IMAGES of SEXUALITY in the 16Th CENTURY OTTOMAN SOCIETY
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IMAGES OF SEXUALITY IN THE 16th CENTURY OTTOMAN SOCIETY: MEHMED GAZ‰LÍ‘S DAFĞ‘Ü‘L GUMÒM by BURCU GÜRGAN Submitted to the Graduate School of Arts and Social Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts SabancÛ University Spring 2005 % Burcu Gürgan 2005 All rights reserved FIRAT‘A … TANAY‘A… SĞNAN‘A… iv ABSTRACT: This thesis presents an alternative analysis of a 16th century work of erotic prose, Dâfi‘ü‘l-gumûm ve Râfi‘ü‘l-humûm . It was penned by Mehmed Gazâlî, better known by his nickname Deli Birader. He was born in 1466 in Bursa and died in 1534/1535 in Mecca. He was a scholar and a poet. He became courtier of Piyâle Bey, and then was admitted to the close circle of Prince Korkud in Manisa palace. He stayed there in a brief period before accession of Selim I to the throne in 1513. He dedicated Dâfi‘ü‘l- gumûm to Piyâle. After death of his benefactor Korkud, he worked in medreses in various Anatolian cities. He abandoned his career as a scholar soon, and settled in Beİiktaİ, Istanbul. The contemporary Ottoman biographers tell that because of the rumours concerning his involvement in —immoral affairs“, and the execution of his patron Ğskender Çelebi, Gazâlî needed to take resignation in Mecca for the rest of his life. The following study aims to (1) re-asses the current biographical information about Mehmed Gazâlî (2) re-instate the broader cultural context within which he produced his humour and (3) construe the representative-discursive world he built in his Dafi‘ü‘l Gumûm . It proposes that the notion meclis and its various social-cultural associations provide a proper context to examine the convivial environment that inspires the literary imagery, and the human networks through which such a work is produced, transmitted and consumed. In the broadest sense of the term, there was, in early modern times, a widely practiced general —party“ or —gathering“ based on —witty conversation“ ( sohbet ) as a core and containing many other elements including alcohol, food, music, dancers, plays and recitations. Such gatherings displayed an intersection of —patronage“, —entertainment“ and —literary-artistic production“. They seem to be as important and popular among the court-dependent elites in Europe and Middle East as it was in the Ottoman Empire. The convivial mecalis corresponding to Brother Madcap‘s subsequent life stages (in Korkud‘s court, among his friends and with his elite patrons in Istanbul, and in Mecca) is taken as a particular historical case. In this respect, the thesis may facilitate a preliminary research agenda to study the network of social and historical relations that develop within the circle of the Ottoman cultural production. v It is assumed that Dafi‘ü‘l Gumûm was constructed as a humour to enjoy primarily in the meclis context. Two basic questions are directed to the text: (1) How did Gazâlî create a humorous world? (2) Why could the reader find the text —funny“? The claim is that his thematic bag and literary strategies touch on and exploit certain tangible social dynamics and hierarchies (slavery, patronage, patriarchy, class differences e.g.). He avers human interactions that may prevail in real contexts ( meclis , medrese , bathhouse etc.) and creates phobias and fears rooted in collective anxieties. To sum up, Gazâlî ‘s world of representations is not a discrete phenomenon detached from sociological reality, but it exaggerates that reality and makes a parody of it. vi ET: Bu tez, 16. yüzyÛlda yazÛlmÛİ olan —erotik“ bir metnin, Dafi‘ü‘l Gumûm Rafi‘ü‘l Humûm ‘un alternatif bir analizini sunmaktadÛr. Metin, Deli Birader takma adÛyla bilinen Mehmed Gazâlî tarafÛndan kaleme alÛndÛ. Gazâlî 1466 yÛlÛnda Bursa‘da do₣du ve 1534/1535‘de Mekke‘de öldü. Bir medrese hocasÛ ve İairdi. Manisa SarayÛ‘nda önce Piyâle Bey‘in kortiyeri oldu, ve sonrasÛnda ise İehzade Korkud‘un yakÛn dairesine kabul edildi. Dafi‘ü‘l Gumûm ‘u Piyâle‘ye ithaf etti. Selim I‘in tahta geçti₣i 1513 yÛlÛna kadar belirli bir süre burada kaldÛ. Velinimeti Korkud‘un ölümünden sonra çeİitli Anadolu kentlerindeki medreselerde müderrislik yaptÛ. Bir süre sonra bu mesle₣i bÛrakÛp Ğstanbul‘da Beİiktaİ‘a yerleİti. Ça₣daİÛ OsmanlÛ tezkirecilerinin anlattÛ₣Ûna göre —ahlaksÛz iİlere“ karÛİtÛ₣Ûna dair dedikodular ve patronu Ğskender Çelebi‘nin idamÛ neticesinde hayatÛnÛn geri kalan kÛsmÛnÛ Mekke‘de geçirmek durumunda kaldÛ. Bu çalÛİma, (1) Gazâlî hakkÛndaki biyografik bilgileri yeniden de₣erlendirmeyi (2) onun mizahÛnÛ üretti₣i kültürel ba₣lamÛ yerine oturtmayÛ (3) Dafi‘ü‘l Gumûm ‘da inİa edilen simgesel-söylemsel dünyayÛ yorumlamayÛ amaçlamaktadÛr. ÇalÛİmada, —meclis“ nosyonun de₣iİik sosyal ve kültürel ilintileri ve yan anlamlarÛyla Dafi‘ü‘l Gumûm gibi bir metnin üretildi₣i ve tüketildi₣i ba₣lamÛ ve bu süreçlerde etkin olan bir dizi iliİki a₣ÛnÛ anlamÛmÛzÛ sa₣ladÛ₣ÛnÛ tartÛİÛlmaktadÛr. En geniİ anlamÛyla, erken-modern dönemde Ortado₣u, Avrupa ve OsmanlÛ kültür dairelerinde —sohbet“, —içki“, —dans“ ve —resital“ gibi de₣iİik pratikleri içeren ve —patronaj“, —e₣lence“ ve —edebî-artistik üretim“ in kesiİti₣i —parti“ ya da —toplantÛ“ larÛn özellikle hanedana ba₣ÛmlÛ elitler arasÛnda önemli ve popüler oldu₣u gözlemlenebilir. Deli Birader‘in hayatÛnÛn birbirini takip eden aİamalarÛna denk gelen —meclisler“ (Korkud‘un hanesinde, arkadaİlarÛnÛn arasÛnda ve patronlarÛyla Ğstanbul‘da ve Mekke‘de) spesifik bir tarihsel örnek olarak alÛnacaktÛr. Bu anlamda, tez, OsmanlÛ kültür üretimi dairesinde geliİen tarihsel iliİki a₣larÛnÛ çalÛİmak için baİlangÛç niteli₣inde bir ajanda önermektedir. Dafi‘ü‘l Gumûm ‘un öncelikle —meclis“ ortamÛnda e₣lenmek için yazÛlmÛİ mizahî bir eser oldu₣u varsayÛlmaktadÛr. Metne iki temel soru yöneltilmektedir: (1) Gazâlî, mizahî bir dünyayÛ nasÛl yaratmÛİtÛr? (2) Okuyucu bu eseri neden —komik“ bulmuİtur/bulabilir? Öne sürülen argüman, yazarÛn kullandÛ₣Û tematik bagajÛn ve yazÛnsal stratejilerin somut sosyal dinamiklere ve hiyerarİilere (kölelik, patronaj, patriyarki, sÛnÛfsal farklÛllÛklar vb.) dokundu₣udur. Yazar, gerçek ba₣lamlarda (meclis, medrese, hamam vb.) vii filizlenebilecek iliİkileri vurgulamakta ve kökleri kollektif hassasiyetlerde olan korku ve fobiler yaratmaktadÛr. KÛsaca, Gazâlî‘nin temsilî ya da simgesel dünyasÛ sosyolojik gerçeklikten kopuk de₣ildir, bu gerçekli₣i —abartmak“ta ve onun bir —parodi“sini yapmaktadÛr. viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: In these two years I‘ve accrued lots of debts to many people. First of all, I must thank my advisors Dr. Tülay Artan and Dr. Y. Hakan Erdem. They showed me the various stages and theatres of the Ottoman political and cultural history, and encouraged me to study with primary sources which usually turn out to be the greatest phobia of the beginners in the field. The exciting seminars that they offered, and also our more informal conversations enabled me to recognize my professional and intellectual interests. They established in me a sense of —professional independence“ and —intelligent criticism.“ I am indebted to Prof. Metin Kunt who was patient to read my thesis meticulously, and allowed me to face my successes and failures in this very first large project in my career. Even though we did not work together for this thesis, I always remembered Dr. Halil Berktay‘s advice that achievement of academic career demands real psychological stamina. Dr. Selim Kuru was kind to share his two unpublished articles with me; if he hadn‘t put all his effort and energy as to prepare a critical edition of Dafi‘ü‘l Gumûm , I wouldn‘t have had the chance of stepping into Gazâlî‘s vibrant world. Prof. Walter G. Andrews did not hesitate to answer my questions through an e-mail trafficking and he sent me a copy of his latest book from kilometres away. My family provided a comfortable and warm —domestic island“ for me; particularly my mother Nuray Sakarya is the figure who provoked questions pertaining to —gender“ and —sexuality“ in my mind, and she always finds excitement in my studies. My friend Özge Müge Bilgen acted as my critical eye to the outside world and —popular culture“. I won a very special friend, Semi Ertan in SabancÛ University. Finally, Vefa and I made a —groundbreaking“ and —affectionate“ experience out of this thesis. I couldn‘t find the word to thank him for his limitless support and care. ix TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION&DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM: ...............................1 CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................14 MEHMET GAZ‰LĞ (DELĞ BĞRADER) - AS A SCHOLAR AND THE AUTHOR OF —DAFĞ‘Ü‘L GUMUM RAFĞ‘Ü‘L HUMUM“:........................14 1.1. Sources:.................................................................................................................... 14 1.2. Mehmed Gazâlî‘s Biography:.................................................................................. 16 1.3. The Literary Works of Gazâlî:................................................................................. 30 CHAPTER 2 ....................................................................................................32 —MECLĞS“ - REINSTATING THE AUDIENCE FOR —DAFĞ‘Ü‘L GUMUM RAFĞ‘Ü‘L HUMUM“:.....................................................................................32 2.1. Suggestions for the Semantic Field of Meclis: ........................................................ 32 2.2. —Meclis“ and —Garden“- Feasibility of a Historical and Cultural Correspondence. 35 2.3. Gazâlî between Mecâlis:.......................................................................................... 37