formed a style of his own, had many to imitate him, of whom Sabri Shakir, a contemporary, was the most successful. Na ili, Jevri, and Fehim need not detain us; but Nabi, who flourished under Ibrahim and Muhammed IV., calls for a little more attention. This prolific author copied, and so imported into Ottoman literature, a didactic style of ghazel- writing which was then being introduced in Persia by the poet Sa ib; but so closely did the pupil follow in the footsteps of his master that it is not always easy to know that his lines are intended to be Turkish. A number of poets, of whom Seyyid Yehbi, Raghib Pasha, Rahmi of the Crimea, Kelim, and Sami are the most notable, took Nabi for their model. Of these, Sami is remarkable for the art with which he constructed Ids ghazels. Among the writers of this time who did not copy Nabi are Sabit, Rasikh, and Talib, each of whom endeavoured, with no great success, to open up a new path for himself. We now reach the reign of Ahmed III., during which flourished Nedim, the greatest of all the poets of the old school. Little appears to be known about his life further than that he resided at Constantinople and was alive in the year 1727 (A.H. 1140). Nedim stands quite alone: he copied no one, and no one has attempted to copy him. There is iti his poetry a joyousness and sprightliness which at once distinguish it from the work of any other Turkish author. His ghazels, which are written with great elegance and finish, contain many graceful and original ideas, and the words he makes use of are always chosen with a view to harmony and cadence. His kasulas are almost equal to his ghazels; for, while they rival those of Nef i in brilliancy, they surpass them in beauty of diction, and are not so artificial and dependent on fantastic and far-fetched conceits. The classical period comes to an end with Nedim; its brightest time is that which falls between the rise of Nef i and the death of Nedim, or, more roughly, that extending from the accession of Ahmed I., 1603 (1012), to the deposition of Ahmed III., 1730 (1143).
We will now glance at the prose writers of this period. Under the name of Humdyun Ndma (Imperial Book) Ali Chelebi made a highly esteemed translation of the well-known Persian classic Anvdri Suheyli, dedicating it to Suleyman I. Sa d-ud-Din, the preceptor of Murad III., wrote a valuable history of the empire from the earliest times to the death of Selirn I. This work, the Tdj-ut-Tevdrlkh (Crown of Chronicles), is reckoned, on account of its ornate yet clear style, one of the masterpieces of the old school, and forms the first of an unbroken series of annals which are written, especially the later among them, with great minuteness and detail. Of Sa d-ud-Din's successors in the office of imperial historiographer the most remarkable for literary power is Na ima. His work, which extends from 1591 (1000) to 1659 (1070), contrasts strongly with that of the earlier historian, being written with great directness and lucidity, combined with much vigour and picturesqueness. Evliya, who died during the reign of Muhammed IV., is noted for the record which he has left of his travels in different countries. About this time Tash-kopri-zada began and Ata-nllah continued a celebrated biography of the legists and sheykhs who had flourished under the Ottoman monarchs. Haji Khalifa (see vol. xi. p. 377), frequently termed Katib Chelebi, was one of the most famous men of letters whom Turkey has produced. He died in 1658 (1068), having written a great number of learned works on history, biography, chronology, geography, and other subjects. The Persianiziug tendency of this school reached its highest point in the pro ductions of Veysi, who left a Life of the Prophet, and of Nergisi, a miscellaneous writer of prose and verse. Such is the intentional obscurity in many of the compositions of these two authors that every sentence becomes a puzzle, over which even a scholarly Otto man must pause before he can be sure he has found its true meaning. The first printing press in Turkey was established by an Hungarian who had assumed the name of Ibrahim, and in 1728 (1141) appeared the first book printed in that country; it was Vankuli's Turkish translation of Jevheri's Arabic dictionary.
Coming now to the post-classical period, we find among poets Postworthy of mention Beligh, Nevres, Hishmet, and Sunbuli - zada classical Vehbi, each of whom wrote in a style peculiar to himself. Three period, poets of note Pertev, Neshet, and Sheykh Ghalib flourished under Selim III. The last-named is the fourth great poet of the old school. Husn u Ashk (Beauty and Love), as his great poem is called, is an allegorical romance full of tenderness and imaginative power. Ghalib's style is as original as that of Fuziili, Nef i, or Nedim. The most distinguished of the prose writers of this period are perhaps Rashid, the imperial historiographer, Asim, who translated into Turkish two great lexicons, the Arabic Kdmtis and the Persian JBurhdn-i Kdti and Kani, the only humorous writer of merit belonging to the old school.
When we reach the reign of Mahmud II., the great transition Transiperiod of Ottoman history, during which the civilization of the tion West began to struggle in earnest with that of the East, we find period, the change which was coming over all things Turkish affecting literature along with the rest, and preparing the way for the appearance of the new school. The chief poets of the transition are Fazil Bey, Wasif, notable for his not altogether unhappy attempt to write verses in the spoken language of the capital, Izzet Molla, Pertev Pasha, Akif Pasha, and the poetesses Fitnet and Leyla. In the works of all of these, although we occasionally discern a hint of the new style, the old Persian manner is still supreme.
More intimate relations with western Europe and a pretty general Modern study of the French language and literature, together with the school, steady progress of the reforming tendency fairly started under Mahmud 11., have resulted in the birth of the new or modern school, whose objects are truth and simplicity. In the political writings of Reshid and Akif Pashas we have the first clear note of change; but the man to whom more than to any other the new departure owes its success is Shinasi Efendi, who employed it for poetry as well as for prose. The European style, on its introduction, encountered the most violent opposition, but now it alone is used by living authors of repute. If any of these does write a pamphlet in the old manner, it is merely as a tour de force, or to prove to some faithful but clamorous partisan of the Persian style that it is not, as he supposes, lack of ability which causes the modern author to adopt the simpler and more natural fashion of the West. The whole tone, sentiment, and form of Ottoman literature have been revolutionized by the new school: varieties of poetry hitherto unknown have been adopted from Europe; an altogether new branch of literature, the drama, has arisen; while the sciences are now treated and seriously studied after the system of the West. Among writers of this school who have won distinction are Ziya Pasha, Jevdet Pasha, the statesman and historian, Ekrem Bey, the author of a beautiful series of miscellaneous poems, Zemzema, Hainid Bey, who holds the first place among Ottoman dramatists, and Kemal Bey, the leader of the modern school and one of the most illustrious men of letters whom his country has produced. He has written with conspicuous success in almost every branch of literature, history, romance, ethics, poetry, and the drama.
For the Turkish language, see p. 661 below.
There is no work in existence which gives a satisfactory account of Ottoman literature. Von Hammer -Purgstall's Geschichte der Osmanischen Dichtkunst (Pesth, 1836) is not always trustworthy and leaves much to be desired in many ways. Other works on the poetry are La llvse Ottomane, by Servan de Sugny (Paris, 1853); On the History, System, and Varieties of Turkish Poetry, by Redhouse (London, 1878); Ottoman Poems, by Gibb (London, 1882). Of transla tions we have Baki's Divan, by Hammer (Vienna, 1825); the Travels o/Eiiiyd, by Hammer (London, 1834); Rose and Kachtigall (a poem of Fazli, a mediocre writer of the time of Suleyman I.), Turkish and German, by Hammer (Pesth); Les Consells de Nabi Efendi, by Pavet de Courteille (Paris, 1857); The history of the Forty Vezirs, by Gibb (London, 1886). An interesting and valuable sketch of Ottoman poetry is given by Kemal Bey in a series of articles in the Turkish literary journal Mejmu a-i Ebu-g-Ziyd. (e. j. w. g.)
TURKEY, an abbreviation for TURKEY-COCK or TURKEYHEN as the case may be, a well-known large domestic gallinaceous bird. How it came by this name has long been a matter of discussion, for it is certain that this valu able animal was introduced to Europe from the New World, and in its introduction had nothing to do with Turkey or with Turks, even in the old and extended sense in which that term was applied to all Mahometans. But it is almost as unquestionable that the name was origin ally applied to the bird which we know as the Guinea-Fowl (q.v.), and there is no doubt that some authors in the 16th and 17th centuries curiously confounded these two species. As both birds became more common and better known, the distinction was gradually perceived, and the name " Turkey " clave to that from the New World possibly because of its repeated call-note to be syllabled turk, turk, turk, whereby it may be almost said to have named itself (cf. Notes and Queries, ser. 6, iii. pp. 23, 369). But even Linnaeus could not clear himself of the confusion, and unhappily misapplied the name Meleagris, undeniably belonging to the Guinea-Fowl, as the generic term for what we now know as the Turkey, adding thereto as its specific designation the word gallopavo, taken from the Gallopava of Gesner, who, though not wholly free from error, was less mistaken than some of his contemporaries and even successors.[1]
- ↑ The French Coq and Pou.lt d Inde (whence Dindou) involve no contradiction, looking to the general idea of what India then was. One of the earliest German names for the bird, Kalekuttisch Hun (whence the Scandinavian Kalkon), must have arisen through some mistake at present inexplicable; but this does not refer, as is generally supposed, to Calcutta, but to Calicut on the Malabar coast (cf. Notes and Queries, ser. 6, x. p. 185).
