ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online … · 2019. 11. 18. · ACTA TURCICA...
Transcript of 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
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.
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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:
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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).
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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:
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
43
6.HalilCay:
7.İsmetBurkay:
8.turksanatmuzigi.org:
Obviously,theinformationprovidedbythesesourcesisquitediscrepantfromeachother.Suchinconsistencyalsoinvolvesverystrangeandfantasticalstatements.Forinstance,AliUfkîBeyisreferredtoasthepoetinonesheetmusic,whileanothercitesMuradeitherasonlythepoetandboththecomposerandpoet.Furthermore,forthis17th-centurypoem,evenonecasemistakesthenameMuradforMuradV,asultanwholivedinthe19thcentury.
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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:
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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.
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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.
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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.
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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).
ACTA TURCICA Çevrimiçi Tematik Türkoloji Dergisi Online Thematic Journal of Turkic Studies actaturcica.org
ÖzelSayı“PolonyaveTürkDünyası”,Kasım2019
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.