the network should be sought among the poets listed here. Another plausible explanation is that these poets were acquainted with one another, and that the poems emerged from a poetic contest. It is conceivable that this competition centred on the challenge of composing the most accomplished ghazal on a predetermined theme and with a prescribed opening hemistich. Nevertheless, if the poems within the network are indeed naẓīres, it is highly probable that Naẓmī is correct in identifying Isḥāḳ Çelebi as the author of the base poem, particularly given that his anthology was compiled closer in time to the composition of the earliest -en güzel poems than that of Pervāne Beg. Furthermore, it is also plausible that Naẓmī was personally acquainted with the poets involved, which may have afforded him direct insight into the origins of the imitation network. As previously noted, Isḥāḳ Çelebi and Nihālī were acquainted, making it entirely plausible to propose that Nihālī’s naẓīre might have been composed as a direct poetic reply to a single model that is Isḥāḳ Çelebi’s ghazal. However, comparative analysis clearly indicates otherwise. Nihālī’s naẓīre serves instead as a compelling example of one of the most frequently employed techniques in the composition of poetic replies: poetic patchwork. This method involves the poet selecting key words and expressions from the mundus significans of the naẓīre network to construct his own poem. The set of rhyming words ending in -en, which could include lexemes ending in -en (e.g. dehen ‘mouth’), nouns and adjectives ending in -e and suffixed with the ablative suffix (e.g. büt-i mestāneden “from the drunken idol”), verbal nouns of Turkish origin (e.g. eyleyen “doing”), and adverbs of Arabic origin (cümleten ‘wholly’), is huge; nevertheless Nihālī chose only words that were available in other poems of the network (beden, cümleten, pīrehen, cümleden, iñen). Nihālī’s first mıṣrā‘ starts with the emblematic verbal phrase of the network: ḥammāma girdi (“he entered the public bath”) included in several of the poems and ends with a noun phrase (nāzük-beden “fine-bodied”) that is included in Bahārī’s first and Rāzī’s third couplet. The verb form, ṣoyındı (“he took of his clothes”), the first word of Nihālī’s second couplet also occurs in Gedāyī’s and Lāmi‘ī’s ghazals and the image of a bud or a flower taking off a piece of garment is also available in Lāmi‘ī’s naẓīre. Sā‘id (‘lower arm’), sāḳ (‘calf’), the 301 Péri, Benedek. “Nihālī Ca‘fer Çelebi, a Major Representative of the Mekteb-i Vuḳū‘ in Early 16th-Century Ottoman Poetry.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 294-313. two major keywords in the third and fourth couplets also occur in Lāmi‘ī’s and Rūḥī’s poems, and in the latter they are combined with pehlū (‘side’), a keyword in Nihālī’s fourth couplet. Moreover, in Rūḥī’s poem the couplet in question includes the rhyming word cümleten that sounds very similar to the rhyming word Nihālī uses in his beyt (cümleden ‘above all’). Nihālī Kim sā‘idini kimisi sāḳın güzel dėdi Ben bildügüm çü pehlūsıdur cümleden güzel “Some said his forearms were beautiful, others [said] his calves, But I knew that his side was the most beautiful of all.” Rūḥī Noḳṣānı yoḳ tenāsüb-i a‘żāda ber-kemāl Pehlū vü sāḳ u sā‘idi hep cümleten güzel “He is without defect; his bodily proportions are perfectly harmonious His side, calf, and forearm are all wholly beautiful.” Nihālī’s poem also adheres to the stylistic conventions observed in the other -en güzel poems. Like the majority of works within this network—most of which are composed in the first-person singular—it may be interpreted as an ego document, recounting a personal experience from the poet’s life along with the emotions associated with it. In many of these poems, the narrated event takes place in a public bath, and the ghazals often serve as tributes to a corporeal beloved whose beauty captivates the poet’s attention. The only slight difference between Nihālī’s ghazal and similar naẓīres is that, although Ḳınalızāde described his verses as filled with licentiousness, Nihālī’s -en güzel ghazal is much more modest compared to, for example, Isḥāḳ Çelebi’s poem, in which the poet does not hide the fact that he even embraced his beloved in the solitude of the public bath.14 All the poems resembling Nihālī’s are composed in a plain, readily comprehensible, almost colloquial language and are devoid of elaborate rhetorical devices. These shared characteristics are consistent with the defining features of the mekteb-i vuḳū‘. This naturally gives rise to the question of whether the 14 “Ḥammām ḥalvet idi hemān ol perī idi/Nāzüklük ile sīneye çekdüm iñen güzel” (“The public bath was empty but that very fairy was there/I gently drew him to my chest – so lovely”). 302 emerging Ottoman ghazal style—marked by elements of the “realist style”— was shaped by Iranian literary influence, or whether it simply reflects a parallel evolution in two literary systems developing along similar trajectories. While the first possibility appears significantly more plausible—particularly in light of the continuous migration from Iran to the Ottoman Empire and the uninterrupted transmission of knowledge and cultural exchange between the two realms despite political tensions—the second scenario cannot be entirely dismissed. By the early sixteenth century, the principal setting for the ghazal in both literary traditions had become the urban sphere, which also served as the epicenter of literary activity. In both Iran and the Ottoman Empire, a broad spectrum of social groups—from modest artisans to highly educated intellectuals—actively engaged in the cultural practice of literary production.15 It is entirely natural that less-educated, average individuals—often referred to as ‘ümmī in contemporary sources—engaged with poetry from a different vantage point and with a distinct cultural background compared to their more learned counterparts. Owing to their limited educational and intellectual exposure, their poems tended to be linguistically and rhetorically simpler, and consequently, more closely aligned with the realities of everyday life. This tendency is clearly observable in the anthology Mecmū‘at el-Leṭā’if va-Ṣandūḳat el-Ma‘ārif (“A Collection of Witty Stories and a Treasure Trove of Gnostic Knowledge”), compiled by an anonymous editor, which demonstrates that, by the mid-sixteenth century, a considerable number of poets regarded as ‘ümmī were actively contributing to the vibrancy of Ottoman literary life through their poetry.16 The urban setting as a locus for literary production, the strikingly similar composition of the authorial milieu—which included numerous ‘ümmī poets— and the comparable expectations of an audience primarily composed of city dwellers may have contributed to the parallel yet independent development of a ghazal style in both Ottoman and Persian poetry. This style was characterized 15 Nevā’ī mentions several craftsmen poets in his biographical anthology. For a list of these see Hay yom Tashqulovich Mirzoev, “Sayfiy Bukhoriy G’azaliyotida XV. Asr San’at va Khunarmandchiligi Tasviri,” XXI Asrda İlm-fan Taraqqiyotining Rivojlanish İstiqbolari va Ularda İnnovatsiyalarnin Tutgan O’rni: Respublika İlmiy Online Konferentsiyasi Materiallari, ed. Shohrud Farmonovich Fayziev et al. (Toshkent: Tadqiqot.uz, 2019), 2:250. 16 Mecmû‘atü’l-Letâ’if ve Sandûkatü’l-Ma‘ârif, ed. İncinur Atik Gürbüz (Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2018). 309 Péri, Benedek. “Nihālī Ca‘fer Çelebi, a Major Representative of the Mekteb-i Vuḳū‘ in Early 16th-Century Ottoman Poetry.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 294-313. To gain insight into the characteristics of Seyfī’s artisan ghazals, and at the same time create an opportunity to compare Seyfī’s and Nihālī’s poetry, the most useful approach is to select a poem about a profession that Nihālī also wrote about. Since Seyfī also has a ghazal about a sorbet vendor, this poem is an obvious choice.38 Şerbetī dāred leb-eş behr-i dil-i bīmār-i men Murdem u raḥmī ne-dāred māh-i şerbet-dār-i men “His lips have a syrup for my ailing heart I have died, yet my moonlike sorbet vendor shows me no mercy.” Ḳuvvet-i cān est u ḳuvvet-i dil leb-i nūşīn-i ū39 Veh çi şīrīn est dildār-i şeker guftār-i ū “His sweet lips [give] strength to the soul, strength to the heart O how sweet is his sugar-laced speech that captures the heart.” Ḥācet-i ḳand u nebātī nīst şerbet mī-şeved Ger resāned āb ber leb şūḫ-i şīrīn-kār-i men “There’s no need for sugar or candy for it turns to syrup When my flirtatious sweet one touches water to his lips.” Bā zebān-i ḥāl şerbet-ḫāne mī-gūyed be-ū Ey pur ez ḳand u şeker ez tu der u dīvār-i men “The syrup shop, through signs, tells him: “O because of you, my door and walls are filled with candy and sugar.”” Tā çu Seyfī vaṣf-i ḫūbān-i şeker-leb mī-kunem Her ki ḫvāhed leẕẕetī mī-ḫvāned ez eş‘ār-i men “As long as I, like Seyfi, praise beauties with sugar-sweet lips, Anyone who craves a sweet taste should recite my verse.” All the observations made about Nihālī’s poem also apply to Seyfī’s sorbet vendor ghazal. The poem speaks of a flesh-and-blood human beloved and is written in plain language, with a style free from complex and refined rhetorical figures. Sunil Sharma suggests that Seyfi’s ghazals can be seen as precursors to the mekteb-i vuḳū‘, but there is no compelling argument that could seriously refute the view that these poems should already be regarded as representatives of the “realist style”. 38 Seyfī Buḫārī, “Ṣanāyi‘ el-Bedāyi‘,” 62. 39 The edition contains a metrical mistake in this hemistich. 310 According to literary tradition, the origins of the mekteb-i vuḳū‘ are traced back to the poetry of Bābā Fiġānī, a contemporary of Seyfī. Notably, Fiġānī began his poetic career in the late 1470s and early 1480s in Herat—one of the foremost centers of classical literary culture at the time—where Seyfī was likewise residing during that period.40 However, Fiġānī was eventually forced to leave the city because the leading figures of the literary scene found his poems to be in poor taste.41 While it is possible that the literary elite who attended the lavish literary gatherings of the time disapproved of Fiġānī’s poetry, this does not preclude the circulation of his verses among the city’s ordinary inhabitants—the very individuals to whom his poems were addressed and about whom they spoke. Nor does it rule out the possibility that his work gained popularity among poets, whose names did not find a place in the biographical anthologies of the period. Furthermore, if one considers that, according to Nevā’ī and Bābur, Seyfī at one point led a rather libertine lifestyle and was not averse to the consumption of alcohol, it is reasonable to assume that he was well acquainted with the social milieu of the common people—a world from which he could draw both inspiration and a receptive audience for his poetry. Now, the question is whether there is anything beyond their similarly libertine worldview that connects the poetry of Seyfī and Nihālī—that is, whether it is possible that the craftsmen ghazals of Seyfī were known in the Ottoman Empire. Although no copies of the Ṣanāyi‘ el-Bedāyi‘ have been found so far that were either copied in the Ottoman Empire or possessed by an Ottoman owner, Seyfī’s other poems seems to have found their way to Istanbul during the poet’s lifetime. At least this is suggested by the book list compiled in 1502–1503 by the court librarian ‘Aṭūfī for the library of Sultan Bāyezīd II (r. 1481–1512). In the chapter listing Persian literary works, there is a volume that contains both Seyfī’s Dīvān and the Dīvān of another significant author from Herat, Emīr Süheylī. 42 Another copy of the Dīvān, held in the Library of Istanbul University, 40 Karataş, “Seyfî-yi Buhârî’nin Farsça Dîvânı,” 37-38. 41 Losensky, Welcoming Fighani, 21. 42 For Süheylī and his Persian poetry see Benedek Péri, “Mīr ‘Alī-šīr Navāyī’s Poetic Replies to Ghazals Composed by Šayḫum Niẓām ad-Dīn Aḥmad ‘Suhaylī’,” Orpheus Noster 14, no. 4 (2022): 77-80. 311 Péri, Benedek. “Nihālī Ca‘fer Çelebi, a Major Representative of the Mekteb-i Vuḳū‘ in Early 16th-Century Ottoman Poetry.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 294-313. may also have arrived in Istanbul relatively early—at least this is suggested by the ownership seal of Sultan Selīm I (r. 1512–1520) visible on folio 1a.43 Since Seyfī’s two treatises on various aspects of the art of poetry were also known among Ottoman specialists concerned with the subject, despite Sehī Beg’s claim, it is reasonable to assume that Seyfī’s ghazals composed about craftsmen beloveds also found their way into Ottoman literary circles. By the time Seyfī’s ghazals presumably reached the center of Ottoman poetic production, the influence of a new ghazal style—mekteb-i vuḳū‘—which was gaining popularity in the urban milieu, had already begun to make itself increasingly felt. The concept of depicting young craftsmen engaged in their daily activities—sights that urban poets encountered regularly—as the central figures in amorous poetry thus found a receptive audience and found followers as well. In light of what has been discussed so far, it seems unlikely that Nihālī was the only Ottoman poet familiar with Seyfī’s ghazals, nor is it particularly plausible that the idea of Ottoman artisan ghazals originated with Nihālī. It is, however, conceivable that the idea of ghazals praising the beauty of artisan beloveds inspired the cheerful and witty Nihālī, a libertine known for his playful humor and unrestrained nature, who recognized the potential inherent in both the concept and the style. In conclusion, it can be stated that neither Nihālī’s style nor the themes he chose were exceptional within sixteenth-century Ottoman poetry. 44 From the beginning of the century, the influence of the new ghazal style dominating the literary scene in Iran became increasingly evident. This style, referred to as mekteb-i vuḳū‘ in Persian sources, was distinguished by its simplicity, both in terms of language and rhetoric, and was closely tied to the realities of everyday life. The spread of mekteb-i vuḳū‘ was greatly facilitated by the presence of numerous ‘ümmi poets in Ottoman literary life, who were not distant from either the themes of the new style or its linguistic and rhetorical simplicity. In the Ottoman context, the new style coexisted harmoniously with the traditional classical style, as evidenced by the fact that many poets, including prominent figures like Ẕātī, composed poems in both the classical and the new styles. In the first decades of the sixteenth century, 43 Seyfī, Dīvān-i Seyfī, Library of İstanbul University-Nadir Eserler Ms. NEKFY1012. 44 Ambros arrived at the same conclusion regarding the use of rhetorical devices. Ambros, “Turkish Delights,” 17. 312 ghazals praising craftsmen beloveds, especially barbers, tailors and ma‘cūncıs, began to appear among the poems in the new style. The emergence of this theme, unusual in the classical style, was undoubtedly influenced by the artisan ghazals of Seyfī, a Timurid poet appreciated in Ottoman literary circles especially for his treatise on prosody. Contrary to Sehī Beg’s assertion, Nihālī’s poetry fits well within the Ottoman trends of the first half of the sixteenth century. What makes it distinctive, however, is that Nihālī doesn’t seem to have composed ghazals in the classical style and all of the surviving poems by Nihālī were written in the mekteb-i vuḳū‘ style, with the majority focusing on artisan beloveds. Bibliography Akarsu, Kamil. “Za’ifi Divanı: Metin, Tahlil ve Sistematik Endeks.” PhD diss., Gazi University, 1989. Akkaya, Mehmet. “Şemsi Paşa Divânı: İnceleme Edisyon Kritikli Metin.” PhD diss., Istanbul University, 1992. Ambros, Edith Gülçin. “Turkish Delights.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, special issue, “Festschrift Andreas Tietze zum 70. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Freunden und Schülern.” no. 76 (1986): 11-17. Âşıḳ Çelebi. Meşâ‘irü’ş-Şu‘arâ. Edited by Filiz Kılıç. 3 vols. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2012. Babur, Zahiruddin Muhammad, Mirza. Bâburnâma. vol. 2. Chaghatay Turkish Text with Abdul-Rahim Khankhanan’s Persian Translation. Edited and translated by W. M. Thackston. Cambridge MA: Harvard University, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, 1993. [Cāmi‘ el-Nezāʼir]. Library of İstanbul University-Nadir Eserler Ms. NEKTY01547. Edirneli Nazmî. Mecma‘u’n-Nezâ’ir: Inceleme–Tenkitli Metin. Edited by Mehmet Fatih Köksal. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2012. Ersoy, Ersen. “Fatih Devrinde Cinas Ustası Bir Şair: Hafî.” Divan Edebiyatı Araştırmaları Dergisi, no. 11 (2013): 195-216. Gulçīn-i Ma‘ānī, Aḥmed. Mekteb-i Vuḳū‘ der Şi‘r-i Fārsī. Meşhed: Dānişgāh-i Firdevsī, 1374 [1995]. Kadkanī, Shafī‘ī. “Persian Literature (Belles Lettres) from the Time of Jāmī to the Present Day.” History of Persian Literature from the Beginning of the Islamic Period to the Present Day, edited by George Morrison, 134-206. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Karataş, Müberra. “Seyfî-yi Buhârî’nin Farsça Dîvânı: Metin–İnceleme.” Master’s thesis. Istanbul University, 2022. Kınalızâde Hasan Çelebi. Tezkiretü’ş-Şu‘arâ. Edited by Aysun Sungurhan. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2017. 313 Péri, Benedek. “Nihālī Ca‘fer Çelebi, a Major Representative of the Mekteb-i Vuḳū‘ in Early 16th-Century Ottoman Poetry.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 294-313. Losensky, Paul E. Welcoming Fighani: Imitation and Individuality in the Safavid-Mughal Ghazal. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 1998. Mecmû‘atü’l-Letâ’if ve Sandûkatü’l-Ma‘ârif. Edited by İncinur Atik Gürbüz. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2018. Mirzoev, Hayyom Tashqulovich. “Sayfiy Bukhoriy G’azaliyotida XV. Asr San’at va Khunarmandchiligi Tasviri.” XXI Asrda İlm-fan Taraqqiyotining Rivojlanish İstiqbolari va Ularda İnnovatsiyalarnin Tutgan O’rni: Respublika İlmiy Online Konferentsiyasi Materiallari, edited by Shohrud Farmonovich Fayziev et al., vol. 2, 250-252. Toshkent: Tadqiqot.uz, 2019. Navoiy, Alisher. Majolis un-Nafois. Mukammal Asarlar To’plami: Yigirma Tomlik, 13. Edited by Suyima G’aniyeva. Toshkent: Fan, 1997. Péri, Benedek. “He Drew His Blade to Shave the World: Ghazals Addressed to Barber Beloveds in 16th-Century Istanbul.” Klasik Türk Edebiyatında Yerlilik, edited by M. Fatih Köksal and Emre Berkan Yeni, 293-303. Istanbul: Istanbul Kültür Üniversitesi, 2022. . “Mīr ‘Alī-šīr Navāyī’s Poetic Replies to Ghazals Composed by Šayḫum Niẓām ad-Dīn Aḥmad ‘Suhaylī’.” Orpheus Noster 14, no. 4 (2022): 75-86. . “Places Full of Secrets in 16th-Century İstanbul: The Shops of the Ma‘cūncıs.” Ottomans–Crimea–Jochids, edited by István Zimonyi, 257-270. Szeged: Department of Altaic Studies, 2020. Pervâne b. Abdullah. Pervâne Bey Mecmuası. Edited by Kamil Ali Gıynaş. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2012. Samancı, Metin. “Mecmū‘a-i Neẓā’ir (vr. 150b–250a) (Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi H. Hüsnü Paşa 1031): İnceleme–Tenkitli Metin.” Master’s thesis. Marmara University, 2013. Sehî Beg. Heşt Bihişt. Edited by Halûk Ipekten and Günay Kut. Ankara: T.C. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2017. Selçuk, İklil. “Boza Consumption in Early-Modern Istanbul as an Energy Drink and a Mood-Altering Substance.” Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi 11, no. 1 (2016): 61-81. Şemīsā, Sīrūs. Şāhidbāzī der Edebiyāt-i Fārsi. Tehran: Intişārāt-i Firdevs, 1381 [2002]. Seyfī Buḫārī. “Ṣanāyi‘ el-Bedāyi‘.” Edited by Nejīb Māyil Heravī. Dāniş, no. 10 (1366 [1987]): 5-93. Seyfī. Dīvān-i Seyfī. Library of İstanbul University-Nadir Eserler Ms. NEKFY1012. Sharma, Sunil. “Generic Innovation in Sayfī Buḫārāʼī’s Shahrāshūb Ghazals.” Ghazal as World Literature. vol. 2. From a Literary Genre to a Great Tradition: The Ottoman Gazel in Context, edited by Angelika Neuwirth, Michael Hess, Judith Pfeiffer and Börte Sagaster, 141-149. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2016. Szombathy, Zoltán. Mujūn: Libertinism in Medieval Muslim Society and Literature. London: Gibb Memorial Trust, 2013. Tanrıbuyurdu, Gülçin. “Mu’îdî: Dîvân: Metin–Çeviri.” PhD diss., Kocaeli University, 2012.