acta turcica Çevrimiçi tematik türkoloji dergisi online … · 2019. 11. 18. · acta turcica...

ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org

ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019

38

SomePhilologicalandMusicalNotesona17thCenturyOttomanHymn

RecordedbyAliUfkîBey(AlbertBobowski)

AliUfkîBey(AlbertBobowski)TarafındanKaydedilmişBir17.YüzyılOsmanlıİlâhisiÜzerine

BazıFilolojikveMüzikolojikNotlar

AhmetŞefikŞenlik

Assoc.Prof.,İstanbulMedeniyetUniversity,İstanbul

[email protected]

Abstract

AliUfkîBey (WojciechBobowski) is oneof themost

important figures of the Turco-Polish cultural

relations,andaproductofbothworlds.Hewasborn

around1610inavillagenearLviv,whichbelongedto

thePolish-LithuanianCommonwealthatthetime.He

was captured during awar and brought to Istanbul.

He was then educated at the Ottoman court and

served as interpreter and counselor formany years.

Hewasamusicianandcouldspeakseverallanguages.

After his release, he chose not to leave Istanbul,

whereheprobablydiedaround1675.

Ali Ufkî Bey left behind various works on music,

languages,religionandOttomancourtlife.

From a philological and musical point of view, this

paperwilldiscussahymn,which is found inbothof

his major works containing notes and texts. This

hymnwas releasedas a cassette sound recording in

Turkey in the late 1980s. Gaining certain popularity

since then, it is written and interpreted with a

modern pronunciation, containing different musical

features andnotations bymodernmusicians. In this

paper I will try to reconstruct the text and music,

which is to be followed by a live oud performance

andsingingofthehymnadheringtoitsauthenticity.

Özet

Polonya ve Türkiye arasındaki kültürel

münasebetlerden bahsedilecekse bu iki dünyanın

ortak değeri vemahsulü olanAliUfkî Bey (Wojciech

Bobowski), en önemli simalardan biri olarak öne

çıkacaktır. 1610 civarında Lviv yakınlarındabir köyde

doğmuştur. Lviv o zamanlar Polonya-Litvanya

devletler ittifakının sahip olduğu topraklar içerisinde

bulunuyordu. Ali Ufkî Bey, bir muharebe esnasında

esiredilerekİstanbul’agetirildi.Saraydatahsilgördü,

bilahare burada uzun yıllar tercüman ve danışman

olarak hizmet verdi. Müzisyendi ve birçok dile

hâkimdi. 1675 civarında öldü. Hürriyetine

kavuştuktan sonra muhtemelen İstanbul’u terk

etmedi.AliUfkîBeymüzik,dil, din veOsmanlı saray

hayatınadairbirçokeserbırakmıştır.

Bu tebliğde, nota ve güfte ihtiva eden iki büyük

eserinin her ikisinde de bulunan bir ilahi, filolojik ve

müzikalbakımlardanmütalaaedilecektir.Sözkonusu

ilahi1980’lerinTürkiye’sindekasetüzerindeseskaydı

olarak neşredilmişti. 1980’lerden beri belli oranda

popülerlikkazananeser,orijinalindenfarklımakamve

usullerle notaya alınarak çalınmakta ve modern bir

telaffuzla okunmaktadır. Bu oturumda -farklı bir

uygulamayla- metni dönemin telaffuzunu dikkate

alarak,makamıdaaslınaircaederekudveteganniile

canlıolarakicraetmeyegayretedeceğim.



39

Keywords

Ali Ufkî Bey (Wojciech Bobowski), Musical and

LinguisticReconstruction,Ottomanphonology.

Anahtarkelimeler

Ali Ufkî Bey (Wojciech Bobowski), nağme ve metin

rekonstrüksiyonu,Osmanlıfonolojisi.

AboutthelifeandworksofAliUfkîBeyIfwearetotalkaboutTurco-Polishrelationsinacultural-historicalsense,AliUfkîBeywouldbeoneofthefirstpeopletoremember.Withoutdoubt,heiswellknowntoeveryonestudyingTurco-Polishculturalrelations,andconductingresearchonthehistoryofTurkishmusicand/orOttomanlanguage.However,Iwouldliketosayafewsentencesabouthispersonalityaswellashisworkstoremindyoubrieflyofthesubjectmatterandmakeanintroductiontomypaper:A person of Polish descent, Ali Ufkî Bey was born around 1610 in a village near Lviv. His birth name wasWojciech Bobowski. Among other things, he is also known as Albertus Bobovius. He probably came from anoblefamily.Hemusthavereceivedagoodeducationathome,whichincludedthoroughtraininginmusicandlanguages.At a youngagehewas captured in awar andbrought to Istanbul as a slave. Therehe livedandreceivededucationformanyyearsintheEnderun(i.e.‘interior’serviceoftheOttomanimperialcourt).Inthecourt he converted to Islamand adopted thenameAli. In theEnderun hemainly served as amusician anddragoman.Heplayedzither,butprobably learned luteaswell.Hespokeseveral languages, includingPolish,Turkish,Arabic,Persian,Latin,Italian,French,GermanandGreek.Hewasmanumittedfrombondageafter19years. After gaining his freedom, he continued to live in Istanbul,where he died around 1675. His place ofdeath is not without controversy.Whereas some researchers think that he passed away in Istanbul, someothersthinkthatKrakówishisrestingplace(cf.Öztuna1990:54,Cevher1995:7-12,Behar2005:17-55).AgataPawlina,ayoungdiligentresearcherfromKrakówworksonhisbirthdateandplace,early life,ancestorsetc.Mostlikelyverysoon,wewilllearnaboutAliUfkîBeymore.Ali Ufkî Beywrote and/or translated severalworks in the fields ofmusic, philology, religion, and sociology,includingMecmū‘a-i SāzüSözand thesketchbook registered inBibliothèqueNationaledeFranceunder thesignature[Turc292],whichcontainthehymnIwilltalkabouttoday.Therearealsonumerousworks,essays,dissertations,books,etc.writtenabouthispersonalityandworks,pennednotonlyinTurkeyandPoland,butalsoinothercountries.IhadmyfirstencounterwithAliUfkîBeywhenIwas17yearsold,i.e.in1985,inSivas,thankstoafacsimileeditionofhisfamousmusicalworkMecmū‘a-iSāzüSöz(CollectionofCompositionsandPoetries,hereinafterabbreviatedas[MSS]),andatthattimeIprobablydidnotevenknowthathewasofPolishdescent.Istudiedtheworkinvainforalongtimetounderstandit.Myphilologicalandmusicalknowledgewasobviouslynotripeenough at the time. After awhile, I gave up on this humble investigation and returned the facsimile to itsowner.Afewyearslater,whenIwasstudyinginIstanbul-presumablyintheyear1988-Iheardsomesongsfromhiscollectionbookforthefirsttime,givingmegreatersympathyforAliUfkîBey. IwasprobablyoneofthefirstluckyonesinTurkeywhowasabletolistentoandenjoythismusic.ItwasthecassetteeditionreleasedbyRuhiAyangilandhisband.AsfarasIcanremember,thecassettecontainedaboutadozensongsbasedonAliUfkî



40

Bey’sbook,andmostofthemwerehymns.However,whatcapturedthegreatestattentionwasthefirsthymnperformedfollowingazitherimprovisationbyAyangil.ThishymnwouldsoongaingreatpopularityamongtheTurks.Nowadays,itisknowntoalmostallTurks.Here, Iwill talkabout thishymn, sharingwithyousomephilologicalandmusical remarks.Thehymncanbefound in bothworks, i.e. [MSS] (Elçin 1976: 248) dated 1650 and [Turc 292] (298r) in Paris, in BibliothèqueNationaledeFrance.Itispossibletosummarizeasfollowsthedatainbothmanuscriptsregardingthehymn: Source Poet Composer Mode RhythmicPattern

1 [MSS] SulṭānMurādHan Sultan MurādHan?

Evc(tonicnoteE/Mi)

𝄡 clefonthe3rdline

12/2(devr-irevān)

2 [Turc292] Murād(pseudonym in thepoem)

-- --(tonicnoteC/Do?)

𝄡 clefonthe4thline?

12/2

1.[MSS](Elçin,1976:248):

2.[Turc292/298r]inBibliothèqueNationaledeFrance:



41

[Turc292]containsthesametextinArabic-Ottomanletterswithtwominimalmorphologicaldifferenceswith[MSS]whicharepointedoutbelow.Therefore,Ishallnotpresentitstexthereagain.However,asearchonthenotesofthehymnrevealsthefollowingmodernsourcesaswell: Source Poet Composer Mode Timesignature

1 RuhiAyangil MuradIII MuradIII Irak 3/42 M.HakanCevher Murad Murad? Maḳām-ıMezbūr[Evc] Devr-irevān3 [Bekir]RehaSağbaş

(inA.Hatipoğlu) “Evcİlahi–onthepitchIrak”

4 A.[hmet]Hatipoğlu MuradIV Kürdi(falling)-MuhayyerKürdi 6/45 RemziOktan -- MuradIV MuhayyerKürdi 6/46 HalilCay MuradIII MuradIII Kürdi 6/47 İsmetBurkay Ali Ufkî

BeyMuradIII MuhayyerKürdi 6/4

8 turksanatmuzigi.org MuradV MuradV MuhayyerKürdi 6/41.R[uhi]Ayangil[MuratBardakçı?]:

2.M.HakanCevher(1995:771):

/../

The first note on the second row should be C/Do (“Fa” in Turkish notation) and not A/La (“Re” in Turkishnotation).



42

3.[Bekir]RehaSağbaş(citedbyHatipoğlu):

“Kaynak: Ali Ufkî’den Reha Sağbaş imzalı Evc ilahi olarak ırak perdesinde yazılmış olan bu ilâhi, makamkarakteriveprogramgereğidügâhta“iniciKürdî”olarakyazıldı.A.Hatipoğlu,Aralık99.”“Source: Written by Reha Sağbaş in the Evcmaqam (mode) and on the pitch irak, this hymn was herebyrewritten in themodeofdescendingKürdi on thepitchdügâh as per themaqam features andprogram.A.Hatipoğlu,December99.”4.A.Hatipoğlu:

5.RemziOktan:



43

6.HalilCay:

7.İsmetBurkay:

8.turksanatmuzigi.org:

Obviously,theinformationprovidedbythesesourcesisquitediscrepantfromeachother.Suchinconsistencyalsoinvolvesverystrangeandfantasticalstatements.Forinstance,AliUfkîBeyisreferredtoasthepoetinonesheetmusic,whileanothercitesMuradeitherasonlythepoetandboththecomposerandpoet.Furthermore,forthis17th-centurypoem,evenonecasemistakesthenameMuradforMuradV,asultanwholivedinthe19thcentury.



44

PhilologicalNotesIfweattempttorewritethetextofthehymnin[MSS]inprintedArabic-Ottomancharacters,itwouldlookasinthe following rows. [Turc292]has the same text,butwithout the title (the rows [١] and [٢]). Twowords in[Turc 292] with different morphological structures are represented in brackets [ ]. I did not mark theorthographicdifferencesbetweenmanuscripts,whichwouldbeirrelevantforthescopeofthisstudy.

Alongwith theentire textwritten inArabic-Ottoman letters, the first quatrainof [Turc292]wasalsonoteddowninLatinscript:Vian i giozlerimgafletdenVianVianVikusi ciokgiozlerimVianAzrailunkasdigianeder inanVian i ghiozlerimgafletdenVianVianuikusiciokghiozlerimVian.Thetextcouldbeinterpretedasfollows:



45

uyan ėy gözlerim ġafletden uyan / uyan uyḳusï çok gözlerim uyan / azrailün kasdi canedǝr inan/ uyan ėygözlerimġafletdenuyan/uyanuyḳusïçokgözlerimuyan.Aboutthepoetandcomposer:Astypicalforsuchworks,thetitleofthetextin[MSS]isnotTurkish.Apartfromtheeulogyphrase,itiswrittenentirelyinPersian.Thefirstlinereadsilāhī[-i]sulṭānmurādḫan-ṭābeserāhu ‘HymnofSultanMuradKhan,mayhisgravebepleasanttohimself’,whichstatesthatthetextisbyacertainSultanMurad.ButwhichMuradcould that be? Until Ali Ufkî’s time there had already been four sultans named Murad and all four hadsomehow written poems. They were: Murad I. (1326-1389), Murad II. (Muradî) (1404-1451), Murad III.(Muradî)(1546-1595)andMuradIV.(Muradî)(1611-1640).

ManyresearchersandmusiciansbelievethatheisMuradIII,asseeninthesheetmusicabove.Theytake it forgrantedprobablybecausehe istheonlySultanMuradtohavecompiledadivan.Yet, itshouldbeunderlined that this hymn is not found in his divan,which is supposed to contain all the poems of a poet.Stylistically,too,thehymnsubstantiallydiffersfromthepoemsinSultanMurad’sdivan.Whereasthepoemsinthedivan,asusual,haveahighstyle;thishymn,whichwasnotwritten inaruzmeter,canbetermedratherfolksybecauseofitswordrepertoireandstyles.SonoonecanknowforcertainwhetherthetextreallybelongstoMuradIII. Inmyopinion,there isagreater likelihoodthatthepoemwaswrittenbyMuradIV,whowrotesomepoems,evenifhedoesnotcompileadiwan.TetikalsoarguesthatitwasaworkofMuradIV(2005:17ff.).Nospecificcomposer ismentionedinthemanuscripts.Therefore,thiscouldbesomeSultānMurādHan,butnotnecessarily.TheArabiceulogy forMuradcouldnotbe readatall inmostcases,or simplymisread:Forexample,Cevher(1995:771)andİşler(2018:89ff.)readthefirstwordas“tab-ı...”asifitwereaPersianizafet.Beharreadtheeulogy as “tāle bekahu” (2016: 200), whichmeans “may his existence (life) be long”. A eulogywith such ameaning forMurad III (orMurad IV.), i.e.analreadydeadperson,wouldseem implausible.By that time,allpossibleSultanMuradshadbeendead(thefifthandthelastOttomansultannamedMuradwholivedbetweentheyears1840-1904wasnotbornyet).Thus,thecorrectreadingoftheeulogywouldhavetobeṭābeserāhu‘mayhisgravebepleasanttohimself’.AboutTranscriptionandPronunciation:Itranscribedthetextasfollowsaccordingto[MSS](Elçin,1976:248),whichdatesbacktotheyear1650.AsfarastheOttomanlanguageisconcerned,the17thcenturyisthetimewhenaseriesofphonologicalchangestookplace.Theso-calledlabialharmony,whichtodayexistsinstandardTurkish,emergedonlyinthe17thcentury.Priortoandduringthe17thcenturythelabialharmonywasnotstable,contrarytothesubsequentcenturyandtoday. Two places with different morphological structures in [Turc 192] are demonstrated in { }, whileparentheses()showthealternativepronunciation(ofvernacularlanguageofIstanbul)inthetranscribedtext.1)ilāhī[-i]sulṭānmurādḫan-ṭābeserāhuHymnofSultanMuradKhan–mayhisgravebepleasanttohimself(inmodernTurkish:Toprağıbololsun!‘Mayhisearthbeplenty!’)2)dermaqām-imezbūruṣūleşdevr-irevān



46

Intheabove-mentionedmode[Maqām-ıEvc];itsrhythmicpatternisDevr-iRevān.3)oyan(uyan)ėygözlerüm(gözlerim)ġafletdenoyan(uyan)//oyan(uyan)uyuqusï(uyqusï)çoqgözlerüm(gözlerim) oyan (uyan) // ‘azrā’īlüŋ qaṣdï cānedür (canedǝr) inan // oyan (uyan) ėy gözlerüm (gözlerim)ġafletdenoyan(uyan)Awake, omy eyes, awake fromheedlessness! Awake,my bleary eyes. The angel of death surely intends tomakeanattemptonyourlife.Awake,omyeyes,awakefromheedlessness!4)seḥerdeoyanurlar(uyanurlar){oyanur(uyanur)}cümlequşlar/dillüdillerincetesbīḥebaşlar/tevḥīdeylerḋaġlarṭaşlaraġaçlar/oyan(uyan)-eyżan-Allbirdswakeupatdawn.TheybegintopraisetheLordintheirownlanguage.Themountains,rocksandtreesallconfesshisunity.Awake,-thesame[refrain]-5) semāvātuŋ qapularınï {qapuların} açarlar / mü’minlere (mü:minlere) raḥmet ṣuyın ṣaçarlar / seḥerdeqalqanaḥullebiçerler/oyan(uyan):Theyopenthegatesoftheheavens,distributethewaterofmercy[i.e.rain]tothefaithful.Celestialgarmentsarecutoutforthosewakingupatdawn.Awake!:6)benem(benim/benüm)murādquluŋṣuçumï ‘afvėtṣuçumbaġışlayupgünāhumref‘ėt/resūlüŋsancaġïdibindeḥaşrėt/oyan(uyan)Itisme,yourhumbleservantMurad,forgivememysins.Pardonmymistakesandremitmysins.ResurrectmeunderthestandardoftheProphet.Awake...7)oyan(uyan)ėygözlerüm(gözlerim)ġafletdenoyan(uyan)Awake,omyeyes,awakefromheedlessness!Sunginapopularversion,thisquatrainisnotfoundinanyofthebooksbyAliUfkîBey:

Budünyafanidirsakınaldanma!Mağruroluptacütahtadayanma!Yediiklimbenimdeyügüvenme!Uyaneygözlerimgaflettenuyan![Thisworldisephemeral,donoteverbedeceivedbyit!Donotindulgeinvanity,relyingoncrownandthrone!Donotbeoverconfident,claimingrulershipofthesevenclimes!Awake,omyeyes,awakefromheedlessness!]

Onhissheetmusic,Ayangilclaimstohavetransformed/rewrittenthetextandnotesfrom[MSS].Therebyheaddedthisquatrain,whichisnotfoundin[MSS].Itisnotclearwherehetookthistext,butcertainlynotfrom[MSS].Abouttheverboyan-/uyan-andthelabialharmony:Animportantquestionis:Howshouldwereadthefirstwordofthepoem?uyanoroyan?Thecombination<او>canusuallybereadinOttomantextsas/o/,/ö/,/u/and/ü/.Inourcase,only/o/and/u/arepossible.Today,thesamewordispronouncedwith/u/instandardTurkish.Butwasitthesameinthe17thcenturyorearlier?No,notreally.Eventhoughtheverbsuyumakanduyanmakarephoneticallyandsemanticallysimilartoeach



47

other,theseverbsdonotoriginatefromthesamestem.Uyu-comesfromuðı:-anduyan-fromoðɣan-<*oð-(Clauson 1972:42 and 62). The former signifies the process into or in sleep,whereas the latter involves themeaning‘fromsleep’.Thus,theyareoftenpronouncedtogether,suchasuyuyup-oyanmak,uyudum-oyandımetc.Theanalogycausedtheassimilationoftheinitial/o/andhence,wepronouncethewordasuyan-today.Anotherandpossiblymore importantreasonhastodowithregressiveassimilation,meaningthattheclosedsemi-consonant/y/triggeredachangeinthevowelfromopen/o/toclose/u/.

Meninski,who learnedTurkish fromAliUfkîBey, gives theword inhismonumental andmammothworkwithaninitial/o/asoyanmak,andtheotheronewith/u/asuyuku(1680:554-556).AlsoinsomedialectsofTurkish,thewordisstillpronouncedasoyan-today.Butwefindthesewordsasuyan-anduykuintheLatintextin[Turc292].Whatdoesthispurporttobe?Inmyview,thesewordswerepronouncedasoyan-/uyukuinthehigh-classlanguageofthe17th-centuryelitesandasuyan-/uykuinthevernacularlanguageofIstanbul.

To sum up, regarding labial harmony I argue that Meninski’s Lexicon represents a conservative-formalpronunciation(thereforegözlerüm),whereas[Turc292]indicatesachangingmodernpronunciation(thereforegözlerim)inthesamecentury.OntheNotationandtheMusicComparisonof[MSS]and[Turc-292]:

A comparison of both versions of the hymn reveals that the first andmajor difference has to do with thepositionsoftheclefs.Whiletheclefin[MSS]isonline3(𝄡),itisplacedonline4in[Turc292].Ibelievethat

theclefonline4(𝄡)inthesketchbook[Turc292]waswrittenbymistake.Anothermajorproblemisthatthe



48

secondmeasureof[MSS](2ndrow)isnotcompleteregardingthetime.Thus,Ipreferredthemeasurein[Turc292]overthemeasurein[MSS].Combination(1)ofthetwoexamples(withtheclef𝄡 online3):

Thecombinationconsistsoftwocommonmeasures,onefrom[MSS]andtwofrom[Turc292].[*]♯ on the3rdmeasurealso lends itself toanalternative interpretation.Thus, I took the3rdmeasure from[Turc292].Itisalsopossibletointerpretthehymnwithoutit.

Combination(2)(withtheclef 𝄞 online2,asusualinTurkishnotationtoday):

BelowisthetranspositiononthepitchFa♯(EuropeanC♯),whichisthetonicnote(kararperdesi)formaqamEvc.Ifwetransposethepiece(keepingallintervalsasintheoriginal),weobtainthefollowingnotation.



49

Explanationsforkeysignatures:Si [ ] (Turkish): The reason I use it is because it is alwayswritten inmodernnotationsof Evc pieces as keysignature.However,thetranspositionoftheintervalsusedinthehymnin[MSS]doesnotrequirethissign,soIrepresenteditin[].(Thus,thereisnoneedtoplayithere.)Fa♯ (Turkish): It iswrittenbothbecauseoftranspositionofscaleandthemodalfeaturesofEvc. It isalwayswrittenatthebeginningofnotesofEvcpieces.ThispitchisalsothetonicnoteofEvc.Do[♯](Turkish):ThisisanaccidentalinEvc.Eventhoughitisneverwrittenaskeysignatureinmodernusage,the transposition of scale from original note requires to play the piece always with this sign. In modernnotationitcanbeplacedbetweennotes,ifnecessary.Iplaceditinlieuofkeysignatures-howeverin[]-,forDoisplayedalwayswith[♯]inthishymn.Summary:Si[ ]shallneverbeplayedinthishymn.However,Fa♯andDo[♯]shouldalwaysbeplayed.Explanationsforaccidentalsonthethirdrow:Sol[♯ ](Turkish):Itisonlyfoundin[Turc292].Soitcanonlybeusedforanalternativeinterpretation.Sol [ ♮ ] (Turkish): According to the general features of Turkish music. If the sign [ ♯] should be used inascendingpartsinsomespecialcases,itshouldbechangedto[♮]indescendingmelodies.



50

Aboutthemode(maqam):Thehymn’stitle informsusof itsmaqam:dermaqām-imezbūr,meaning ‘intheabove-mentionedmaqam’.Since Ali Ufkî placed this hymn in the chapter titledMaqam-Evc (Eviç), we should assume that it was alsocomposedinthesaidmaqam.ThetypicalpitchesoftheMaqam-Evcareasfollows(Öztuna1990:268,cf.Özkan1990:449):

Thefeaturesoftheabovementionedmaqamsonmusicsheetsbysomemusicians(Irak,KürdiandMuhayyerKürdi)canbecomparedinÖzkan(1990:111ff.,445ff.,467ff.)Differencesbetweenmaqamdescriptionsintheorybooksandtheintervalstructureofthehymn:After the transposition of scale we do not obtain a Si [ ] (one point lower), which is necessary inmodernnotationofEvc.OneoftheimportantaspectsofmaqamEvcisthatpiecescomposedwithitveryoftenrequireaMi[♯],eventhoughitisneverwrittenaskeysignature.Thesaidsignisusuallywrittenbeforetherelatednote,ifrequired.OurhymnusesnoMi[♯],butjustMi.Abouttherhythmicpattern(usul):ThetitleofthehymnindicatesthatitsrhythmpatternisDevr-iRevān(uṣūleşdevr-irevān).Inmoderntheorybooks on Turkish music, three types of rhythmic patterns are described in which the name Devr-i Revanappears:1)MaybethemostfamousisDevr-iRevanofMaulawis/Ayin(‘Ayin/MevleviDevr-iRevanı’).

(14/4or14/8=3+4+3+4)(Öztuna1990:I/221,Özkan1990:634-642).2)AnotheroneisDevr-iRevanofSongs(‘ŞarkıDevr-iRevanı’)

(13=3+4+4+2)(Öztuna1990:II/336,Özkan1990:634-642).3)ThelastoneisDevr-iRevanofBektashis(‘BektaşiDevr-iRevanı’)

(13=4+5+4)(Öztuna1990:I/152,Özkan1990:634-642).Anexaminationofthehymninthemanuscriptsrevealsthatpatternsconsistof12units,meaningthatnoneoftheabovementionedthreecategoriesmatchestherhythmicpatternofthehymn.If we consult the theory books again, we would find some rhythm patterns consisting of 12 units such asFrenkçin(3+3+2+2+2=12),NimÇember(4+6+2=12)orİkizAksak(7+5=12)(Özkan1990:626ff.).Noneofthemhasthesamestructureregardingdistributionandemphasisasthehymn.



51

In summary, I believewe have to accept that the hymnwas composed on a 12-unit pattern namedDevr-iRevan in the 17th century, which does notmatch today’s standards. However, it should be underlined thatsince1988thehymnhasbeennotatedandplayedasSemai(3/4)orYürükSemâî(6/8or6/4),whichisarguablyerroneous.Inmypresentation,thereweretimesIhadtoprovidetoomany-andmaybeunnecessary-musicalexplanations,forwhich Iapologize tomusicalexperts.However, Ihad toconsider that thepaperwillnotonlybe readbyprofessionalmusicians.As a final remark, it was a great pleasure for the author of this paper to play and sing the hymn in themagnificent hall of a historical building, i.e. the council hall of the Palace ofWielopolski Family (today theCouncilChamberofKrakówCity).



52

ReferencesBehar,C.

2005.MusıkidenMüziğe,Osmanlı/TürkMüziği:GelenekveModernlik.İstanbul 2008.SaklıMacmua,AliUfkî’ninBibliothèqueNationaledeFrance’taki[Turc292]Yazması.İstanbulCevher,M.H. 1995.AliUfkîBeyveHazaMecmu’a-iSazüSöz(Transkripsiyon,İnceleme),[Doktoratezi],İzmir.Clauson,G. 1972.AnEtymologicalDictionaryofPre-ThirteenthCenturyTurkish.Oxford.Meninski,F.áM.

1680. Thesaurus Linguarum Orientalium Turcicae, Arabicae, Persicae – Lexicon Turcico, Arabico,PersicumI.Viennae.

Elçin,Ş. 1976.AliUfkî,Macmua-iSazüSöz.İstanbul.İşler,U. 2018.Mecmua-iSazüSöz’deYerAlanDiniEserlerinİncelenmesi[YüksekLisansTezi].Çorum.Özkan,İ.H.

1990.TürkMusıkisiNazariyatıveUsulleri,İstanbul.Öztuna,Y.

1990.BüyükTürkMusikîsiAnsiklopedisiI-II.Ankara.Tetik,S. 2005.IV.Murad’ınSarayındaMüzikveMüzisyenler[YüksekLisansTezi],İstanbul.

acta turcica Çevrimiçi tematik türkoloji dergisi online … · 2019. 11. 18. · acta turcica...

Documents