Ottoman Poets Making Fun of the Zealot, the Sufi and, Exceptionally, Themselves

Ottoman Poets Making Fun of the Zealot, the Sufi and, Exceptionally, Themselves Zahit, Sufi ve İstisna Olarak Kendileriyle Alay Eden Osmanlı Şairleri EDITH GÜLÇİN AMBROS University of Vienna. ([email protected]), ORCID: 0000-0002-5747-4309. Ambros, Edith Gülçin. “Ottoman Poets Making Fun of the Zealot, the Sufi and, Exceptionally, Themselves.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 314-336. Araştırma Makalesi / Research Article Submitted/Başvuru: 01.09.2025. Accepted/Kabul: 15.11.2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17650158. Abstract: Besides Ottoman satiric verses and facetiae (hicv and hezl) that were often harshly humorous and occasionally immodest, a witty style of temperate nature was ubiquitous in poetry, especially in the genre ġazel. In fact, mild wit in the form of light mockery was a traditional characteristic of this poetry. Typified characters such as “the zealot” and “the Sufi” had pride of place as targets of this wit. On the other hand, the poets made fun of themselves only exceptionally. The aim of this study is to determine whether this type-bound humour, which was already very popular in the 16 th century, continued to be popular until the begin of the literary influence of the West in the 19th century. For practical reasons, the poets and their humorous targets were restricted in this study. The poetry collections (dīvāns) of two poets each from the 16 th and the 19 th centuries were chosen to illustrate the development. The poets in question whose dīvāns were searched for samples of such wit are Me’ālī (d. 1535-36), Bāḳī (d. 1600), Ḫıżıraġazāde Sa‘īd (d. 1837), and ‘İffet of Bursa (d. 1840). The field of humour under study was restricted to the interaction of the poets with the zealot-type (zāhid) and the Sufi-types (ṣūfī and sofu). To this was added self-mockery in interplay with these conventionalized types. The fact that the zealot, the Sufi, and the sofu had evolved into types – though these types were not as strongly developed as, for example, the types of the Turkish shadow theatre – shows their traditional quality that heightened the probability of their continuing popularity. To sum up, this restricted search illustrates that this style of mild humour was still present in the first half of the 19th century. As to humorous self-deprecation by the poets, which was much rarer, we have seen that it could be light-hearted, as in Me’ālī’s poems on his physique in the 16th century, or serious, as in some poems of ‘İffet of Bursa in the 19th century. Such serious self-deprecation was presumably linked to mystic (taṣavvufī) requirements regarding humility. What is intriguing in ‘İffet’s case is that both extreme humility and exaggerated self-praise are present, though not in the same poem. Keywords: zealot, Sufi, antinomian, sofu, mockery. Özet: Çoğu kez sertçe alaycı ve arada bir edepsiz olan Osmanlı manzum hiciv ve hezeli dışında ılımlı bir mizahi üslup, şiirde ve özellikle gazel türünde çok sık görülmüştür. Aslında hafif alay şeklindeki ılımlı mizah, bu şiirin geleneksel bir özelliği idi. “Zahit” ile “Sufi” gibi tiplendirilmiş karakterler, bu mizahın hedefi olarak en başta geliyordu. Diğer taraftan şairler ancak istisna olarak kendileriyle alay ediyordu. Bu çalışmanın amacı, on altıncı yüzyılda artık çok popülerleşmiş olan bu tür tiplere bağlı mizahın on dokuzuncu yüzyılda Batı’nın edebî etkisi başlayana kadar popüler olmaya devam edip etmediğini belirlemektir. Çalışmada şairler ve mizah hedefleri pratik nedenlerden dolayı kısıtlanmıştır. On altıncı ve on dokuzuncu yüzyıllardan ikişer şairin divanları gelişmeyi göstermek için seçilmiştir. Divanları bu tarz mizah örnekleri için taranan şairler Me’ālī (ö. 1535-36), Bāḳī (ö. 1600), Ḫıżıraġazāde Sa‘īd (ö. 1837) ve Bursalı ‘İffet’tir (ö. 1840). İrdelenen mizah alanı, şairlerin zahit, sufi ve sofu tipleri ile ilişkileriyle sınırlandırılmıştır. Gelenekselleşmiş tiplerle etkileşimde şairlerin kendileriyle alayı buna eklenmiştir. Zahit, sufi ve sofunun birer tipe dönüşmüş olması – bu tipler örneğin Karagöz gölge oyunundaki tipler kadar gelişmiş olmasa da – popülerliklerinin devamı ihtimalini arttıran geleneksel özelliklerini gösterir. Hasılı bu kısıtlı tarama, bu tür ılımlı mizahın on dokuzuncu yüzyılın ilk yarısında hâlâ görüldüğünü göstermektedir. Şairlerin, çok daha nadir olan kendilerini alaya almalarının ise on altıncı yüzyılda Me’ālī’nin kendi fiziğiyle alayı gibi neşeli ya da on dokuzuncu yüzyılda Bursalı ‘İffet’in bazı şiirlerindeki gibi ciddi olabildiği görülmektedir. Kendini böyle ciddi aşağılama, muhtemelen alçakgönüllülük ile ilgili tasavvufi gereksinimlerle ilişkilidir. ‘İffet’in Dîvân’ında ilginç olan husus, hem had derecede tevazu hem de kendini aşırı övmenin bulunmasıdır; ne var ki bu iki özellik aynı şiirde görülmemektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: zahit, Sufi, rind, sofu, alay. 316 O ttoman satire and facetiae (hicv and hezl) in verse are composed in language that is often harshly satiric and either frankly or allusively immodest. However, the insults were not necessarily meant seriously.1 At the same time, wit (nükte) that was of a temperate nature was ubiquitous in poetry, especially in the genre ġazel. In fact, mild wit dependent on various factors including mockery was a traditional characteristic of this poetry. The popularity of such wit is, of course, of sociolinguistic as well as of literary historical interest. The present study2 attempts to answer the question of whether this traditional characteristic continued to be popular until the begin of literary influence from the West in the 19th century. To this end, the poetry collections (dīvāns) of two moderately gifted poets of the 19th century, namely ‘İffet of Bursa (d. 1840)3 and Ḫıżıraġazāde Sa‘īd (d. 1837),4 were searched for samples of such wit. The reason middling poets rather than the best of the age were chosen is that they represent the average poet’s wit better, and we are looking for what is conventionally popular here. As a second step, these samples were compared with samples from the 16th century and, in this case, samples from the poetry of true masters of wit were chosen. This gave an idea of how the samples from the 19 th century measure against those of the old masters. The reason for the choice of non-consecutive centuries was to allow enough time for societal dynamics to affect poetry (with poetry thereafter affecting societal dynamics in return). The two poets chosen for the 16th century are Bāḳī (d. 1600),5 who has a fine sense 1 Edith Gülçin Ambros, “‘O Asinine, Vile Cur of a Fool Called Zātī!’: An Attempt to Show that Unabashed Language is Part and Parcel of An Ottoman ‘Idiom of Satire’,” Journal of Turkish Studies=Türklük Bilgisi Araştırmaları 27, no. 1 (2003): 109-117; idem, “On a Conventional Dimension of 16th Century Scurrilous Ottoman Satire: Keşfī’s (d. 945/1538-9) Hicviyyāt,” Journal of Turkish Studies=Türklük Bilgisi Araştırmaları, special issue, “In Memoriam Şinasi Tekin I,” 31, no. 1 (2007): 21-39. 2 A preliminary paper on this study titled “On the Tradition of Ottoman Wit (nükte) of the Old School of Poetry, Arising from Wordplay, Unexpected Associations, and Self-deprecation” was read at the 25th Symposium of the Comité International des Études Pré-Ottomanes et Ottomanes held in Tirana, Albania on 21-25 June 2024. 3 Bursalı İffet Dîvânı, ed. Mehmet Arslan (Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2005). 4 Yasin Pekuz, “Hızır Agazâde Sa’îd Bey Dîvânı” (Master’s thesis, Kırıkkale University, 2018). 5 Bâḳî Dîvânı: Tenkitli Basım, ed. Sabahattin Küçük (Ankara: TDK, 1994). 317 Ambros, Edith Gülçin. “Ottoman Poets Making Fun of the Zealot, the Sufi and, Exceptionally, Themselves.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 314-336. of humour, and Me’ālī (d. 1535-36),6 who has an original talent of making fun of people in a candid but inoffensive way.7 As the field of wit is very large,8 the search for samples was restricted to wit featuring mockery of others and oneself. Finally, the topic of the samples was restricted to the ascetic zealot (zāhid) and the Sufi. For counterpoint, poems of self-mockery by Me’ālī and ‘İffet were added. Most but not all the quoted excerpts are ġazels or couplets thereof. 1. Types A sure sign of social and literary interaction is the crystallization in literature of types of people whose models are to be found in society. The zealot and the Sufi in Ottoman lyric poetry (ġazeliyyāt) are such types. These were familiar characters in the daily life of the Ottomans. The antinomian Sufi or the non-conformist person with Sufistic leanings (rind)9 were very much present, too. In addition to their real-life experience, the poets could form a second-hand opinion of such types by reading Persian poetry. The Persians had already integrated the zealot and the Sufi in their repertoire, highlighting some of their characteristics, and Persian literature had initial influence on Ottoman literature in many respects. In time and through repetition, the qualities and shortcomings possessed by or attributed to the zealot and the Sufi turned them into types with fixed associations and conventional figurative use. Unquestionably, such types were very practical for achieving a comical effect; however, they were not as exaggerated or perfect parodies as the types of the Turkish shadow theatre. 6 Edith Ambros, Candid Penstrokes: The Lyrics of Me’ālī, An Ottoman Poet of the 16th Century (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1982). 7 His being inoffensive is true for his ġazels but not for other genres of poetry where he can be very offensive. 8 See, for example, Edith Gülçin Ambros, “Gülme, Güldürme ve Gülünç Düşürme Gereksinimlerinden Doğan Türler ve Osmanlı Edebiyatında İroni,” Nazımdan Nesire Edebî Türler, eds. Hatice Aynur et al. (Istanbul: Turkuaz, 2009, 64-85; Hicve Revâ, Mizaha Mâyil: Güldürücü Metinleri Anlamak, eds. Hatice Aynur et al. (Istanbul: Klasik, 2018). 9 Being many-faceted, the term rind is almost impossible to define succinctly; see, for example, Mehmet Zeki Pakalın, “Rind,” Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü (Istanbul: Millî Eğitim Basımevi, 1983), 3:48-49. On antinomian Sufis see Ahmet T. Karamustafa, “Antinomian Sufis,” The Cambridge Companion to Sufism, ed. Lloyd Ridgeon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 115-124. 318 The popular habit of writing emulative poetry (naẓīres) made such types known to a larger audience and readership. A by-product of writing imitative poetry was an increased synchronic and diachronic “interaction” between poets. Networks of imitation can be very informative and inspiring; they can also further the conventional. In short, making fun of types was a stylistic trend. 2. Literary patrimony The Ottoman poet mockingly criticized the zealot for his asceticism and dry religious overzeal. However, as already mentioned, reproaching the zealot was not an Ottoman invention, it was an attitude that was already present in older Persian poetry. For example, Ḥāfiẓ (d. ca. 1390) wrote in the 14th century: Slight me not, zealot, go thou hence ashamed, For nought is slight that has by God been framed.10 In Ottoman poetry, the ascetic zealot is frequently the butt of criticism and ridicule because he not only does not drink wine but constantly advises others to stop drinking. Of course, mey, the Persian word for “wine”, stands in Muslim mystical language for “strong love and its ardour”,11 and so may either be the appellation of an alcoholic beverage or a metaphor for spiritual love. The ambiguity with the word mey is a traditional aspect that is characteristic of Ottoman lyric poetry. However, here is another line by Ḥāfiẓ that is not ambiguous at all. Zealot, censure not the toper, guileless though thou keep thy soul;12 And here are two rubā‘īs ‘Omar Khayyām (d. 1132?) composed in the 11th or 12th century that are quite straightforward, too. Sweet is rose-ruddy wine in goblets gay, And sweet are lute and harp and roundelay; But for the zealot who ignores the cup, ’Tis sweet when he is twenty leagues away!13 10 Herman Bicknell’s translation as quoted by Ainsworth R. Spofford, “Characteristics of Persian Poetry,” The North American Review 140, no. 341 (April 1885): 338. 11 Ethem Cebecioğlu, Tasavvuf Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlüğü (Ankara: Rehber, 1997), 507. 12 Herman Bicknell’s translation as quoted by Spofford, “Characteristics of Persian Poetry,” 336. 13 Medieval Sourcebook: Omar Khayyam (d. 1123 CE): The Rubaiyat, c. 1120, [trans. E.H. Whinfield], no. 85. Fordham University, https://origin-rh.web.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/omarkhayyamrub2.asp (accessed 16 Feb. 2025). 319 Ambros, Edith Gülçin. “Ottoman Poets Making Fun of the Zealot, the Sufi and, Exceptionally, Themselves.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 314-336. And the second rubā‘ī: Blame not the drunkards, you who wine eschew, Had I but grace, I would abstain like you, And mark me, vaunting zealot, you commit A hundred fold worse sins than drunkards do.14 3. The Ottoman poets 3.1. The 16th century 3.1.1. Me’ālī Ṣūfī (“a mystic”) is translated into English as “Sufi”. However, ṣūfī is an ambiguous appellation in that it refers to two types of people. One of these is a person with a nonconforming free spirit, who has the approval of the poets, and the other is a person who adheres drily to the tenets of religion like the ascetic zealot, the zāhid, and is criticized by the poets. This ambiguity is removed when, instead of ṣūfī, the appellation sofu15 (in modern standard Turkish spelling) was used for the zealot-like “Sufi”. In high-culture Dīvān poetry the spelling was always ṣ-w-f-y (generally transcribed as ṣūfī and occasionally as ṣōfī or ṣofī) and the reader had to decide in each instance whether a ṣūfī or a sofu was meant. For example, Me’ālī uses the word Sufi (ṣūfī) with both meanings, alternately criticizing the insincerity of the zealot-like Sufi and making fun of the propensity to drink of the nonconformist Sufi, as the following quotations show.16 In his elegy upon the death of his beloved cat, he probably speaks of the sofu, since he puts him on a par with the scandalmonger. 14 Medieval Sourcebook: Omar Khayyam, no. 11. 15 In common usage also kaba sofu (“rough sofu”). 16 The transcription of all the quotations in this study is as in the original publications. All translations are my own unless otherwise noted. 320 Me’āli,17 no.18 11/XIII (murabba‘19), fe‘ilātün (fā‘ilātün) - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilün (fa‘lün) Degme gūyendede yoġ-idi anuñ āvāzı Zühre işitse ṣadāsın bıraġurdı sāzı Hīç sevmezdi ne ṣūfīyi ve ne ġammāzı Nėdelüm āh pisi neyleyelüm vāh pisi20 Not every singer had a voice like his... Venus would stop playing the lute should she hear his voice! He could stand neither the scandalmonger nor the Sufi! Alas what can we do, pussy! What can we do, ah pussy!21 The poets of the old school of poetry liked plays on words and Me’ālī was no exception. He had been kadi of Sofia (among other locations) and obviously could not pass over the chance to quip “Paradise for the Sufi, the city of Sofia for me!” (Cenneti ṣūfīye ve Ṣōfiya şehrini baña 22). In the following couplet, Me’ālī implies that the Sufi tries to stop drinking, swearing that he will drink no more, but cannot remain abstinent. Me’ālī, no. 46/4 (ġazel), mef‘ūlü - mefā‘īlü - mefā‘īlü - fe‘ūlün Ṣūfī baña eydür ki şarāb içmege and iç And içmezem anuñ gibi yalan yėre va-llā23 The Sufi says to me, “Swear not to drink wine.” By God, I don’t perjure myself like he does!24 Elsewhere, Me’ālī openly accuses the Sufi of a passion for drinking wine (mey). Clearly, the term “wine” is not used in a metaphorical sense here. 17 The verses by Me’ālī that are quoted in this study were previously published by Ambros in Candid Penstrokes. 18 The poems in this edition are enumerated without regard to genre and form. 19 A form of poem in stanzas of four hemistichs each. 20 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 178. 21 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 37. 22 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 169. This is the first hemistich of 9/II (a murabba‘), metre: fe‘ilātün (fā‘ilātün) - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilün (fa‘lün). 23 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 222. 24 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 102. 321 Ambros, Edith Gülçin. “Ottoman Poets Making Fun of the Zealot, the Sufi and, Exceptionally, Themselves.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 314-336. Me’āli, no. 114/3 (ġazel), mef‘ūlü - mefā‘īlü - mefā‘īlü - fe‘ūlün Şol resm-ile oldı mey-i cān-pervere ‘āşıḳ Kim ṣūfī ṭahāret ṣuyını meyden ėdindi25 The Sufi conceived such a passion for soul-nourishing wine That he used wine in place of water for his ablutions!26 Me’ālī, no. 98/5 (ġazel), mefā‘īlün - mefā‘īlün - fe‘ūlün Me’ālī mescide varurdı ṣūfī Dem-ā-dem mest [ü] evgār olmayaydı27 Me’ālī, the Sufi would come to the mosque If he weren’t drunk and tight time and again!28 Me’ālī, no. 146/1 (ġazel), mef‘ūlü - fā‘ilātü - mefā‘īlü - fā‘ilün Mey-ḫānede var-idi bugün ġāyet izdiḥām Tācına ḳoydı ṣūfī meyi bulımadı cām29 Much crowding and pressing went on in the tavern today. The Sufi put the wine in his cap [for] he couldn’t find a cup!30 There is no ambiguity whatever in Me’ālī’s mockery of the zealot (zāhid) whom he accuses of insincerity regarding asceticism. Me’ālī, no. 192/4 (ġazel), fā‘ilātün - fā‘ilātün - fā‘ilātün - fā‘ilün Münḥarif olmış yübūsetden mizācuñ zāhidā Bir iki ayaḳ ṣulu meyle seni ḫoş ėdeyin31 You’re out of sorts from being parched, O zealot. Let me make you happy with one or two cups of watered wine.32 Me’ālī, no. 130/3 (ġazel), fā‘ilātün - fā‘ilātün - fā‘ilātün - fā‘ilün İḥtirāz ėtdügine maḥbūb-ile meyden sebeb Zāhidüñ taḳvāsı ṣanmañ ḫissetidür ḫisseti33 25 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 290. 26 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 102. 27 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 274. 28 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 103. 29 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 146. 30 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 103. 31 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 370. 32 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 104. 33 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 306. 322 Don’t think the reason the zealot shuns lovable boys and wine Is his pious fear of God. It is his avarice! His avarice!34 3.1.2. Bāḳī Bāḳī is a master of double entendre, as seen in his following “treatment” of the zealot: Bāḳī, ġazel 307/5, fe‘ilātün (fā‘ilātün) - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilātün - fa‘lün Zāhid ol siḳlet ile uçmaġa ḥāżırlanma Çıḳar ol cübbe vü destārı biraz ḫıffet bul35 Siḳlet means “weight” or “gravity” and ḫıffet means “lightness” or “frivolity”. And the word uçmaḳ can be the substantive “paradise” or the verb “to fly”. So, we can translate this couplet in two ways. Either as Zealot, don’t get ready for heaven with such gravity. Take off that robe and turban and acquire a little frivolity. Or alternatively, conjuring up the image of a stout zealot getting ready to fly: Zealot, don’t get ready to fly with that weight. Take off that robe and turban and become a little lighter!36 A mock-heroic verse: Bāḳī, ġazel 460/3, fā‘ilātün - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilün (fa‘lün) Gül gibi bāde-i rengīne ne ibrām gerek Zāhidüñ ḳanın içerdüm eger ibrām olsa37 What need is there to force rose-colored wine on one? When forced, I’d drink the blood of the zealot! Bāḳī’s opinion of the zealot’s mental capacities is decidedly low. 34 Ambros, Candid Penstrokes, 104. 35 Bâḳî Dîvânı, 289. 36 Prior publication of this dual interpretation by Edith Gülçin Ambros, “Linguistic Duality and Humour as a Stylistic Marker in Ottoman Lyric Poetry of the 16th Century,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, special issue, “Orientalische Landschaften,” no. 100 (2010): 55. 37 Bâḳî Dîvânı, 385. 329 Ambros, Edith Gülçin. “Ottoman Poets Making Fun of the Zealot, the Sufi and, Exceptionally, Themselves.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 314-336. ‘İffet, ġazel 92, müstef‘ilün - müstef‘ilün - müstef‘ilün - müstef‘ilün 1 Mecnûna ḥâkim ne’ylesün ta‘lîm-i ‘âlim ne’ylesün Ḳarnında yoḳ cim ne’ylesün ‘İffet seni kim ne’ylesün 2 Bir bî-kes ü bî-çâresin bir ‘âciz ü âvâresin Bilmem kime yalvarasın ‘İffet seni kim ne’ylesin 3 Bir boş gezenler başısın el la‘l ise sen aşısın Ne sûḫte ne biñbaşısın ‘İffet seni kim ne’ylesin 4 Ḥüsn-i melâḥat sende yoḳ ṭavr u ḳıyâfet sende yoḳ Ḫalḳa żiyâfet sende yoḳ ‘İffet seni kim ne’ylesün 5 Bezmüñ enîs-i mey degül destüñ sezâ-yı ney degül ‘Âlemde hîç bir şey degül ‘İffet seni kim ne’ylesün 6 Ṣad rîş ü destâruñ mı var bir reşk olur kâruñ mı var Bir yâr-ı ġam-ḫvâruñ mı var ‘İffet seni kim ne’ylesün 7 Manṭıḳ bilür nâṭıḳ mısın aḳrânuña fâ’iḳ misin Bir mesnede lâyıḳ mısın ‘İffet seni kim ne’ylesün 8 Bir nesneye irmez elüñ bu ḥâl ile ṭurmaz dilüñ Çâh-ı ‘acebdir menziliñ ‘İffet seni kim ne’ylesün 9 Sen ṣabr idüp ḫoş-ḫâṭır ol luṭf-ı Ḫudâ’ya ḥâżır ol Ḳoy ḫalḳı Ḥaḳḳ’a nâẓır ol ‘İffet seni kim ne’ylesün64 1 What is the judge to do with the crazy? What is the scholars’ teaching to do? He is an ignoramus, what is he to do? Iffet, what is anyone to do with you? 2 You are without a friend and without help, you are a failure and desolate. I don’t know with whom you should plead. Iffet, what is anyone to do with you? 3 You are the head of idle roamers. If the others are rubies, you are umber. You are neither a student nor a major. Iffet, what is anyone to do with you? 4 You lack the grace of being pleasing, you lack polished manners and fine clothes. You don’t give banquets for the folk. Iffet, what is anyone to do with you? 5 Your feast is unfamiliar with wine; your hand is unfit for the flute. Good for nothing in this world! Iffet, what is anyone to do with you? 64 Bursalı İffet Dîvânı, 86. 330 6 Do you have a hundred fineries and turbans? Do you have work that is the object of envy? Do you have a gloomy darling? Iffet, what is anyone to do with you? 7 Are you a speaker who knows logic? Are you superior to your peers? Are you worthy of a post? Iffet, what is anyone to do with you? 8 You are capable of nothing. You keep talking in this condition. Your station is the pit of wonder. Iffet, what is anyone to do with you? 9 Be patient and of good cheer. Be ready for the grace of God. Leave the people alone! Look on God! Iffet, what is anyone to do with you? However, in another ġazel ‘İffet shows a combative spirit in defending himself: ‘İffet, ġazel 25, fe‘ilātün (fā‘ilātün) - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilün (fa‘lün) The poet’s pen name (maḫlaṣ) is exceptionally in the first instead of in the last or the penultimate couplet. 1 Kiminüñ ṣaḥn-ı ḳażâsı kiminüñ ḥâkimi var Ben de bilmem bu ġarîb ‘İffet’üñ âyâ kimi var 2 N’ola fehm itmez ise rütbe-i isti‘dâdım Felegüñ ol ḳadar âyîne-i idrâki mi var 3 Neyle ṭutsun dehen-i vâ‘iẓi şûrîde-mizâc Ḫân-ı imsâki mi var sübḥa vü misvâkı mı var 4 İmtizâc itmedi bu ḫalḳ ile bilmem ki dilüñ Bir zemîn-i digeri başḳa bir eflâki mi var 5 Bir nigâh ile ider ‘âlemi ser-mest ü ḫarâb Kimseden ġamze-i hûnînüñ ‘aceb bâki mi var 6 Böyle bî-ḳaydsın ammâ geliyor mâh-ı ṣıyâm Ḥâżır olmuş şeker ü ḳahve vü tönbâki mi var65 1 Some have a judgeship, some have a judge, And I don’t know whom this poor İffet might possibly have. 2 What if fate doesn’t understand the degree of my aptitude, Does it have that much vision of comprehension? 3 With what can the fool make the preacher stop blabbing? Has he got food to eat before the fast? Has he got a rosary and a toothbrush? 65 Bursalı İffet Dîvânı, 49. 331 Ambros, Edith Gülçin. “Ottoman Poets Making Fun of the Zealot, the Sufi and, Exceptionally, Themselves.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 314-336. 4 Your heart did not get on well with these people, I wonder why. Does it have another world, a different sky? [Now he speaks of the beloved:] 5 With one look, he makes everyone drunk and madly in love. Are the cruel coquettish glances afraid of anyone? [And now he addresses himself and ends the poem on a hilarious domestic note:] 6 You are without a care like that, but the month of Ramadan is coming. Is there any sugar and coffee and tobacco of Shiraz made ready? He combines a nonconformist attitude with an ironic sense of humour. ‘İffet, ġazel 39/4, fā‘ilātün - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilün (fa‘lün) Ṭavrımız meşreb-i gerdûna muġâyirdir hep Rızḳımız hâle-ṣıfat zenbil ile gökden iner66 Our manner is always contrary to fortune’s nature. Our daily bread descends halo-like in a basket from the sky. In the next poem ‘İffet expresses extreme self-deprecation (tezellül). There is no humour here, but there is a philosophical streak. ‘İffet, ḳıṭ‘a (a type of short poem) 2, fe‘ilātün (fā‘ilātün) - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilün 1 Bu ḳadar ni‘mete bir vechile şâyân degülüz Cehlimizden hele şermende-i iḥsân degülüz 2 Bilmeyiz zâtımızuñ maẓhar-ı zât oldıġını Gerçi kim hey’et-i insândayız insân degülüz67 1 We68 are not worthy in any way of so many benefactions. Out of ignorance we don’t even blush with shame at the beneficence. 2 We don’t know that our person is a manifestation of essence. Though we are in the form of human beings, we are not human beings. Such a high degree of self-deprecation brings up the question of whether there is more to this than just exaggerated modesty or humility. As a matter 66 Bursalı İffet Dîvânı, 57. 67 Bursalı İffet Dîvânı, 121. 68 The plural here is probably pluralis modestiae. 332 of fact, züll “degradation, a low estate; submissiveness” is a Sufi requirement.69 And it is known that ‘İffet was interested in the Nakshbendi and the Mevlevi orders of mysticism. He was even the novice of one of the greater elders of the Nakshbendi, Behcet ‘Alī Efendi, who spent some time in Bursa.70 There are some references and intimations in Bursalı İffet’s dīvān that make one surmise he had some inclination to the ideology of the Sufi order Melāmetiyye (Arab. Malāmatiyya), the members of which place no importance on external elements like clothing or on outwardly following the religious rules. They also pay no attention to public reproach (melām, “a blaming, censuring; blame, censure”) but try to excel in inner sincerity. 71 According to Ethem Cebecioğlu there were dervishes in every Sufi order who preferred the melāmī attitude and style (melāmīlik or melāmiyye).72 Quite the contrary of tezellül is found in his following ġazel. Here there is a demonstration of personal opinions, of pride, in fact of a total lack of humility. This speaks against a tendency to melāmiyye. However, as this is an emulative poem, the original poem that was his “model” would probably play a role in its composition. The model poem is by his contemporary Sheykh Meḥmed Emīn with the pen name Zā’iḳ (d. 1852-53);73 unfortunately, we could not compare it with ‘İffet’s poem. ‘İffet, ġazel 77, fe‘ilātün (fā‘ilātün) - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilātün - fe‘ilün (fa‘lün) 1 Kâse-i Beç’de ḫaṭâ çîn ṣadâsın çekemem Câm-ı iḳbâl ile bed-mestüñ edâsın çekemem 2 Olsalar cümle dirim zülfüñe gerden-beste Böyle bî-ḳayd cihânuñ budalâsın çekemem 3 Düşmen-i ehl-i süḫan ṣûfi-i ef‘î-nigehüñ Beni şâyân-ı bihişt itse riyâsın çekemem 69 See Arzu Eylül Yalçınkaya, “Ahmed er-Rifâî’nin Tasavvuf Anlayışının Anahtar Kavramları: Tevâzu, Meskenet, Züll, İnkisâr, Acz, Fakr,” Tasavvuf Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi=Journal of the Institute for Sufi Studies 1, no. 1 (May 2022): 93-112. 70 Bursalı İffet Divanı, 8. 71 Cebecioğlu, “Melametiyye,” Tasavvuf Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlüğü, 498. 72 Cebecioğlu, “Melamîlik” and “Melamiyye,” Tasavvuf Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlüğü, 498-99. 73 Mehmet Gürbüz, “Zâ’ik, Şeyh Mehmed Emîn Efendi,” Türk Edebiyatı İsimler Sözlüğü, https:// teis.yesevi.edu.tr/madde-detay/zaik-seyh-mehmed-emin-efendi (accessed 17 February 2025). 333 Ambros, Edith Gülçin. “Ottoman Poets Making Fun of the Zealot, the Sufi and, Exceptionally, Themselves.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 314-336. 4 Şu‘arâ-yı selefe ḥâṣılı taḳlîd74 itmem Tâb-ı meh-tâbdaki şem‘a żiyâsın çekemem 5 Bî-medâr olduġını nüh-ṣadefin fehm ideli Ben sipihrüñ daḫi bîhûde-nümâsın çekemem 6 ‘İffetâ Zâ’iḳ-i şîrîn-feme ‘arż it yoḳsa Nâ-şinâs-ı süḫanuñ çûn ü çerâsın çekemem75 1 I can’t bear a fault in a bowl from Vienna, a chinking sound. I can’t bear the manner of those who are drunk with the cup of success. 2 I say, even if they were all fastened to your tresses by the neck, I couldn’t bear the fools of this universe devoid of restraint. 3 Even if he made me fit for heaven, I couldn’t bear the hypocrisy of the Sufi, that eloquent people’s foe with the glance of a viper. 4 In short, I do not imitate the ancestral poets. I can’t bear the wax taper’s light in the radiance of moonlight. 5 Since I understood that the nine heavens are no help, I can’t bear even the sky’s futile guidance. 6 O ‘İffet! Present this to sweet-mouthed Zā’iḳ. Otherwise I couldn’t bear the grumbling of the ineloquent. In contrast, ‘İffet demonstrates individuality, great self-confidence, and a very good opinion of himself in the next poem. ‘İffet, ġazel 78, mefā‘īlün - mefā‘īlün - mefā‘īlün - mefā‘īlün 1 Leb-i dilber-mizâcım bâde-i minnet ḳabûl itmem Dilim hem-şîve-i sîmâb olur naḫvet ḳabûl itmem 2 Muḳayyed olmazam derd-i ḫumâr-ı câm-ı taḳdîre Naṣîḥat gûş ḳılmam nükte-i ḥikmet ḳabûl itmem 3 Baḳılsa ḳâbil-i her ṣûretim ammâ perîşânım Şikest âyîneyim gûyâ ki bir ṣûret ḳabûl itmem 4 Yazıḳlar baña bunda zevk-i dîger ḥâṣıl itmezsem Virilse böyle bî-‘irfân iken cennet ḳabûl itmem 74 The object of the verb taḳlīd et- (“to imitate”) takes the dative instead of the accusative here and in the following verse 78/5. 75 Bursalı İffet Dîvânı, 78-79. 334 5 Egerçi sâde-naẓmım ‘İffetâ âsâr-ı ṭab‘ımdır Kelâm-ı ġayre taḳlîd eylemem sirḳat ḳabûl itmem76 1 The darling’s lips are to my taste, I refuse the wine of favour. And my heart is timid mannered, I do not accept conceit. 2 I am not made drunk with the cup of appreciation. I do not listen to advice. I do not accept wise sayings. 3 If one considers, I am capable of any form. But I am disordered. I am a broken mirror; it is as though I accept no form. 4 Woe is me if I don’t produce some other pleasure here. Were paradise to be given me while so ignorant, I wouldn’t accept. 5 O ‘İffet, though my simple poems are the products of my nature, I do not imitate the words of others. I do not accept plagiarism. Conclusion Based on the poems, mainly ġazels, of Bāḳī and Me’ālī in the 16th century, and of those of Ḫıżıraġazāde Sa‘īd and ‘İffet of Bursa in the 19th century, we suggest that the moderate style of wit of the old school of Ottoman poetry was most probably still popular in the first half of the 19th century in as far as the zealot (zāhid), the Sufi, and the sofu were concerned. Over time, these had evolved into types, though they were not as complex characters as, for example, the types of the Turkish shadow theatre. As the words ṣūfī and sofu are both spelled ṣūfī in Dīvān poetry, the reader must decide whether the poet means ṣūfī, the nonconformist mystic who has a positive image in high-culture Dīvān poetry, or if he means sofu, who resembles the zāhid in his overzealous adherence to religious tenets and is suspected of insincerity, so that he has a negative image in this poetry, as does the zāhid. In at least one instance in the 19th century, that of the poet ‘İffet of Bursa, humorous self-deprecation ceases to be light-hearted as seen, for example, in Me’ālī’s verses on his physiq ue in the 16th century. Serious self-deprecation is probably linked to mystic (taṣavvuf) requirements regarding humility. Intriguingly, extreme humility alternates with exaggerated self-praise, though not in the same poem. 76 Bursalı İffet Dîvânı, 79. 335 Ambros, Edith Gülçin. “Ottoman Poets Making Fun of the Zealot, the Sufi and, Exceptionally, Themselves.” Zemin, no. 10 (2025): 314-336. Bibliography Primary Sources Ambros, Edith. Candid Penstrokes: The Lyrics of Me’ālī, An Ottoman Poet of the 16th Century. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1982. Bâḳî Dîvânı: Tenkitli Basım. Edited by Sabahattin Küçük. Ankara: TDK, 1994. Bursalı İffet Dîvânı. Edited by Mehmet Arslan. Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2005. Medieval Sourcebook: Omar Khayyam (d. 1123 CE): The Rubaiyat, c. 1120, [translated by E.H. Whinfield]. Fordham University, https://origin-rh.web.fordham.edu/ halsall/basis/omarkhayyam-rub2.asp (accessed 16 Feb. 2025). Pekuz, Yasin. “Hızır Agazâde Sa’îd Bey Dîvânı.” Master’s thesis. Kırıkkale University, 2018. Tayyâr-zâde Atâ: Osmanlı Saray Tarihi: Târîh-i Enderûn. Edited by Mehmet Arslan. vol. 4. Istanbul: Kitabevi, 2010. Secondary Sources Ambros, Edith Gülçin. “Gülme, Güldürme ve Gülünç Düşürme Gereksinimlerinden Doğan Türler ve Osmanlı Edebiyatında İroni.” Nazımdan Nesire Edebî Türler, edited by Hatice Aynur, Müjgân Çakır, Hanife Koncu, Selim S. Kuru and Ali Emre Özyıldırım, 64-85. Istanbul: Turkuaz, 2009. . “Linguistic Duality and Humour as a Stylistic Marker in Ottoman Lyric Poetry of the 16th Century.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, special issue, “Orientalische Landschaften,” no. 100 (2010): 37-56. . “On a Conventional Dimension of 16 th Century Scurrilous Ottoman Satire: Keşfī’s (d. 945/1538-9) Hicviyyāt.” Journal of Turkish Studies=Türklük Bilgisi Araştırmaları, special issue, “In Memoriam Şinasi Tekin I,” 31, no. 1 (2007): 21-39. . “‘O Asinine, Vile Cur of a Fool Called Zātī!’: An Attempt to Show that Unabashed Language is Part and Parcel of an Ottoman ‘Idiom of Satire’,” Journal of Turkish Studies=Türklük Bilgisi Araştırmaları 27, no. 1 (2003): 109-117. Cebecioğlu, Ethem. Tasavvuf Terimleri ve Deyimleri Sözlüğü. Ankara: Rehber, 1997. Gürbüz, Mehmet. “Zâ’ik, Şeyh Mehmed Emîn Efendi.” Türk Edebiyatı İsimler Sözlüğü, https://teis.yesevi.edu.tr/madde-detay/zaik-seyh-mehmed-emin-efendi (accessed 17 Feb. 2025). Hicve Revâ, Mizaha Mâyil: Güldürücü Metinleri Anlamak. Edited by Hatice Aynur, Müjgân Çakır, Hanife Koncu and Ali Emre Özyıldırım. Istanbul: Klasik, 2018. Karamustafa, Ahmet T. “Antinomian Sufis.” The Cambridge Companion to Sufism, edited by Lloyd Ridgeon, 101-124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Kocaoğlu-Kocagöz, Kadriye. “XVII. Yüzyıla Ait Bir Tabir: ‘Kat Kat Helâl Olsun’ Üzerine.” Osmanlı Edebî Metinlerinin Anlam Dünyası Sempozyumu, 12-13 Mayıs 2017, Bilecik: Bildiriler Kitabı/Proceedings Book, edited by Mehmet Özdemir, 228237. Bilecik: Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Yayınları, 2019. 336 Öntürk, Tolga. “Klasik Türk Edebiyatında Mizahın Farklı Bir Yönü: Şairin Kendini Alaya Alması.” Uluslararası Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Araştırmaları Dergisi, no. 4 (April 2021): 32-47. Pakalın, Mehmet Zeki. “Rind.” Osmanlı Tarih Deyimleri ve Terimleri Sözlüğü. vol. 3. Istanbul: Millî Eğitim Basımevi, 1983. Spofford, Ainsworth R. “Characteristics of Persian Poetry.” The North American Review140, no. 341 (April 1885): 328-345. Yalçınkaya, Arzu Eylül. “Ahmed er-Rifâî’nin Tasavvuf Anlayışının Anahtar Kavramları: Tevâzu, Meskenet, Züll, İnkisâr, Acz, Fakr.” Tasavvuf Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi=Journal of the Institute for Sufi Studies1, no. 1 (May 2022): 93-112.