RÉMY DOr THREE CENTRAL ASIATIC EXAMPLES OF CAPTATION OF ORATURE BY LITERATURE The key to both oral and written communication is based on memory. To study the link between these two modes of communication means considering the transition from an internal to an external memory. We will therefore focus on the evolution, in the Turkic world, from an individual memory generated by a way of life to a collective memory imposed by the book. The funerary steles which are the Turks’ first testimony on their evolution date back to the seventh century. Right from the dawn of the great Turkic empires of the steppe, the word (sa:v) of the Kagan was put into writing. Most ancient Turkic inscriptions are epics, with the Kagan as hero. A chosen one of Tengri, the Turkic monarch receives the kut ülüg “The good share of destiny”, which makes his word law: his Verb guarantees the order of the world as well as individual prosperity. Tengriteg tengride bolmïš türk Bilge Kagan bödke olurtïm sa:vïmïn tüketi ešidgil1 “I am the Turkic monarch Bilge Kagan, of the same essence as Tengri, so mark my words.” This sacred word of the sovereign can then be traced back to celestial powers, once it is written down on parchment. As precised in a later chronicle: “If I am grateful to the Kagan for his endless mercy, Heaven and Earth will bless me. Having written those words, he burnt his writing as an offering to Heaven.”2 Later, in the eleventh century, the “word carrier” (sa:včï) lost his regal status and became a soothsayer, an interpreter of divine powers. And here we have the two main figures of Turkic tales: the warrior-hero and the bard-shaman. The latter manipulates the acts of the former, interspersing the present with past deeds, which can always be updated in the future. 1 Orkun, Eski Türk Yazıtları, p. 72. 2 Kara, Chants d’un barde mongol, p. 20. Turcica, 48, 2017, p. 475-488. doi: 10.2143/TURC.48.0.3237148 © 2017 Turcica. Tous droits réservés. 476 rÉmY Dor The epic tale is a fiction which should be lived in the reality of a present subject to constant reconstitutions. The text extends the primeval myth of a cosmos, and shapes a whole society. The epic hero is a paragon of all perfections: his acts are memorable, his person ideal, his behaviour exemplary. From tribal chiefdoms in High Asia to the heart of Ottoman Anatolia, Turkic identity has been conveyed by language for over a thousand years. Before turning to a few examples chosen in Turkic literature, I would like to define the respective spheres of orature and literature. ORATURE AND LITERATURE Since 1975, I have marked out two contiguous fields, namely orature and literature. Orature refers to the whole patrimony transmitted by word of mouth, from the briefest formulas to the longest songs, without resorting to writing. Of course, one must keep in mind the gap between what is “oralised”, and has previously been subjected to a discursive manipulation; and what is “vocalised”, and partakes of a spontaneous use of language. I could illustrate this through the difference which exists in Uzbek and other Turkic languages between the words aytmoq “to tell formal words” and demoq “to speak ordinary words”; in epic tales, can be found the recurring phrase: turip muni aytti “standing up, he proffered those words”, as formal speech, the speech of power, cannot be spoken while sitting. The originality of orature is threefold: • Its composition, which can be immediate or delayed, but is only fixed through memory. • Audience. • Its transmission, which does not imply remaining faithful to the original. In other words, the ductility of orature stands in sharp contrast to the rigid- ity of literature: spoken words flow, but written words are deeply carved. As it happens, I am unsure how to define the word “literature”. This is probably the reason why it is not taught in French Universities, where we have Bachelor’s, Masters’ and doctoral degrees in “Arts [humanities]” (classic or modern; in French: “lettres classiques, lettres modernes”), but no degrees in literature. Five centuries earlier the word “littérature” was a synonym of “érudition, culture”: “Frere Symon de Saint Quentin fut en ce temps envoyay devers les Tartares pour l’experience de sa lictera- ture” (Simon de Phares). To take another example: in Turkish, the word literatür refers to the nondescript mass of grey literature, composed of instruction manuals, memos and working papers. All things which quickly get out of use and forgotten. three ceNtral asiatic eXamples of captatioN of orature 477 At the other end of the spectrum, the word edebiyat used to refer to a “practical norm of conduct”, which should be both “praiseworthy” and “inherited from one’s ancestors”. So Turkish literature is first and fore- most a humanitas, that is to say an education to life in society. It is a sum of knowledge which makes a man courteous and urbane. This is another way in which I distinguish between orature and literature: the wild Verb, nurtured from the blank space of the steppe, falls into the trap of Letters as soon as it gets in the city. It then escapes the constraints of the voice to acquire the properties of the reed pen. Chronological considerations are obviously not enough to distinguish oral from written speech. If we take as the starting point of writing the carved pebbles dating back to 17,000 before Christ, which were found in the cave of Beldibi near Antalya (Turkey) by Denise Schmandt-Besserat, to suppose a world of pure orality would throw us back to archaic groups and problems which the Society of Linguistics forbade us to tackle here- after in 18863. Moreover, literacy includes a wide range of abilities, from the man who can barely sign his name to the one who deciphers steles and documents fluently. Orature and literature are therefore tightly interwoven. We must leave aside the binary opposition between oral and written speech, which often implies a distinction between vulgar and cultivated language. The opposition between these two fields is largely modern, and I am convinced that the original Turkic texts of the seventh century were written not to be read, but to be seen. The ancient Turkic stele is a mile- stone in the steppe, which breaks down the continuity of space to topple it over into time. In a similar fashion to the tamga, stamped on the back of cattle, the Turkic rune stele stuck into the ground marks the possession of that particular space. It is the visual trace of the words of power uttered by the Kagan. It marks the permanence of domination through praise of the monarch. These steles are all the less legible as they are written lengthwise in long alternate lines (boustrophédon), before being raised vertically. But a mere glance to the writing encapsulted in its stone altar is enough to hear the imperious words of the Kagan. Orature and litera- ture were just as closely interwoven in the West during medieval times, during which a scholar, or litteratus, did not write himself but dictated to a scribe, who was illiteratus, since literacy did not designate the capacity to write, but the mastery of Latin. The axis between orature and literature can be divided into 4 sections: • Pure orality implies an absence of writing: from the war cry to the epic, through tongue-twisters, proverbs, riddles and tales, a whole range of communication evades textual writing. 3 Schmandt-Besserat, “The origin of visible language”. See also: Dor, “À l’aube du cri”. 478 rÉmY Dor • Mediate orality is a recording of the live voice, which results in folk- loric collections (songs, tales, etc.), pedlars’ booklets and many other forms of written media. This can be described as literary orature. • Mediate literature on the other hand will involve all that I call “oral literature”, i.e. texts which are written to be read aloud: political speeches, sermons, conference papers; the theatre, cinema and television resort profusely to that process: the TV host reading his prompter provides a good example. • Pure literature can be illustrated through formal poetical works, such as those of the Chuvash poet Aïgui, which are literally “unutterable”. In the Turkic world of the first centuries, the use of writing was limited to solemn utterances. The inscriptions of the Orkhon or Ienissei are no ordinary communications, in that they have no administrative value (such as the recording of archives, laws and decrees). In these works, the majesty of the monarch alternated with references to his bare humanity: tängri elim, ol yïshda erginkä bökmedim “I am not tired of my divine people, I am not tired of my stay on this earth (litt. ‘in this mountain forest’)” or “My virile name is Light-Prince, o my beloved wife, o my two sons, misery of my life! O my only daughter!” (är atïm Yaruk-Tegin, koyda kunčuyum a, ekki oglanim a, ässizim a, yalangus kïzïm a). The famous divination manuscript Ïrq Bitig, written on March 17, 930 CE is also strongly marked by orality: the omens are meant to be read aloud. The old monk who dictated it to the young scribe used his memory rather than a written document, which explains the lack of order in the omens4. Closer to us in time, the Kitab-ı Dede Korkut, mentioned as early as the fourteenth century by historian Rashid ed-Din, but whose earliest manuscript versions were first written in the sixteenth century, marks a transition from literary orature towards literature. This is a key moment, when the Oghuz, who had become defenders of Islam, started moving away from the Altaic beliefs they had so far supported.