Introduction: the Qabus-nama by Keykavus ibn Iskandar and its translations into Turkish
The Qabus-nama is an essential work of Persian language and literature, written by Emîr Unsuru’l-Ma’âlî Keykavus ibn Iskandar ibn Qabus ibn Voshimgir for his son Gilan shah in AH 475/AD 1082. Keykavus ibn Iskandar belonged to the Ziyârîd Dynasty, which ruled the Tabaristan and Gorgan states of Persia. The Qabus-nama is an example of the nasihatname (literary advice) and siyasetname (political treatise) genres.
This work, also known as the Enderz-nâme, Pend-nâme, Nasîhat-nâme, and Kitâbu’n-Nasîhat, became widely known as the Qabus-nama. The book consists of an introductory section and 44 chapters. The chapters provide information about every aspect of life, such as meals, rules of gatherings and drinking, playing chess, making jokes, being a guest and hosting, washing, hunting, playing ball, purchasing concubines and slaves, having knowledge of the sciences such as medicine, astrology, and geometry, and preparing for the positions of sultan and vizier.
The Qabus-nama was first published by Riza Qoli Khan in Iran (Tehran, 185/1868), and nearly 20 other publications of the work emerged at later dates. A translation by Mercimek Ahmed was published in 1298/1880 in Kazan, with the support of someone named Abdülkurun Shirvânî. It was also translated into the Kazan dialect by Kayyum Nâsirî and published twice (Kazan, 1884, 1898). The Qabus-nama was translated into German by H. F. von Diez (Buch des Kabus; Berlin, 1811), into French by A. Querry (Le Cabous Nâme; Paris, 1866), into English by Reuben Levy (A Mirror for Princes; London, 1951), and into Arabic by Emin Abdülmecid Bedevî (Kitâbu’n-Nasîhat el-ma’rûf bi’smi Kabus-nâme; Cairo, 1378/1958).Footnote 1 It was also translated into Russian by a corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Y. E. Bertels (Moscow, 1953).Footnote 2
This work of literature has been translated into Turkish nine times, into both the Western and Eastern branches of Turkish: the first was by an unknown translator; the second was by Sheyhoglu Sadruddin; the third was by Akkadıoglu; the fourth was by Bedr-i Dilshad in verse: Murad-nâme; the fifth was by Mercimek Ahmed; the sixth was by another unknown translator; the seventh was by Nazmîzâde Murtazâ; the eighth (the first translation into Chagatai Turkish) was by Muhammad Siddiq al-Muqallib (Rushdie); and the ninth (the second translation into Chagatai Turkish) was by Âgehî.
Aim of this research
It is well known that the evaluation of texts written in the same period and with the same content in terms of linguistic material can provide a set of useful data for linguists. It is thought that comparing the BL and LUL copies of the Qabus-nama will provide researchers with data to be used in future studies in this field. Since the original Qabus-nama was written for educational purposes, this study aims to reveal data regarding the language that was understood or expected to be understood by the majority of the population at the time it was written.
The significance of the evaluated text
The written form of the Chagatai language exhibits standardised features since it maintains the spelling characteristics of Old Uyghur and Karahan Turkish. However, from the eighteenth century onwards, some dialectal features were identified that disrupted the standardisation of the Chagatai written language. This period—when dialectal features of the Kashgar, Yarkant, and Khotan regions, where Uyghur Turks lived, were transferred into the written language—was the first step towards Eastern Turkish, which underlies modern written Uyghur Turkish. In terms of language history, the division of a single standard written language into different written languages due to regional dialects provides significant data for linguistics as to when and under which conditions this division occurred. Therefore, the Qabus-nama, translated into Chagatai Turkish at the end of the eighteenth century and copied in the early nineteenth century, holds great significance in terms of dialectal characteristics.
Translations into the Eastern branch of Turkish (Chagatai Turkish/Eastern Turkish)
The first Eastern Turkish branch translation of the Qabus-nama was carried out by Muhammad Siddiq al-Muqallib. The copy kept in the BLFootnote 3 is missing its beginning and end; therefore details such as the name of the translator, date of translation, and where the translation was completed are not available. Detailed information about the BL copy and the newly discovered complete LUL copy of the translation, written in 1787 and hand-copied in 1819, will be given later in this article.
The second known translation of the Qabus-nama into Chagatai Turkish was completed by ÂgehîFootnote 4 (1809–1874), born in the Kiyat village of Khanate of Khiva. Âgehî attended Khiva schools, wrote many printed works, and undertook translations. Âgehî translated the entire Qabus-nama and named his work Nasihat-nâme. At the beginning of his copy, he informed readers about the purpose of his translation. Two copies of the translation are located in Tashkent Keykâvus, Nasihatnâme, Agehîy Tercimesi, Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan, Institute of Ebu Reyhan Biruniy Namıdagi Şarkşunaslık, Kolyazmalar Fondı, Inventory No: 1274/II, 7577/II.Footnote 5
Translator Muhammad Siddiq al-Muqallib and Khoja Kefek Bey, for whom the work was written
On pages 4a–4b of the LUL copy of the Qabus-nama translation, information is provided about the translator of the text and for whom the text was written:
ʿĀlam daftarïnï muṭālaʿa qïlγanlar mäniŋ sar-guẕaštïmnï körgändä (7) luṭf-i rä’fätgä nišān bergäjlär. Šājad āxiratim naticasigä vāsïṭa-i ʿālam vä ahl-i ʿālam-ārā jaxšï (8) avṣāf qalurγa vasīla bolγaj degän bolup pādišāhlar, vuzarālar vä umarālar vä nāmdār (9) ahl-i dunjādārlardïn hīč biri bī-xabarlikdin bu majdānda at čïtmarmaqγa uγramadï. (10) Mägär kim ol aṣālat ṣadafiniŋ durr-i jatīmi, avlād-i muḥibb-i xānadān-i qadīmi Muḥammad İbrāhim Käfäk Bey (11) ibn Xâca Käfäk Bey ibn ʿİvaż Bey ibn Muḥammad ʿAbdullāh Bey raḥimahu’llāhi ʿalajhim himmat (12) kämärin beligä baγlap, tavfīq tācïn bašïγa alïp, hidājat ṣilāhï birlä quršanïp, (13) bir uluγ maʿrakagä kirip vä nāmdārlïq cärgäsigä özni alïp bir mahābat išqa šürūʿ (14) körsätip vä bu muhim amrniŋ ähämmligini Čīn vilājatidin Māčīn dijārïγa ibärip (15) bu kämīnä-i dīrīnä[j]i bī-kīnä davlat-xâh-i qadīmini muxāṭab qïlïpdur kim Nūširavān-i ʿādilniŋ [4b] vaqtidin naṣīḥat gavharlarï vä pänd [u] mavʿiža cavāhirläri kim ʿālam ičrä maxfī ahl-i ʿālam-ārā jašurun (2) qalïp ačqusï joqluqdïn bu gänclärniŋ äšik ačqusï al-ḥāl häm elgigä tüšüpdür, (3) ačqaj-män cihān ahli ičrä ʿāmm u xāṣγa bährä jetgürmäk učun aṭrāf-i ʿālamγa sačqaj-män. (4) ‘al-Dāllu lil-xajri kä-fāʿilihī’ mażmūnïca mändin dalālet, sändin saʿj u istiqāmat bolup jādigār mändin (5) qalγaj. Vä näjjir-i xānadānga tuḥfa[y]i sändin jetgäj. Vä bu kämīnä [-i] bī-diräm-i xarīda-i dargāh u muʿtaqid-i dīrīnä-i (6) dil-xvāh-i kämtärīn, ahl-i taṣdīq Muḥammad al-Ṣïddīq al-Muqallib jašïm jetmiš bešgä jetgändä;
Naẓm
Qarïγanda (7) küräštim taγ birlä
Qazïdïm taγnï tïrnaγ birlä
tārīxqa miŋ bir käm iki jüzdä ibtidā qïldïm, (8) iki jüz birdä ẕu’l-qaʿda ajïnïŋ on beši āżīna küni itmāmïγa jetgürdüm.
Those who study the Book of the World show grace and compassion once they see what I have gone through. Some, who will live on Earth after my death, will say ‘(because of this work) he will be remembered with good qualities.’ Sultans, viziers, emirs, and well-known people did not take me under their wings since they were not acquainted with my troubled state. However, Muhammad İbrahim Kefek Bey ibn Hâce Kefek Bey ibn ʿIvaz Bey ibn Muhammad ʿAbdullah Bey, that one who is the pearl of royalty, the beloved son of a noble dynasty from time immemorial, wrapping his waist with the belt of diligence, putting the crown of help on his head, drew his sword of righteousness, and (this way) entered a great battle. He embarked on a grand deed, making his name in the hall of fame and letting all know, from China to Southern China (Maçin), the importance of this work, and addressed me, his helpless servant, who has always wished for his well-being since time immemorial and who has no trace of hatred in his heart. (In this work) was hidden the key to the pearls of advice and the jewels of counsel hidden from the people living in the realm from the time of the just Anushirwan. The key to these treasures fell into his hands. I will open (these locks) to deliver the public and the elite of the World their shares and scatter the treasures all around the World. As the saying goes ‘he who causes good is like the doer of good’, I will be remembered for my guidance and you for your hard work and integrity. And the gift to the light of your dynasty will come from you. And Muhammad Siddiq al-Muqallib, this poor, penniless slave to his authority and worthless, desiring from the heart, attached to (his) door from time immemorial, I, whose righteousness is recognised, when I reached the age of seventy-five;
Poem
As I got older, I wrestled the mountain
On the mountain, I engraved with my nail
I started writing it in [AH] 1199 and finished on a Friday, fifteenth of the month of Dhu al-Qadah in [AH] 1201. (4a/6–4b/8).
According to the information given in this work, Muhammad Siddiq al-Muqallib started translating the Qabus-nama in 1199/1785, when he was 75 years old, with the support of Muhammad İbrahim Kefek Bey ibn Hâce Kefek Bey ibn ʿIvaz Bey ibn Muhammad ʿAbdullah Bey and completed the translation in 1201/1787 (4a/10–4b/7–8). Based on the information that he was ‘75-years old’, Muhammad Siddiq al-Muqallib was likely born in AD 1710.
References mention a writer named Muhammad Siddiq Rushdie who expanded Feridüddîn-i Attâr’s Tezkiretü’l-Evliyâ Footnote 6 and translated it from Persian. Muhammad Siddiq Rushdie stated in the introduction that he started writing this work in 1190/1776 and completed it in four years. The researcher determined the birth date of Muhammad Siddiq Rushdie to be AD 1707 due to verses in another part of the introduction: ‘My life well past the sixties./Now, it is closer to the seventies./Those who passed before me./They have gone, and now it is my turn.’ However, this dating is faulty because Muhammad Siddiq did not give an exact date and said, ‘My life passed the sixties, and I am closer to seventies.’ In this case, he could have been somewhere between 66 and 69. For instance, assuming that he was 66 when he started writing the work in 1190/1776, he must have been born in AD 1710, and this date matches the one given in the translation of the Qabus-nama.
In this case, it is safe to say that since the birth dates of the writers of the translation of the Qabus-nama and Tezkiretü’l-Evliyâ are the same, and Khoja Kefek Bey is referred to in both works as the sponsor, then Muhammad Sıddiq al-Muqallib who translated the Qabus-nama and Muhammad Siddiq RushdieFootnote 7 who translated the Tezkiretü’l-Evliyâ might have been the same person after all.
Muhammad Siddiq Rushdie is not widely known in Turkish literature. However, he is one of the literary figures who attached great importance to Turkish literature. He wrote Tezkiretü’l-Evliyâ using the Eastern branch of Turkish, and he was one of the rare writers who said he wrote his work for Turks who could not speak Persian or Arabic. According to the introduction of Tezkiretü’l-Evliyâ, Rushdie lived in Kokand, Yarkant, Kashgar, and Khotan. Abdullah Padişah Khoja, who maintained the Ishaqiya order of the Naqshbandi tariqa, was also the master of Muhammad Siddiq Rushdie and Khoja Kefek Bey. Moreover, both writers belonged to the same religious order.Footnote 8
The other two works by Muhammad Siddiq Rushdie are Risâle-i Kâdiriyye,Footnote 9 which he wrote about Abdul Qadir Gilani, and Hasbihâl, consisting of 158 verses.Footnote 10
It should be noted here, regarding Khoja Kefek Bey, that there are insufficient resources mentioning Muhammad İbrahim Kefek Bey ibn Hâce Kefek Bey, whose name was mentioned in the translation of Qabus-nama and who promoted the translation of the work. According to the introduction in Tezkiretü’l-Evliyâ, translated from Persian by Muhammad Siddiq Rushdie before his Qabus-nama,
the sponsor of Muhammad Siddiq Rushdie was Khoja Kefek Bey, who used to be the ruler of East Turkistan. The centuries-long wars and internal disorders affected everyone. In this period, there were also people opposing against Muhammad Siddiq Rushdi and Khoja Kefek Bey. Some of these opponents had forefathers who were sufis, such as Khoja Burhaneddin. Rushdie and his sponsor had to migrate from their hometown due to wars and internal disorder.Footnote 11
Necdet Tosun states that Kipek Bik [Kefek Bey], for whom Muhammad Siddiq Rushdie translated the Tezkiretü’l-Evliyâ, was the ruler of the city of Khotan.Footnote 12 After the death of Danyal Khoja, who served under Chungars with loyalty during his seven-year reign in Yarkant, between 1727 and 1735, his first son, Yakup Khoja, was appointed as the governor of Yarkant; his second son, Yusuf Khoja, as the governor of Kashgar; his third son, Hamuş Khoja, as the governor of Aksu; and his youngest son, Abdullah Khoja, as the governor of Khotan. The title ‘khan’ was not used in this appointment. Each khoja (in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, a person who held administrative power over a region in East Turkestan and was descended from the Prophet Muhammad) was assigned a Hâkim Bey (in East Turkestan, a person appointed to assist a khoja in administrative matters): Abduvahit to Aksu, Gazi Bey to Yarkant, Ömer to Khotan, and Kipek to Kashgar.Footnote 13 In many parts of the work entitled Tezkire-i Hâcegân, the name of Kipek Bey is given as Hoşkefek.Footnote 14 It is believed that Kipek Bey, whose name was mentioned in the thesis of Kurban, and Hoşkefek Bik, whose name was given in Tezkire-i Hâcegân, are the same person as Khoja Kefek, the father of Muhammad İbrahim Kefek, who supported the translation of the Qabus-nama.
The text that includes the translation of the Qabus-nama
The new copy of the Qabus-nama in the LUL (Jarring Prov. 342) includes a stamp—‘G. Raquette/Kaschgar, Turkestan’—and a signature—‘Raquette’, in pencil—on page 1a. According to the LUL records, this copy once belonged to the Swedish missionary and scholar Gustaf Raquette and was purchased in Kashgar or Yarkant sometime around the beginning of the twentieth century. It was gifted to the LUL by Raquette’s widow, Hanna, in the 1960s. The page numbering was added by G. Jarring. The 323-page text consists of the following chapters: (1) Vr. 1b–137a: The Translation of Qabus-nama; (2) Vr. 140b–155b: The Translation of Zafer-nâme-i Envâru’l-Hikmet; (3) Vr. 157b-173a: Mi’râc-nâme; (4) Vr. 173b–282a: The Translation of Dürrü’l-Mecâlis; (5) Vr. 282b–292a: Vefât-nâme-i Hazret-i [Prophet]; (6) Vr. 292b–294b: Vefât-nâme-i Hazret-i Fâtıma; (7) Vr. 295b–307a: Kıyâmet-nâme; (8) Vr. 307b–316a: Râzı-nâme-i Hazret-i Mûsâ; (9) Vr. 316b–323a: Unidentified name.
General characteristics and comparison of the BL and LUL copies
The beginning and end of the BL copy of the Qabus-nama, written by Keykavus ibn Iskandar (d. 475/1082), are missing. Therefore, the name of the translator, date of writing and copying, and the location of writing are unknown. However, the LUL copy is complete and has some information regarding the work. According to the LUL copy, the translator was Muhammad Siddiq al-Muqallib (he mentioned that he started the translation when he was 75) (4b/6). This translation was done with the support of Muhammad İbrahim Kefek Bey ibn Khoja Kefek Bey ibn İvaz Bey ibn Muhammad ʿAbdullah Bey (4a/10–11). The translation was started in 1199/1784 and completed on 15 Dhu al-Qadah 1201/29 August 1787 (4b/7–8), and this was copied in 1235/1819–1820 (137a/12–13).Footnote 15 The stamp on page 1a reads ‘G. Raquette, Kaschgar–Turkestan.’ In the catalogue notes, it is specified that the copy was purchased in Kashgar or Yarkant around the beginning of the twentieth century.
Spelling of the Arabic and Persian words
The BL copy of the Qabus-nama exhibits frequent intervention in the writing of Arabic and Persian words through the addition of short vowels: mumkin ‘possible, ordinary’ (ممكن > ممكین 44a/4), γālib ‘victor, winner’ (غالب > غالیب, 44a/9), ʿāšïq ‘lover’ (عاشق > عاشیق, 46a/1), lāzïm ‘necessary, required’ (لازم > لازِیم, 46a/2), iltifāt ‘compliment’ (الْتفات > الْتیفات, 46a/13). However, the LUL copy contains few, if any, short vowels in Arabic and Persian words: kātib ‘transcriber, writer’ (كاتب > “كاتیب”, 3b/2); ʿālim ‘scholar, wise man’ (عالم > عالیم, 97b/1).
Phonological comparison
Changes in the /p/ > /f/ sounds
While in the LUL copy the /p/ > /f/ sound changes generally favoured the /p/ sound (except for fut ‘limb’ and tofrak Footnote 16 ‘soil’), the BL copy displayed hundreds of /p/ > /f/ sound changes. Moreover, in the BL copy, both the /f/ and /p/ versions of the same word can be seen on the same page or line. Since there is no /p/ sound in Arabic, such examples can only be seen in words borrowed from Persian.
Words borrowed from Persian
[Persian پروردکار] Parvardigārnïng … Farvardigārïnjnï ‘of God … God’ (BL 7a/13–7b/1), Parvardigārnïŋ … Parvardigārïŋnï (LUL 11b); [Persian پرورش] farvariš ‘to discipline, train, educate’ (BL 7b/5, 8a/2), parvariš (LUL 12a, LUL 12a); [Persian پشیمان] fašīmān ‘regretful’ (BL 10b/5, 10b/8), pašīmān (LUL 14b, LUL 15a); [Persian پارچه] beš fārča ‘five pieces’ (BL 12b/1), beš pārča (LUL 16b); [Persian پسند] fasand ‘the one who likes’ (BL 15b/8, 16a/4), pasand (LUL 19a, LUL 19b); [Persian پرواز] farvāz qïlur ‘to fly, to spread wings’ (BL 15b/13), parvāz qïlur (LUL 19b); [Persian پسندیده] fasandīdäläriŋ ‘liked, desirable’ (BL 17b/9), pasandīdäläriŋ (LUL 21a); [Persian پریشان] farīšān ‘messy, scattered’ (BL 20b/3), parīšān (LUL 23a); [Persian پست] päst and … fäst (BL 26b/3), päst and … päst (LUL 28b); [Persian پایه] pājäsigä … fājägä ‘to the degree of, to the rank of’ (BL 31a/6–7), pājäsigä … pājägä (LUL 32a); [Persian پیدا] fajdā bolmaγaj ‘non-existent’ (BL 40b/5), pajdā bolmaγaj (LUL 40a); [Persian پوست] fōstïnï kejmäk ‘to wear fur, to wear clothes made out of furry animal skin’ (BL 53a/6), pōstïnï kejmäk (LUL 50a)…
Turkish words
fatγïna ‘rapidly’ (BL 4a/12, 8a/11), patγïna (LUL 9a, LUL 12b); qol and put ‘limbs’ (BL 4b/11), qol and fut (LUL 9b); tafïlur … tapïlmas ‘obtainable … unobtainable’ (BL 8b/7), tapïlur … tapïlmas (LUL 13a); fitipdürlär ‘they had written’ (BL 12a/4), pütüpdürlär (LUL 16a); pütügändür-men ‘I had written’ (BL 12a/9), pütügändür-men (LUL 16a); tofraγ … tofraγ … tofraγ ‘soil’ (BL 15b/2), tofraγ… tofraγ … tofraγ (LUL 19a); fütüpdür… fütügän… ‘had written, writer’ (BL 25a/3), pütüpdür… pütügän… (LUL 27a); fiš- ‘to cook’ (BL 30a/4, 30a/5), piš- (LUL 30b, LUL 31b); pišqan ‘the one cooking’ (BL 30a/7), pišqan (LUL 31b); füšürür ‘they cook’ (BL 35a/4), püšürür (LUL 35b); tafïp ‘to find’ (BL 38a/4), tapïp (LUL 38a)…
Rounding /a/ > /u/ or /o/
Rounding is the transformation of narrow or wide vowels into rounded vowels. This change generally occurs with the influence of dental and labiodental consonants.Footnote 17 Starting from Old Turkic, we see that words with stereotypical flat or rounded forms that are not included in the flatness–roundness harmony are identified both in texts written in Khwarazm TurkishFootnote 18 and the following Chagatai Turkish texts.Footnote 19 Apart from this rounding, which has continued since Old Turkish, there is another rounding process resulting from the vowels and consonants that precede or follow the sounds in texts written in Chagatai Turkish.Footnote 20 It is thought that the rounding of the vowels found in the Qabus-nama might have arisen from Eastern Turkish.Footnote 21
Changes in the /a/ > /o/ sounds
In general, Chagatai Turkish had been used for centuries with unchanged spelling characteristics. However, this changed in the transition period to Eastern Turkish, and the sounds /a/ and /e/ in the first syllable transformed into /o/ and /ö/ sounds under the influence of /u/ and /ü/ sounds in the second syllable, owing to properties of the dialects that were adopted into the written language.Footnote 22 For this sound change, the LUL copy of the translation of the Qabus-nama uses the /a/ sound and the BL copy uses the /o/ sound. The word tanu- ‘to recognise’ in the LUL copy is found to have a rounder vowel in the BL copy: tonu-. There are other examples in both copies similar to this sound change: tonumaqnïŋ (BL 1b/5), tanumaqnïŋ (LUL 6b); tonumaγajlar (BL 1b/6), tanumaγajlar (LUL 5b); tonumaqda (BL 1b/7), tanumaqda (LUL 5b); tonudung (BL 1b/8), tanuduŋ (LUL 5b); tonuγučï… tonumaqγa… tonumaq… (BL 1b/8–9), tanuγučï… tanumaqda… tanumaq… (LUL 6a); tonumaq and tonulmaqnïng (BL 1b/9), tanumaq and tanulmaqnïŋ (LUL 6a); tonuγïl (BL 2a/1), tanuγïl (LUL 6a); tonuγïl (BL 32a/10), tanuγïl (LUL 33a); očuq bolγaj (BL 22b/8), ačuq bolγaj (LUL 25a); [Persian آبادان] obdan ‘joyful, cheerful’ (BL 3b/4), obdan (LUL 2b/14).
Changes in the /a/ > /u/ sounds
Based on the dialect characteristics, the /a/ > /u/ sound change was also identified. The sound change, which is only seen in the word baba > buba ‘father’, uses the /u/ vowel in the BL copy and the /a/ vowel in the LUL copy: bubasï (BL 18b/12), babasï (LUL 22a); bubam Šamsu’l-Maʿānī (BL 45a/13), babam Šamsu’l-Maʿānī (LUL 44a).
Comparison in terms of morphology
Changes in the +γa /+qa dative case suffixes
A dative case suffix was added to the word base as +γa or +qa, regardless of any rules in the Chagatai Turkish and later in the Eastern Turkish period. In the Qabus-nama, the suffix is used both ways (+γa /+qa). However, the dative case is generally used as +qa in the LUL copy and as +γa in the BL copy: tanu-/tonu- ‘to recognise’: tonumaqγa (BL 1b/8), tanumaqqa (LUL 6a); taš ‘outside’: tašγa (BL 1b/11), tašqa (LUL 6a); xalājïq ‘people, community’ [Persian < خلایق]: xalājïqγa (BL 4a/2), xalājïqqa (LUL 8b); jaxšïlïq ‘beauty’: jaxšïlïqγa lājïq (BL 8a/3), jaḥšïlïqqa sazāvār ve lājïq (LUL 12b); nā-sipās ‘ungrateful, unthankful’ [Persian < ناسپاس]: nā-sipāsγa (BL 8a/6), nā-sipāsqa (LUL 12b); iš ‘business, situation’: išγa (BL 20a/1), išqa (LUL 22b); xalq: ‘people, community’ [Arabic < خلق]: xalqγa (BL 21b/2), xalqqa (LUL 24a).
Changes in the auxiliary verbs
Considering the auxiliary verbs used in the translation of the Qabus-nama in the BL and LUL copies, the BL copy generally uses the auxiliary verb qïl- ‘make/do’; however, the LUL copy uses different auxiliary verbs in the same parts of the text: ‘I told what happened to me’, men xōd öz bašïmγa kelgänni bajān qïldïm (BL 46b/8), men xōd öz bašïmγa kelgänni ḥasb-i ḥāl ajtadur-men (LUL 45a); ‘Pray!’ ʿibādat qïlγïl (BL 52b/1), ʿibādatgä mešγūl bolγïl (LUL 49b); ‘Be respectful to your elders, honor them!’ qarïlarnï ʿizzat ve ḥurmat qïl (BL 29b/4), qarïlarnï ʿizzat ve ḥurmat birlä tutγïl (LUL 30b); ‘Hold this part’, bu jan qïlïp (BL 21a/7), bu jan tutup (LUL 23b); ‘I am in great agony’, qatïγ ʿaẕāb qïlaj (BL 23b/11), qatïγ ʿaźāb ve ʿuqūbat jetgüräjin (LUL 26a); ‘I got engaged, I got married’, nikāḥ qïlïperdim (BL 24a/3), nikāḥ baγlaperdim (LUL 26a-b); ‘Don’t be a fool!’ xīra-särlik qïlmaγïl (BL 8a/6), xīra-särlikni izdämä (LUL 12b).
Conclusion
Only one copy of the Chagatai Turkish translation of the Qabus-nama was known until now. Since the copy in the BL (Or. 9661) is missing the beginning and the end of the text, it was not known that the translator’s name was Muhammad Siddiq al-Muqallib (Rushdie), that the translation was done in 1201/1787, that it was copied in 1235/1819, and that the sponsor of the translation, that is, the recipient of the translation, was Muhammad İbrahim Kefek Bey, the son of Khoja Kefek Bey. Additionally, it was not fully known whether the translation was missing the beginning and the end. Muhsin Uygun, who studied the BL copy of the translation, stated that ‘it lacked one or a couple of pages in the beginning and the end’;Footnote 23 however, having identified the copy in the LUL (Jarring Prov. 342), we found that the BL copy was missing eight pages in the beginning (four folios) and 11 pages in the end (5.5 folios). The pages from 1b/1 to 5a/8 and from 132a/6 to 137a/15 in the LUL copy are not included in the BL copy.
While it was common to encounter dialectal features in texts written in Eastern Turkish,Footnote 24 this eighteenth-century text, which was written in the Chagatai language, seems to depart from the standard written language. Here are the findings we think are most striking and determinative after comparing the BL and LUL copies: (1) in the BL copy, short vowels were given in hundreds of Arabic and Persian words, while the LUL copy showed almost no vowels; (2) the BL copy had hundreds of p > f sound changes, while the LUL copy had few to no such changes (except for ‘fut’ and ‘tofraq’); and (3) the BL copy used the dative case mostly as -γa, while the LUL copy used it as -qa. This suggests that the BL copy was produced later than the LUL copy as it mostly exhibits features characteristic of New Uyghur Turkish writing.
In conclusion, many significant differences were identified between the BL and LUL copies, which can be categorised as follows:
(A) There were dozens of long lines identifying indicators in the LUL copy that were not present in the BL copy.
(B) The number of identifying indicators present in the BL copy but not in the LUL copy was quite low compared to (A).
(C) Both copies used many words with different roots, structures, and suffixes. In translation, many different and varied uses were identified; for example, while one copy favoured Turkish words, the other used foreign words instead; while one copy used certain Turkish words, the other used different Turkish words; while one copy favoured foreign words, the other used Turkish words instead; and while one copy used a foreign word, the other used different foreign words.
These three points, whose differences have been identified and discussed in detail in this article, do not indicate that the BL and LUL copies are two separate translations or two different works, however. The authors of this article do not make this claim either. Both works are the exact same copies of the Chagatai Turkish translation of the Qabus-nama, and the differences displayed in the texts have most probably come about because the dates and places in which they were copied, the dialects, and the copiers were different. The LUL copy is significant as it includes the translator’s name and translation date, has ten folios (20 pages) of chapters missing from the BL copy, and being a full copy, also includes dozens more sentences, words, and phrases.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
