this last offers a different (and apparently later) recension of the text from that of either of the other two MSS. or of the printed edition.A. D. 1300 – A. D. 1450.
[There are no contemporary records for the First Period. The earliest Tezkires or Dictionaries of the Poets1 date from the middle of the sixteenth century, that of Sehí Bey, the oldest of all,2 having been written only a very few years before Latíff’s, which was finished in 953 (1546–7).3 Ἅshiq Chelebi’s Tezkire was completed in 976 (1568–9),4 Qinali-záde Hasan Chelebi’s in 994 (1586),5 while that of Riyází — the last to deal with the whole field of Ottoman poetry — was compiled as late as 1018 (1609–10).6 Tash-köprizáde’s biographical work on eminent dervish sheykhs and members of the ῾ulemá, which bears the title of Shaqáyiq-un-Nu῾máníya or ‘The Crimson Peony,’ was written in 965 (1558),7 and Ἅlí Efendi’s general history called Kunh-ul-Akhbár or ‘The Essence of Histories’ in 1007 (1598–9).1 Belígh’s Guldeste-i Riyáz-i Ἱrfán or ‘Posy from the Bowers of Culture,’ which contains the lives of men of distinction connected with the city of Brusa, is more modern still, having been finished in 1135 (1722).2 All these books start from the foundation of the Empire and carry the series of biographies down to the time of compilation. They form the chief sources of our information concerning the lives of the poets of the First Period, and in view of the remoteness of even the earliest among them from the times when these poets lived, it is not unlikely that their stories concerning them are in great measure traditional. For the rest, in most cases the more important works of these early poets are in our hands, and so we are fairly equipped to deal with the literary history of this far-off period, even if the figures among whom we move be somewhat vague and shadowy.]
1 A biographical dictionary of the poets is called Tezkiret-ush-Shu῾ará or ‘Dictionary of the Poets.’ In these works the names of the poets are entered in alphabetical order, and as a rule each entry contains, besides the biographical notice of the poet, a short criticism on his style, etc., and a few examples of his work. There are several of these Tezkires in Turkish.
2 Sehí’s book has not been printed, nor, as far as I know, is there any MS. in England. It would appear, however, to contain little or nothing that has not been embodied in the later Tezkires.
3 Latifi’s Tezkire was printed at the office of the Iqdám newspaper in 1314 (1898). There is a MS. in the British Museum (Add. 17,339), another in the library of the Royal Asiatic Society, and another in my collection. From the letter this last offers a different (and apparently later) recension of the text from that of either of the other two MSS. or of the printed edition.
4 Ἅshiq’s Tezkire has not yet been printed; there is a MS. in my collection. The word Chelebi that follows his name is merely a title signifying ‘Master.’
5 Qinali-záde Hasan’s Tezkire is likewise still unprinted; there are three MSS. in the British Museum (Add. 24,957: Or, 35: Add. 19,622), one in the library of the Royal Asiatic Society, and one in my collection. Most European writers, following Von Hammer, speak of this biographer by his family name Qinali-záde; the Turks generally call him Hasan Chelebi; I prefer to follow them.
6 Riyází’s work also is unprinted; there is a MS. in my collection.
7 ‘The Crimson Peony’ was originally written in Arabic. There are several Turkish translations. The best-known is that of Mejdí, which was made in 995 (1587); it is this version, which was printed in 1269 (1852–3), that I have followed in the present work.
1 Part of Ἅlí’s History has been printed; the greater part of the unprinted portion, that which deals with events between the capture of Constantinople and the death of Suleymán I, is contained in two MSS. preserved in the British Museum (Add. 10,004: Or. 32).
2 Belígh’s work was printed at Brusa in 1302 (1884–5).