1

Poetry, Muhammad, and the Ottomans:

Conceptions and Discussions of in Süruri’s Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif (1549)*

Murat Umut Inan

The was an empire of poetry, of vibrant poetic production, circulation, and consumption. Orally and/or textually, poems in various languages, forms, and genres traversed and connected diverse literary and sociocultural landscapes of the empire, linking cities and communities from Eastern to Southeastern Europe and from the Black Sea to the Arabian Peninsula. Poetry not only contributed to the formation and expansion of literary and sociocultural networks that linked the empire internally. It also loomed large in the empire’s connections to the wider Islamic world, as and poems remained an integral part of the literary, cultural, and even diplomatic traffic and exchange between the Ottomans, Timurids, Safavids, and Mughals. Across the lands of

Rum (Ottoman territories in Anatolia and the Balkans), poetry was more than a technical art or a specialized profession confined to students and producers of literature. As a popular form of cultural expression and social communication, poetry reached a much broader audience, who engaged with poems in various ways and contexts and with different motivations. ‘The majority of the people of Rum have a strong natural disposition toward poetry’, the bureaucrat and Sehi Beg (1470–1549) wrote in explaining the Ottoman enthusiasm for poetry.1 Thus, the Ottomans’ engagement with

*Forthcoming in Post-Eurocentric Poetics, eds. Rebecca Ruth Gould and Hany Rashwan, Oxford University Press. 2 poetry extended beyond literary circles and salons to permeate an array of political- bureaucratic, pedagogical-scholarly, and sociocultural spaces, ranging from the imperial court and administrative offices to madrasas and Sufi lodges to pleasure gardens, taverns, and coffeehouses. As poetry left its stamp on all walks of life and appealed to all ranks of society, poetic interest and taste became one of the hallmarks of Ottoman culture and cultural identity. As such, the Ottoman communities of writers, readers, reciters, and listeners of poetry not only comprised professional poets and their audiences, but also included a wide range of people from such different classes and professions as members of the dynasty, courtiers, the ruling elite, bureaucrats, the ulema (religious and legal scholars), , artisans, , and commoners. In the words of Aşık Çelebi

(1520–72), an Ottoman scholar, judge, and poet famed for his collection of biographies of poets entitled Meşa‘irü’ş-Şu‘ara (Assemblies of Poets, 1568), poetry was a common medium for expression of emotion, shared by both the havass (the elite) and the avamm

(commoners):

Whether they fall in love or are in a state of desire, whether they praise their

beloveds or rebuke their rivals angrily, or whether they narrate the lovers’ union

or complain about their separation—on all these occasions, poetry serves as an

interpreter for the elite. The commoners, too, resort to the language of poetry,

whether to describe something with prolixity or praise someone extravagantly,

1 Sehi Beg, Heşt Bihişt, eds. Haluk İpekten et al. (Ankara, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2017), p. 187. Unless otherwise noted, all translations from primary texts are my own. 3

whether to reprimand people severely or provoke them, or whether to express

their satirical allusions or say their words of attack rhythmically.2

For centuries, poetry remained a lively component of Ottoman cultural and social life. But equally important is the fact that the empire was also a place where the worth of poets and poetry was ardently debated. Telling in this regard is the discussion between

Nev‘i Yahya Efendi (1533–99) and the grand vizier Sinan Pasha (d. 1596). Nev‘i Efendi, an esteemed member of the late 16th-century Ottoman ulema who taught at the prestigious madrasas of for years, was a passionate proponent and prolific writer of poetry, whose famous encyclopedic work Netayicü’l-Fünun (Essence of Sciences) features a short but captivating section on ilmü’ş-şi‘r (science of poetry). Particularly revealing of Nev‘i Efendi’s dedication to poetry is his 1589 letter to Sinan Pasha, which he penned in defense of poets and poetry. The impetus behind Nev‘i Efendi’s long letter was to respond to Sinan Pasha’s sarcastic words about poets, whom the Pasha had earlier mocked, on a festival day at a gathering where Nev‘i Efendi was present, by saying: ‘A poet cannot be a man of knowledge.’ In response, Nev‘i Efendi wrote in closing his sharp letter: ‘Both rationally and theologically, poets do not deserve to be looked down on or treated with contempt just because they write poetry. On the contrary, they should be honored and respected for their craft.’3

This paper explores how poetry was viewed and understood—both as a form of art and as a branch of knowledge or discipline—in the 16th-century Ottoman world,

2 Aşık Çelebi, Meşa‘irü’ş-Şu‘ara, ed. Filiz Kılıç (Ankara, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 2018), p. 38. 3 For Nev‘i Efendi’s letter, see Nev‘izade Atayi, Hadaiku’l-Hakaik fi Tekmileti’ş-Şakaik, vol. 2, ed. Suat Donuk (Istanbul, Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı, 2017), pp. 1147–50. For the section on poetry in Netayicü’l-Fünun, see Nev‘i Efendi, İlimlerin Özü: Netayic el-Fünun, ed. Ömer Tolgay (Istanbul, İnsan Yayınları, 1995), pp. 252–5. 4 which saw the flourishing of an imperial literary culture where poetry enjoyed greater prestige and popularity while writings and discussions on poets and poetry were on the rise.4 In so doing, I aim to uncover the functions and values attributed to poetic composition and expression while seeking to shed light on the status of poetry as an ilm

(science or branch of learning) in the Ottoman tradition. Western scholarship on late medieval and early modern Islamicate poetry and poetics has remained largely focused on the and Persian traditions. Often seen as derivative of Arabo-Persian poetry, the Ottoman tradition has therefore mostly been on the fringes of scholarly interest. Seen in this light, this paper also aims to bring to the fore Ottoman perspectives on poetry, which, I think, offer valuable insight into perceptions and uses of poetry in pre-modern

Islamic cultures.5 My focus here is on the Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif (Sea of Knowledge, 1549), a celebrated manual on the art of poetry by the Ottoman Sufi poet, scholar, and madrasa

4 On poets and poetry in the 16th-century Ottoman Empire, see Murat Umut Inan, ‘Imperial Patronage of Literature in the Ottoman World, 1400–1600’ in The Empires of the Near East and India: Source Studies of the Safavid, Ottoman, and Mughal Literate Communities, ed. Hani Khafipour (New York, Columbia University Press, 2019), pp. 493–504. 5 There is a small but growing body of English-language scholarship on and poetics. See, among others, Elias John Wilkinson Gibb, A History of Ottoman Poetry, 6 vols. (London, Luzac, 1900–9); Walter G. Andrews, Poetry’s Voice, Society’s Song: Ottoman Lyric Poetry (Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1985); Victoria Rowe Holbrook, The Unreadable Shores of Love: Turkish Modernity and Mystic Romance (Austin, University of Texas Press, 1994); Hatice Aynur, ‘Ottoman Literature’ in The Cambridge History of , vol. 3, ed. Suraiya N. Faroqhi (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 481–520; Selim S. Kuru, ‘The Literature of Rum: The Making of a Literary Tradition (1450–1600)’ in The Cambridge History of Turkey, vol. 2, eds. Suraiya N. Faroqhi and Kate Fleet (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2012), pp. 548–92; Murat Umut Inan, ‘Rethinking the Ottoman Imitation of Persian Poetry’, Iranian Studies, 50, 5 (2017), 671–89; Didem Havlioğlu, Mihrî Hatun: Performance, Gender-Bending, and Subversion in Ottoman Intellectual History (Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 2017); Sooyong Kim, The Last of an Age: The Making and Unmaking of a Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Poet (London and New York, Routledge, 2018); Christiane Czygan and Stephan Conermann, eds., An Iridescent Device: Premodern Ottoman Poetry (Göttingen, Bonn University Press, 2018). 5 professor Muslihüddin Süruri (1491–1562). Süruri’s work opens a window into the early modern Ottoman world of poetry, providing us not only with a rich repertoire of poetic terms, devices, and conventions but also with a glimpse into the ideas and arguments of a learned poet who mentored many young, aspiring poets and helped the ‘sapling of their hopes’ thrive, as Aşık Çelebi, a student and close friend of Süruri, put it in presenting his biography.6 My discussion here focuses mainly on the concluding chapter of the Bahrü’l-

Ma‘arif, in which Süruri offers his reflections on poetry as a source of knowledge and inspiration and constructs an Islamic defense of poetry grounded largely in the Prophet

Muhammad’s example.

‘Poetry excites the soul’: Süruri on the nature and uses of poetry

In 1548, the Ottoman Süleyman I, also referred to as Süleyman the Magnificent (r.

1520–66), appointed Süruri, one of the leading literary and scholarly figures of the time, as mentor and tutor to his eldest son Prince Mustafa (1515–53), governor of the city of

Amasya, potential heir to the throne, and, like his father, an enthusiast for poetry. It was

Prince Mustafa who urged Süruri to compile a book for poetry enthusiasts and students of poetic art, as Süruri’s preface to the Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif reveals.7 Completed in Amasya on

11 March 1549, the Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif is the first comprehensive Ottoman handbook of poetry, which remained widely popular among readers, writers, and teachers of poetry

6 Aşık Çelebi, Meşa‘irü’ş-Şu‘ara, p. 418. 7 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif (Süleymaniye Manuscript Library, Istanbul, MS Ali Nihat Tarlan 113), folio 2a. For a detailed study of Süruri’s text and its sources, see Yakup Şafak, ‘Süruri’nin Bahrü’l-Maarif’i ve Enisü’l-Uşşak ile Mukayesesi’, Ph.D. thesis (Erzurum, 1991). On Süruri’s life and works, see İsmail Güleç, ‘Gelibolulu Musluhiddin Sürûrî: Hayatı, Kişiliği, Eserleri ve Bahrü’l-Ma‘ârif İsimli Eseri’, Osmanlı Araştırmaları, 21 (2001), 211–36. 6 across the empire for centuries. Organized into an introduction, three main chapters, and a concluding chapter, the Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif is a lengthy work replete with verses from

Arabic, Persian, and Turkish poetry, which Süruri cites as fine exemplars of versification.

The introduction provides definitions of key ‘poetic terms’ (ıstılahat-ı şi‘riyye) before presenting an overview of the ‘science of prosody’ (ilm-i aruz). Şi‘r (poetry) is the first item on Süruri’s list of terms, which he glosses as follows:

Şi‘r lugatde bilmekdür ve ıstılahda lafz-ı mevzun-ı ma‘neviye dirler ki ta‘rifi

budur: ‘al-shi‘r mawzun muqaffa mukhayyal qasdan.’

Lexically, şi‘r means ‘knowing’. As a term, it refers to a well-proportioned,

meaningful utterance. Accordingly, şi‘r is defined as ‘rhyming metrical speech

that is intentionally imaginative’.8

Süruri’s words suggest that he views poetic speech as a harmonious blend of form and meaning, and, by implication, that he conceives the poet as the one who yokes together rhetorical and semantic skills. In this respect, the Arabic definition Süruri provides reflects his understanding that poetry appeals not only to the eyes and ears but also to the mind and imagination of listeners and/or readers, and thus has the intrinsic power to captivate audiences. Following this general definition, Süruri focuses on those terms that relate to the structural units of poetry. One of these terms is beyt (distich), the main unit of poetic composition, for which Süruri gives the following explanation:

8 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folio 2b. Throughout this paper, passages from the Bahrü’l- Ma‘arif are cited in transliteration along with their translations. Passages are transliterated using a simplified system without diacritics except for the ayn and hamza in the middle of words, which are indicated by a reverse apostrophe (‘) and an apostrophe, respectively. 7

Beyt lugatde eve dirler ve ıstılahda iki mısra‘a dirler, gerek kafiyeleri muvafık

olsun gerek olmasun ve şi‘r beytini sahra-nişin Arablarun evine teşbih itmişler …

ve eger ol evün dört rükni var ise şi‘r beytinün dahı dört rükni vardur ki sadr ve

aruz ve ibtida ve darbdur ve eger ol evün sakfı ve yiri var ise şi‘rün dahı sakfı

ma‘nadur, yiri kafiyedür.

The lexical meaning of beyt is ‘house’. As a technical term, it means two

hemistiches, whether they rhyme with each other or not. The distich is likened to

the tent of the Arabs who reside in the desert. … Just as the tent has four pillars,

the distich, too, has four pillars, namely sadr [first segment of the first hemistich],

aruz [last segment of the first hemistich], ibtida [first segment of the second

hemistich], and darb [last segment of the second hemistich]. And just as the tent

has a roof and floor, poetry likewise has meaning as its roof and rhyme as its

floor.9

Through the tent simile, Süruri conveys that he views the distich not simply as the coming together of two hemistiches but rather as the combination of four intertwined structural units. This is, I think, indicative of Süruri’s interpretation of poetry as an architectural structure designed by a laborious poet. That four ‘pillars’ of a distich are covered by ‘meaning’ and grounded in ‘rhyme’ is again suggestive of Süruri’s formulation of poetry as an interplay of semantic and formal compositions that influence and are influenced by each other, which is a formulation that echoes and elaborates on his definition of şi‘r above.

9 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folios 2b–3a. 8

In the opening chapter of the Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, Süruri lists and illustrates common metric and rhyme patterns, while in the following chapter he explains and exemplifies rhetorical figures of speech, which he refers to as sanayi-i şi‘riyye (poetic arts). In his third and final chapter, Süruri gives a catalogue of the ‘similes’ (teşbihat) commonly used to describe söz (poetic speech), ışk (love), and mahbub (beloved), and offers a specimen verse for each entry to illuminate the way poets construct a simile. Among the similes used in connection with poetic speech, Süruri devotes special attention to the metaphor of sihr (magic), and writes the following regarding the notion of poetry as magic:

Söze sihr didükleri celb-i kalb itdügi içün ve her kimesne anun nazirin

getürmekden aciz oldugı içündür. Resulullah aleyhi’s-salat ve’s-selam buyurur:

‘inna min al-bayan la-sihran’ ve beyan maksudun izharına dirler lafz-ı efsah u

eblag ile. … Bu hadis-i şerifden murad medh-i beyandur … ve Resulullah

aleyhi’s-salat ve’s-selam huzurına canib-i şarkdan iki kimesne gelüp fesahat ve

belagat birle tekellüm idüp ashab ta‘accüb eyleyüp Resulullah aleyhi’s-salat ve’s-

selam bu hadis-i şerifi ol vaktde buyurmışdur.

[Poetic] speech attracts hearts, and not everyone is able to produce its like. This is

why it is likened to magic. The Prophet, prayers and peace be upon him, said:

‘Verily, there is magic in speech.’ [Poetic] speech is defined as the manifestation

of the intended [meaning] through most eloquent and articulate words. … This

noble hadith [saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad] is intended as praise

for [poetic] speech … and the Prophet, prayers and peace be upon him,

pronounced this noble hadith when his companions marveled at the way two 9

people from the eastern lands, who came into the presence of the Prophet, spoke

eloquently and articulately.10

It seems clear from Süruri’s comments that he gives special status to eloquently crafted poetry as a form of magical speech with the capacity to enchant the ‘hearts’ of its audience. Similarly, he positions the poet as a rhetorician who has a unique skill for creating touching meanings through ornate language. Also noteworthy is Süruri’s citing of the Prophet Muhammad, which can be seen as an attempt to validate poetry by an appeal to the foremost figure of religious authority, especially given that forms of magic and sorcery are disapproved in . Besides religious concerns, Süruri’s bringing the

Prophet Muhammad into the discussion seems to be also informed by his desire as a writer and teacher of poetry to portray the Prophet as an articulate man who was aware and appreciative of the power and significance of eloquent or poetic speech.

The concluding chapter of the Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif is where Süruri shares his views on ilm-i şi‘r (knowledge or discipline of poetry), with particular emphasis on the benefits of engaging with poetry, and defends poetry against the criticisms of its opponents, whom he compares to the mata‘in (those who attack and pierce with spears). Süruri begins by conceiving ilm-i şi‘r as a legitimate and valuable branch of knowledge. To this end, he cites the and hadith to underline that poetry is fully permitted in Islam:

Evvela şi‘rün cevazın beyan idelüm ki şi‘r dimek ve okımak delil-i nakli ve akli ile

sabitdür. Buna delil-i nakli kitab ve sünnetdür. Amma kitab ile sabit oldugı budur

ki Hakk Te‘ala buyurur: ‘wa al-shu‘ara yattabi‘uhum al-ghawun, illa allazin

amanu wa amilu al-salihat.’ Pes istisna delalet ider ki mümin-i salih şi‘r dimek

10 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folios 123b–124a. 10

cayiz ola, okıması ve bilmesi cayiz olmak bi’t-tarikı’l-evla ve sünnet ile sabit

oldugı budur ki Resulullah aleyhi’s-selam buyurmış: ‘inna min al-shi‘r la-

hikmatan.’ Hikmet hod matlubdur.

Let me first explain the permissibility of poetry. That writing and reading poetry

is permissible is proved by rational and religious proofs. The Book and the

tradition [of the Prophet Muhammad] serve as religious evidence. Here is the

evidence from the Book, in which God the Almighty states: ‘And the poets: those

who go astray follow them, except those who believe and do righteous deeds.’

[Quran, 26:224–27] The exception shows that a righteous believer is permitted to

write poetry and that, by the same token, there is nothing wrong for him/her to

read and be familiar with poetry. And this is evidence from the [Prophet’s]

tradition: the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: ‘Verily, there is wisdom in

poetry.’ Wisdom is what is sought after.11

Süruri’s decision to begin his account of ilm-i şi‘r with a commentary on the issue of the

‘permissibility of poetry’ in Islam can be viewed as a response to those of his contemporaries who, whether scholars or not, were skeptical or critical of poetry as a legitimate Islamic science or craft and of poets as source of knowledge or ‘wisdom’.

From the defensive tone in Süruri’s treatment of poetry, it seems that there were debates and uncertainties in mid-16th-century Ottoman circles about the Islamic status of poetry as an artistic or scholarly discipline and/or as an individual practice or pursuit. As a matter of fact, a handful of fetvas (religious opinions) issued by the şeyhülislam (chief religious official) Ebussuud Efendi (1490–1574), a contemporary of Süruri, in response

11 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folios 137a–b. 11 to inquiries about poets and their work survive as records of controversies about poetry, thus providing a historical context through which to better understand the motivation behind Süruri’s effort to legitimize poetry and its producers and consumers. For example, one of the inquiries Ebussuud Efendi received was the following: ‘Is it religiously permissible for today’s poets to write amorous or satirical poems?’ To which he replied in verse:

Abandon your passion for poetry, for it is a vain desire!

But don’t say poetry is forbidden if it is fascinatingly beautiful!12

Given such a context, in which attitudes toward poetry oscillated between approval and disapproval, it is more likely that Süruri’s opening remarks, which can be interpreted as a fetva legitimizing poetry, serve to firmly associate poetry with piety and knowledge and thereby to secure a place for it in Ottoman Islamic life.

Süruri’s discussion of the licitness of poetry also features two anecdotes, one about the Prophet Muhammad’s keen interest in poetry and one about the Prophet

Adam’s being a poet. Süruri uses these two anecdotes not only to dispel the notion that poetry is unislamic but also to suggest that poetry remained for millennia part of the lives of God’s messengers, from the first to the last:

Amru bin eş-Şüreyd babasından rivayet ider ki: ‘Bir gün bana Resulullah

aleyhi’s-selam didi: Senünle Ümeyye bin es-Salt şi‘rinden nesne var mıdur? Ben

didüm: Ne‘am. Didi ki: Söyle! Bir beyt okıdum. Didi: Dahı söyle! Bir beyt dahı

okıdum. Didi: Dahı söyle! Hatta yüz beyt okıdum.’ İmdi eger şi‘r menhi olsa

12 For this and other fetvas, see Muhittin Eliaçık, ‘Şeyhülislam Ebussuud Efendi’nin Şairlerle İlgili Fetvaları’ in 2. Uluslararası Erciyes Bilimsel Araştırmalar Kongresi, 27- 29 Eylül 2019, Kayseri: Kongre Tam Metin Kitabı, eds. Mustafa Talas and Ali Söylemez (Ispec Yayınevi, 2019), pp. 234–6. 12

Resulullah aleyhi’s-salat ve’s-selam okıtmaz ve dinlemez idi. … Şi‘rün cevazına

delil-i akli oldur ki evvela şi‘ri Adem aleyhi’s-selam Habil-nam oglınun vefatında

İbrani lugatle dimiş ki Arabisi budur:

Taghayyarat al-bilad wa man alayha

fa-wajh al-arz mughabbar qabih

Taghayyar kull zi-lawn wa ta‘m

wa qall bashashat al-wajh al-malih

Eger şi‘r söylemek ve okımak menhi olsa Hakk Te‘ala celle ve ala nehy ider idi.

Amr b. al-Shurayd reports from his father: ‘One day the Prophet, peace be upon

him, said to me: Do you know any poem of Umayyah b. al-Salt’s? Yes, I replied.

He said: Recite! I recited a distich. He said: Recite more! I recited one more

distich. He said: Recite more! I recited as far as one hundred distiches.’ Now, if

poetry were forbidden, the Prophet, prayers and peace be upon him, would not

listen to it or have it recited. … The following provides rational evidence for

poetry’s permissibility: It was Adam, peace be upon him, who first composed a

poem. Composed, originally in Hebrew, upon the death of his son named Habil

[Abel], the poem reads in Arabic as follows:

The cities and their inhabitants have changed,

the earth is covered in dust and unsightly.

The color and taste of everything have changed,

the cheerfulness of the beautiful face has diminished. 13

If writing and reading poetry were wrong, God the Almighty, may He be glorified

and exalted, would have forbidden it.13

After this introductory section, which grounds poetry’s validity in the Quran and the Prophetic tradition, Süruri presents his ideas on the benefits of poetry, and in so doing he focuses on how poetry contributes to one’s intellectual-theological, spiritual, and moral development. As an experienced teacher who witnessed the transformative influence of poetry on his pupils, Süruri begins by highlighting poetry’s contribution to children’s education. To this end, he quotes the Prophet:

Şi‘rün fevayidinün ba‘zını Resulullah aleyhi’s-salat ve’s-selam buyurmışdur:

‘allimu sibyanakum al-shi‘r fa-innahu yutliq al-lisan wa yuris al-shaja‘ah.’

The Prophet, prayers and peace be upon him, explained some of the benefits of

poetry. He said: ‘Teach your children poetry. Surely, poetry unchains the tongue

and confers courage.’14

Drawing on the Prophet’s advice, Süruri implicitly argues that interaction with poetry not only fosters children’s rhetorical skills but also enhances their self-confidence. By so arguing, he calls attention to poetry’s potential for encouraging linguistic growth and cultivating personality. That Süruri begins his comments on the uses of poetry by referring to the words of Muhammad should come as no surprise, given that he frequently cites hadith to support his views. But here Muhammad is openly portrayed as a role model who believes in the power of poetry and encourages the teaching of it. This leads us to think that Süruri’s quoting of Muhammad is also meant to undermine the position of those who found no value in poetry or dismissed it on religious and/or moral grounds.

13 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folios 137b–138b. 14 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folio 138b. 14

It is through poetry, Süruri also suggests by again quoting Muhammad, that one can acquire an insight into divine wisdom:

Bir fayide dahı budur ki şi‘rle çok hikmete ıttıla hasıl olur. … Haberde varid

olmışdur ki: ‘inna lillahi kenzen taht al-arsh mafatihuhu alsinah al-shu‘ara.’

Another benefit is that poetry gives access to plenty of wisdom and insight. … It

is reported that the Prophet said: ‘Verily, God has a treasure beneath the Throne,

the keys to which are the tongues of poets.’15

Here, at the same time as Süruri presents poetry as a source of transcendental knowledge, he positions the poet as a spiritual savant who has access to the divine realm. And again, with reference to Muhammad, he clearly seeks to convince his readers, especially those who disregard poets, of the usefulness of poetry. Perhaps more importantly and less visibly, Süruri here seems to be claiming for poetry and poets a special status and value, especially given that he establishes a linkage between poetry and divinity. Considering that he had close ties to the Sufi order and wrote extensively on , it would not be inaccurate to say that by ‘poetry’ Süruri rather means mystical poetry authored by Sufi masters. In Süruri’s eyes, one of these masters was the Persian poet

Hafiz of Shiraz (d. c. 1390), whom he referred to as ‘Tongue of the Hidden’ and

‘Expounder of Secrets’, two honorific titles echoing the significance attributed to poets in the hadith above. Not surprisingly, Süruri found Hafiz’s poetry useful as a rich mine of divine knowledge and considered his poems as the key to spiritual enlightenment.16

15 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folio 138b. 16 For Süruri’s interpretation of Hafiz and his poetry, see Murat Umut Inan, ‘Ottomans Reading Persian Classics: Readers and Reading in the Ottoman Empire, 1500–1700’ in The Edinburgh History of Reading: Early Readers, ed. Mary Hammond (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, 2020), pp. 160–81. 15

For Süruri, poetry that grants access to divine mysteries is ‘miracle’, and those knowledgeable about such poetry can therefore better understand the miraculous nature of the Quran:

Bir fayide budur ki şi‘ri bilmek ile Kur’an-ı mecidün i‘cazı zahir olur. …

Hükema-i büzürgvar şi‘ri hark-ı adeden add idüp dimişlerdür:

az -i buland-i avliya

avvalan shi‘r ast u akhir kimya

Another benefit is that when you have knowledge of poetry, the miraculousness

of the Glorious Quran becomes apparent. … Distinguished men of wisdom

consider poetry as miracle, saying:

among the great miracles of saints

poetry comes first and alchemy comes last17

Süruri draws here an intriguing comparison between mystical-esoteric poetry and the

Quran: the words of saint-poets and the Word of God are both miraculous in nature, he implies. But Süruri remains silent on whether such miraculous poetry enables one to witness the linguistic-stylistic ‘miraculousness’ of the Quran, whether it enables one to uncover deeper meanings of the Quran that are not easily accessible to readers without any background in poetry, or whether both.18 What is evident, however, is that as he relates mystical poetry to the Quran, Süruri, in a sense, revisits the hoary issue of the

17 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folio 138b. 18 It is worth pointing out here that a hadith that we find in Aşık Çelebi’s preface to the Meşa‘irü’ş-Şu‘ara advises readers of the Quran to have recourse to poetry when they are uncertain about the form and meaning of some of its words. By quoting this hadith, Aşık Çelebi, like Süruri, seems to promote the idea that poetry has the means to unravel the linguistic and semantic texture of the Quran. For the hadith, see Aşık Çelebi, Meşa‘irü’ş- Şu‘ara, p. 47. 16 status of poetry among Islamic branches of learning or in Islam generally.19 Clearly,

Süruri approaches the issue from the perspective of a poet. By arguing that can unlock the mysteries of the Islamic scripture, Süruri underlines the compatibility between poetry and Islam while drawing attention to the use of poetry to attain Islamic esoteric knowledge. It is worth noting in this connection that Süruri was also an exegete who authored a comprehensive commentary on the Quran.20 Seen in this light, Süruri’s claim that poetry provides the means for achieving insight into the inimitability of the

Quran is not so much an impressive but unsubstantiated assertion as an argument based on his own experience with Quranic exegesis as a Sufi poet-exegete. Also noteworthy in this regard is that Süruri is also the author of a voluminous commentary on Jalal al-Din

Rumi’s (1207–73) , the epitome of Persian Sufi poetry which had such quasi- scriptural significance in the Ottoman mystical tradition that it was frequently referred to as the ‘essence of the Quran’.21 Given such a context, it becomes clearer why Süruri brings the Quran into his treatment of the uses of poetry: as a Quran exegete who remained under the influence of Sufism and its seminal texts including the Masnavi,

Süruri accordingly argues that hidden miraculous aspects of the Quran can be unveiled with the help of the work of Sufi poets like and Hafiz.

Finally, Süruri points to poetry’s impact on human psychology, spirituality, and morality. He writes:

Bir fayide dahı budur ki şi‘r hadd-i nefsinde müferrihdür:

19 On this issue, see Amidu Sanni, ‘Perspectives in a Religious System: The Role and Status of Poetry in Islam’, Islamic Studies, 29, 4 (1990), 339–52. 20 For Süruri’s Quran commentary, see Tefsirü’l-Kur’ani’l-Azime, Nuruosmaniye Library, Istanbul, MS 226/317. 21 For Ottoman perceptions of Rumi’s text, see Inan, ‘Ottomans Reading Persian Classics’, pp. 163–4. 17

zirakan ra dar in saray-i kuhan

hich ghamkharai madan chu sukhan

ve şi‘r tehyic-i ruh idüp, ışk u şevk virüp ve ma‘şuk-ı hakiki canibine meyl itdürür

… ve şi‘r dimek ve okımak terkik-i kalb idüp lutf-ı tab‘a ba‘is olur. Cümle

kemalat-ı insaniyyedendür. Pes buna talib olup insan-ı kamil olmaga sa‘y itmek

gerek.

Another benefit is that poetry itself is exhilarating:

for the wise, in this dilapidated world

there is no grief-sharing friend like poetry

Poetry excites the soul, fills you with love and passion, and leads you towards the

path of the true beloved. … Writing and reading poetry softens the heart and

refines the character. All [of these] are among human virtues. One should

therefore seek these virtues and strive to become a mature human being.22

Süruri’s words can be taken as suggesting that poetry speaks to the needs of a wider audience that goes beyond pupils, seekers of divine wisdom, or readers of the Quran. The metaphor of poetry as a ‘grief-sharing friend’ is telling in this regard, since it connotes poetry’s empathetic capability to speak to the soul and thereby to appeal to people of all backgrounds. As a companion of the soul, poetry, Süruri implies, is an indispensible part of the emotional life of human beings and especially that of ‘the wise’ who turn to poems for solace, joy, or hope. For Süruri, poetry not only provides emotional comfort but also accompanies the soul on its journey towards what he calls the ‘true beloved’. Conceiving poetry metaphorically as a spiritual guide, Süruri hints that it is the one who leads the

22 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folio 139a. 18 soul to union with the transcendent beloved. This resonates well with his previous emphasis on the enlightening function of Sufi poetry. It therefore seems that here Süruri again alludes to the poetry of mystical experience, arguing that it stimulates the soul and guides it in its quest for the Divine.

After highlighting psychological and spiritual benefits, Süruri adds, by way of a concluding remark, that ‘writing and reading poetry’ refines human nature and furnishes readers and writers of poetry with ‘human virtues’. This illuminates another aspect of

Süruri’s conception of poetry, namely poetry as an enriching practice that cultivates human beings and makes them humane. It follows from Süruri’s remarks that he was an advocate for engagement with poetry, on a personal or professional level, for moral or humanistic ends. Considering that Süruri was an educator in various capacities, and especially that he was a lifelong teacher of Sufi poetry, one can interpret his words to mean that he also advocated the use of poetry for moral and humanistic education, whether in the classroom of a , madrasa, or Sufi convent or at a private or public gathering. It is worth emphasizing that Süruri’s notion of poetry as a vehicle for moral and humanistic refinement was shared by his contemporaries and successors. For example, Aşık Çelebi viewed the Bustan (Orchard) and Gulistan (Rose Garden) of the

Persian poet Sa‘di of Shiraz (d. 1292) as educational texts that were instrumental in teaching morals and manners.23 Likewise, the scholar, historian, and poet Mustafa Ali

(1541–1600), who also studied under Süruri, argued that involvement with Persian poetry

23 Inan, ‘Ottomans Reading Persian Classics’, p. 164. 19 helped Ottoman like Süleyman acquire ‘a refined disposition’.24 In a similar vein,

Nev‘i Efendi held the idea that poetry by prominent writers plays a significant role in the intellectual and moral formation of individuals. In his opinion, widely read texts such as

Rumi’s Masnavi, Yazıcıoğlu Mehmed’s (d. 1451) Muhammediyye, a lengthy Turkish poetic work on the Prophet Muhammad, and the Divan (collected poems) of the Turkish poet Aşık Paşa (1272–1332) for generations shaped the beliefs and values of Ottoman

‘elites and commoners’ alike.25 These remarks bring to light the educational importance and value of poetry in the eyes of those Ottoman ulema who were educated and skilled in poetry, while revealing that the work of poets, especially that of canonical Persian poets, formed a part of moral and humanistic education in the Ottoman world.

‘To this I respond as follows’: Süruri’s replies to opponents of poetry

In the final pages of the Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, Süruri responds to three criticisms of poetry, which, one can speculate, were frequently voiced by his contemporaries who discredited poets and their work. A common thread underlying these criticisms is that poetry is illicit within Islam and that therefore reading or writing poetry is blameworthy. Addressing each of these criticisms in turn, Süruri first quotes the opposing view and then offers his take on the issue. Taken together, Süruri’s responses serve as a rebuttal to a religiously backed discourse that identifies poetry as improper, profane, or immoral.

24 Murat Umut Inan, ‘Imperial Ambitions, Mystical Aspirations: Persian Learning in the Ottoman World’, in The Persianate World: The Frontiers of a Eurasian Lingua Franca, ed. Nile Green (Oakland, University of California Press, 2019), p. 81. 25 Nev‘izade Atayi, Hadaiku’l-Hakaik fi Tekmileti’ş-Şakaik, p. 1150. 20

First, Süruri responds to those who assert that poetry is ‘worthy of shame and flawed’, which is an assertion made with reference to two verses in the Quran that are traditionally interpreted as proof of Islam’s negative treatment of poetry and poets:

Eger ta‘in su’al iderse: ‘Hakk Te‘ala ma-i nafiye ile Kur’an-ı azimi ve Resulullah

aleyhi’s-salat ve’s-selamı tenzih idüp “wa ma huwa bi-qawl sha‘ir”, “wa ma

allamnahu al-shi‘r wa ma yanbaghi lah” diyü buyurmışdur. Pes bu kelam-ı mecid

delalet ider ki şi‘r ayb ü noksan ola.’ Biz cevab virürüz ki bundan maksud

Kur’an-ı azimi şi‘r ve kelam-ı beşer olmak töhmetinden ve Resul-i kerimi kezzab

ve şa‘ir olmak vasmetinden tenzih ü takdisdür. Murad ol degüldür ki şi‘r ayb ü

noksan ve şa‘ir mezmum ü mühan ola; belki bu kelam şi‘rün ulüvv-i derecesine ve

şa‘irün izz ü rif‘atine delildür.

The person who discredits poetry might argue as follows: ‘God the Almighty

says: “It [the Quran] is not the word of a poet.” [Quran, 69:41] He also says: “We

did not teach him [Prophet Muhammad] poetry, nor is it befitting for him.”

[Quran, 36:69] With the negative particle ma [not], God the Almighty dissociates

the Glorious Quran and the Prophet, prayers and peace be upon him, from poetry.

Therefore these glorious words [of God] suggest that poetry is worthy of shame

and flawed.’

To this I respond as follows:

These words are meant to clear the Glorious Quran of the suspicion that it is

poetry and is the word of a human, and thus serve to sanctify it [the Quran].

Likewise, these words are intended to save the noble Prophet from the disgrace of

being a liar and poet, and thereby serve to consecrate him. What is meant here is 21

not that poetry is worthy of shame and flawed or that poets are blameworthy and

looked upon with contempt. On the contrary, these words testify to the supreme

rank of poetry and to the merit and eminence of poets.26

For Süruri, the former verse serves to emphasize that the Quran is a transcendent text and as such is beyond human capability, while the latter is intended to highlight that

Muhammad is not a poet-magician who fabricates words to delude people but a true messenger who conveys the Word of God. Drawing on his exegetical expertise, Süruri thus offers a counter-interpretation to the traditional understanding of two Quranic verses favored by those who reject poetry on religious-theological grounds. Accordingly, he argues in response that these verses cannot be taken to mean that the Quran condemns poets and their words. Intriguingly, Süruri also turns the argument against poetry on its head. He does so by interpreting the two verses not as condemnation of poetry or poets but rather as a testimony to the extraordinary capacity of poetry to capture audiences and to the ability of poets to create miraculous or divinely inspired words. Though Süruri does not elaborate on why he offers this interpretation, he seems to hint that the fact that poetry is mentioned in the context of the divinity of the Quran speaks to its extraordinariness. Similarly, the fact that the Quran makes special reference to poetry and poethood in relation to the prophethood of Muhammad points not to the insignificance of poets but rather to their ‘merit and eminence’, as Süruri seems to imply. Viewed in this light, one can say that Süruri’s response to the first criticism offers a revisionist perspective on the Quran’s allegedly negative portrayal of poetry and poets, which was

26 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folios 139b–140a. 22 arguably one of the most common theological arguments of his time against poetry and poethood.

In what follows, Süruri responds to the second criticism:

Eger ta‘in su’al iderse: ‘Resulullah aleyhi’s-selam buyurmış: “la-an yamtali jawf

ahadikum qayhan hatta yariyahu khayrun min an yamtali shi‘ran.” Bu hadis-i

şerif delalet ider ki şi‘r mezmum ola.’ Biz cevab virürüz ki Mesabih ve Buhari

şerhlerinde beyan itmişlerdür ki murad bundan oldur ki şi‘rle şöyle tola ki

Kur’andan ve zikrullahdan gafil ü farig ola ve anun derunında şi‘rden gayrı

olmaya ve illa mücerred şi‘r ayb ü mezmum degüldür, belki biz sıbyana ta‘lim-i

şi‘rle me’muruz nitekim yukaruda geçdi ve ashab-ı kibardan niçe kimesneler çok

şi‘r bilürler ve dirler idi.

The person who discredits poetry might also argue as follows: ‘The Prophet,

peace be upon him, said: “It is better for anyone of you to be filled with pus that

damages your innards than to be filled with poetry.” This noble hadith indicates

that poetry is blameworthy.’

To this I respond as follows:

As the commentaries on [the hadith collection of] al-Bukhari [d. 870] and the

Masabih [a hadith collection by al-Baghawi, d. 1122] explain, this hadith refers to

those who are filled with poetry to such an extent that they become unmindful of

the Quran and neglect remembrance of God and who have got nothing inside

them but poetry. Poetry itself is not necessarily worthy of shame or blameworthy.

On the contrary, we are obliged to teach children poetry, as mentioned [in the 23

hadith] above. Also, [it is well known that] many distinguished companions of the

Prophet knew a lot of poetry and wrote poems.27

In Süruri’s opinion, this argument against poetry rests on a misunderstanding of a well- known hadith, which, one can imagine, circulated among those Ottomans who were suspicious of poetry. With reference to scholarship on hadith, Süruri explains that one cannot infer from Muhammad’s words that he rejects poetry altogether. Rather, he argues, this hadith should be understood as a warning for those who indulge solely in poetry to such an extent that they neglect religious duties and lose their piety. To support his argument that Muhammad was not categorically against poetry, Süruri reminds his readers of a hadith that he earlier cited in his discussion of the benefits of poetry, while underlining that the Prophet’s companions, too, had a lively interest in poetry. But Süruri agrees with Muhammad that one should not devote oneself exclusively to poetry, arguing that one’s first priority should be ‘religious knowledge’ and that one should therefore be educated first in ‘religious sciences’. To illuminate his point, Süruri offers his scholarly training, profile, and oeuvre as an example:

Bu fakirün egerçi şa‘ri adedince şi‘r-i şu‘urı vardur amma ilm-i şer‘ ihatası ol

kadardur ki şu‘ur-ı şi‘r anun uşr-i aşiri degüldür ve bu ma‘nayı müş‘irdür ulum-ı

diniyye ve ma‘arif-i yakiniyyede te’lifatun kesreti ve asarun vefreti ve fi’l-vaki

ilm-i nafi ve amel-i ahiretden gayriye çok iştigal mutlaka mezmumdur. … Peder-i

azizün nasihati ve üstadlarumuzun himmeti sayir uluma ziyade idi.

Though the number of this poor man’s [Süruri] insightful poems is equal to the

number of hairs on his head, his knowledge of poetry is not a tenth part of a tenth

27 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folio 140a. 24

of his erudition in religious knowledge. This is shown by the plenitude of his

works on religious sciences and [mystical] knowledge of certainty. [Thus I

believe that] it is in fact definitely blameworthy to be immersed in anything other

than useful sciences and deeds of the next world. … [As a matter of fact,] both my

dear father’s advice and the focus of my mentors’ guidance were more on other

sciences [and less on poetry].28

These words also reveal the way a member of the ulema like Süruri positions poetry vis-

à-vis ‘religious sciences’. Though Süruri views poetry as a discipline in its own right and hails it as a valuable branch of knowledge, he still holds that poetry ranks lower in the hierarchy of Islamic or religious sciences, which, one can argue, reflects the status of poetry in the eyes of the Ottoman ulema of the time. The passage above can also be read as advice from an established poet to beginning poets. Interpreted this way, it looks like, as a poet-scholar, Süruri is suggesting that those who would practice poetry professionally should first acquire a solid training in religious sciences such as Quranic exegesis, hadith interpretation, theology, and mysticism. The writings of a poet untrained in such ‘useful sciences’, Süruri implies, have little if any value as a source of knowledge or inspiration.

To the third criticism Süruri gives a lengthy response, which echoes his response to the previous criticism:

Eger ta‘in su’al iderse ki ‘İmam-ı Şafi‘i dimiş:

wa-law la al-shi‘r bi’l- yuzri

la-kuntu al-yawm ash‘ar min Labid

28 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folios 140a–140b. 25

Eger şi‘r ayb olmasa İmam aleyhi’r-rahme böyle dimez idi.’ Biz cevab virürüz ki

bu kelamun ma‘nası ‘Şi‘r aybdur ve ben şi‘r dimezin’ dimek degüldür ve illa bu

kelam hod kendüsi şi‘rdür. Belki bundan murad ‘Şi‘re tevaggul itmezin ve şi‘rle

fahr itmezin’ dimekdür. … İnsaf u tahkik budur ki ‘inna min al-bayan la-sihran’

hadis-i şerifinde ve ‘inna min al-shi‘r la-hikmatan’ haber-i münifinde kelime-i

min teb‘iziyyedür: ba‘zınun medhini ifade ider, cemi‘-i beyan ve şi‘rün medhini

ifade eylemez ve hakk budur ki sihr mezmumdur ve hikmet mahmuddur, öyleye

beyan ve şi‘rün ba‘zı mahmud ve ba‘zı mezmumdur. Pes şol beyan ve şi‘r ki hicv-i

ehl-i İslam ve taleb-i cima-ı haram içün ola ve batılı hakk ve hakkı batıl

göstermek içün ola kabih ü mezmumdur ve şol beyan ve şi‘r ki hikmet ve meva‘iz

ve medh-i Resul ve sena-i Allah hakkında ola hasen ü mahmuddur. Anunçün

Resulullah aleyhi’s-selam buyurmış: ‘halaka al-mutanatti‘un’ ya‘ni şi‘re

te‘ammuk idüp, talup ziyade tevaggul idenler helak oldılar.

The person who discredits poetry might also argue as follows: ‘The Imam al-

Shafi‘i said:

Were it not that poetry brings scholars into disrepute,

I would be today a better poet than Labid [d. 661]

If poetry were not blameworthy, the Imam al-Shafi‘i, mercy be upon him, would

not say this.’

To this I respond as follows:

These words do not mean ‘Poetry is blameworthy and I don’t write poetry’. As a

matter of fact, these words themselves are put in verse. Rather, these words mean

‘I don’t engross myself in poetry and I don’t take pride in poetry.’ … Certainly, 26

the particle min that occurs in the noble hadith that says ‘Verily, there is magic in

speech’ as well as in the esteemed report that says ‘Verily, there is wisdom in

poetry’ is a dividing particle. Thus this particle denotes that some—not all—

poetry is praiseworthy. Undoubtedly, magic is blameworthy and wisdom is

praiseworthy. Then it follows that some poetry is praiseworthy and some is

blameworthy. Poetry that is composed to criticize the people of Islam, to seek

adultery, or to present falsehood as truth, and vice versa, is improper and

blameworthy. On the other hand, poetry that contains wisdom, counsels, and

praise of God and the Prophet is pleasant and praiseworthy. This is why the

Prophet, peace be upon him, said: ‘The extremists perished.’ That is to say, those

who were extremely absorbed and engrossed in poetry perished.29

The couplet by the famous legal scholar Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi‘i (d. 820) reveals his anxiety about poetry: al-Shafi‘i fears that associating himself with poetry would harm his reputation as a member of the ulema. A similar anxiety, one can assume, was shared by those Ottoman ulema who kept their distance from poetry. Süruri makes no comment on this scholarly anxiety: he simply interprets al-Shafi‘i’s verse not as a categorical disavowal of poetry, but rather as reflecting the choice of an individual scholar not to deeply engage with poetry. In the remainder of the passage, Süruri argues, with reference to two sayings of Muhammad that he cited earlier, that not all poetry is ‘pleasant’, and thus makes a distinction between Islamically acceptable and unacceptable poems, which he calls ‘praiseworthy’ and ‘blameworthy’ poems, respectively. Accordingly, he reiterates, with reference to Muhammad’s warning about extremism, that one should not

29 Süruri, Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif, folios 141a–141b. 27 be wholly absorbed in poetry, which, for Süruri, can both guide and misguide. This suggests that, while Süruri opposes the ulema’s wholesale rejection of poetry, he understands their anxiety about being immersed in or misguided by what he designates as

‘blameworthy’ poetry.

Concluding remarks

Produced in an empire where poetry enjoyed a widespread popularity at the same time as it frequently came under attack, Süruri’s Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif—and especially its concluding chapter—provides an insight not only into the tradition of poetry in the early modern

Ottoman world, but also, more importantly, into the way an Ottoman Sufi poet and member of the ulema formulated, understood, and argued for poetry, both as an artistic form and as a valuable ‘science’ or branch of learning. One can identify two main strands in Süruri’s discussion of poetry. First, the Prophet Muhammad looms large in this discussion as Süruri frequently brings his sayings to bear on issues regarding the moral- spiritual uses and Islamic permissibility of poetry. As he highlights and responds to major criticisms of poetry, Süruri again bases much of his defense of poetry on the words of

Muhammad. This leads us to think that Muhammad’s advice and warnings about poetry had a significant influence not only on Süruri’s personal relationship with poetry but also on his understanding and defense of poetry as an Islamic art and branch of knowledge.

Next to this Islamic strand lies the Sufi strand. Süruri champions Sufi poetry as an exemplar for ‘praiseworthy’ poetry, which, he argues, provides wisdom and guidance as a significant source of religious insight and mystical knowledge. It is in connection with

Sufi poetry that Süruri makes most of his arguments about poetry, among which the 28 following two are particularly worth noting: first, that Sufi poetry offers the tools to uncover the linguistic and semantic texture of the Quran and, second, that it is a rich resource for moral and humanistic education and should be included in the curriculum.

When seen in the light of these two intersecting strands, the Bahrü’l-Ma‘arif goes beyond being a poetry handbook or a manual of poetic technique and emerges also as a work intended as an Islamic-Sufi apology for poetry, in reaction to efforts to place poetry outside the Islamic tradition of knowledge, spirituality, and morality.