ALTAICA BUDAPESTINENSIA PROCEEDINGS OF THE 45™ PERMANENT INTERNATIONAL ALTAISTIC CONFERENCE (PIAC) BUDAPEST, HUNGARY, JUNE 23-28, 2002 Edited by Alice Sark6zi and Attila Rakos Research Group for Altaic Studies, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Department of Inner Asian Studies, Eétvés Lorand University Budapest 2003Notes on the Literary-Linguistic Term “Cagatay”: Evaluating the Evidence Supplied by Native Sources Benedek Péri (Budapest) Cagatay is a well-known word even for those who are only slightly interested in the cultural history of Turkic peoples. The term is a most often and a quite liberally used one, mainly as a designation of a Central Asian Turkic literary language that flourished approximately between the 15 and 19" century but the problem how it was applied by native authors has not been cleared yet. Do we really know in what sense or how often our sources used this word that from a personal name Decame elevated to the level of a technical term in modern Turkic philology? The present paper endavours to explore the contemporary native background, that is the relevant Turkic and Persian sources and through the evaluation of the data thus uncarthed, aims at calling the attention to the inconsistencies witnessed in the modem scholarly usage of the term. The term Cagaray staried its exalted career in Turkic Studies with the publication of a pioneering anthology of Central Asian Turkic texts titled Cagataische Sprachstudien by Arminius \Vambéry in 1867 who applied the term Cagaray in a very wide sense. His chrestomathy included not only Central Asian Turkic literary texts but also samples of various living Turkic dialects spoken in the area. ‘The year 1928 represents a major tuming-point in the scholarly use of the term because in an article Samoylovi, the famous Russian expert on Central Asian Turkic started using it more or less in the same sense scholars tend to apply it today,’ In contrast to Vambéry he narrowed down the meaning attached to the term and when speaking of Cagafay as a language he always meant a Turkic literary language born in Khurasan and Transoxania in the 15" century that flourished in Central Asian Turkic literary circles upto the early 20" century. Increasing scholarly attention devoted to the field after the second world war, especially the contribution of the doyen of Cagatay studies the Hungarian Turkologist Jénos Eckmann brought about a certain consensus in western scholarly circles regarding the meaning of the term.’ While experts in the Soviet Union still tended to label Central Asian literary texts written between the 15" and late 19" century as “staro-uzbekskij” that is “old Uzbek” Cagatay became the term almost exclusively applied as the designation of the language of these works in the West. Witnessing the frequent occurrence of our term in contemporary scholarly literature one would think that the debates conceming the exact meaning of Cagaiay as a technical term are closed, the question is resolved and all doubts are cleared in a most satisfying way. Thus it is quite surprising to see the following lines in one of the most important reference works on Turkic languages edited by Lars Johanson and Eva Agnes Csaté published only a couple of years ago. ' amojlovid, A.N. K istorii literaturogo sredneaziatskogo-tureckogo jazyka. In: Mir AUi-Sir. Sbornik pjatisotletiu so daja rotdenija, Fd, by V. V. Batrol'd, Leningrad 1928, p. 23. 2For a summary of the history of the term see e.g. Fokmnann, Jénos: Gagatay dili hakkanda notlar. In: TDAY-Belleten 1958 p. 133. > Scholars working in the former Sovietunion tended to avoid using the word Chaghatay for political considerations because it was thought to invoke memories of a popular Central Asian literary and political movement the “Chaghatay qurungi” tht was labelled chauvinistic, nationalistic and as a consequence ruthlessly suppressed by Soviet authorities. Blagove, G, Fs ‘Tjurksk. ayataj — russk. Eogatai/d#agataj. (Opyt sravnitel’nogo izutenija starogo zaimstvovanija). In: Tjurkologitesk) shomik 1971. Moskva 1972, p. 187.NOTES ON THE LITERARY-LINGUISTIC TERM “CAGATAY” 249 “Chaghatay can be defined as a succession of stages of written Turkic in Central Asia. In many respects it is also a continuation of earlier stages, notably of Karakhanid Turkic, with Khwarezmian Turkic as a transitional stage. It cannot be defined as a fixed entity in time and space. Chaghatay sources are a hybrid collection of texts written in a vast territory in Islamic Eurasia by speakers of different varieties of Turkic, who from the late fifteenth century onwards more or less tried to focus on a specific model known as Classical Chaghatay.”* Do the authors really wish to imply that the question is still not settled and we still do not know with utmost certainty what Cagafay is? If yes, it is worth rethinking the whole story but this time we should turn to the relevant native sources for information. Before tuming our attention to the data promised above we should devote some space to a sketchy description of the sources. The first group of native sources consists of the oevre of the so-called Cagatay authors because if anyone they surely must have known what language they used as a medium for conveying their thoughts. We should thus pay special attention to prefaces dibaées attached to divans, to intwoductory chapters or lines of works where the authors explain why and how he set about composing his poetry or writing his prose account. The second group includes poctical anthologies written either in Turkic or in Persian where sometimes the contemporary literary historian makes a rare and for us valuable remark on the language the poet in question applied. Native Persian-Turkic grammatical treatises, dictionaries, glossaries belong to the third group. These works were written mainly in Mughal India from the 17" century onwards as a learning aid for all those who wanted to meet the requirements set for the true gentlemen of the age’ and wished to pick up at least the basics of the tongue quite frequently used in court circles. The linguistic data included in these works reflect verily the colourful ethnic composition of the Turkie strata of ‘Mughal society and are a mixture of western - mainly Azeri and Titrkmen — and easter — Central Asian ~ elements. When trying to explore the contemporary native usage of Cagatay as a linguistic-literary term one must not forget about the popularity of Nava’i’s oevre in the Ottoman Empire. Research done on the topic showed that Ottoman poets quite frequently tried to imitate his poetry and composed verses in his style, Thus there is a fourth group of sources we should take into consideration that is literary works, anthologies written in the Ottoman Empire. According to a generally accepted view the so-called Cagatay period of the Central Asian literary tradition started in the late 14° carly 15 century. One would thus expect native sources to apply the term Cagatay referring to the language of Ceniral Asian Turkic texts from that date. Quite surprisingly we first come accross Cagaray as a linguistic term only at the end of the 15” century. Nava’! in his Mizén al-Avz4n, a treatise on poetics compiled in 1490 characterizes the medium of his poetic expression with the following words: Tiirk tili bile kalem siirdiim ve her niitk q@idede kim ma'ni ebkariga zib u drayis dorgiizip irdiler, éagatay lafzi bile ragam urdum, andag kim 14 bu medkiv bolgan til “Booschoton, I. - Vandamme, M.: Chaghatay. In: The Turkic Languages. Ed, by L, Johanson ~ E, A. Csaté, London 1998, p. 166, *A 17 century conduct book prepaired for those who wished to become a poper gentleman enumerates all the skills real mirza should sport. Its author, a certain Mirzd Kamrin writes that a perfect gentleman should be able to converse in Arabic, Persian, Hindustani and Turki. Hidayat Husayn, M, M.: The Mirza Namah (The book of the perfect gentleman) of Mitzi Kimrin with an English translation. In: Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 9 (1913), p 4250 BENEDEK PERI ve lafz bindsidur, hié nézimga bu dest birmeydiir ve hié ragimga bu mityesser bolmaydur.s “{ have written in the Turkic language and where the rules required the meaning to be dressed in beauty and elegance I tured to Chaghatay phrases because this aforementioned [tongue] is the basis of language and expression that had not been used by any author and had not been applied by any scribe before.” The quotation very clearly shows that the most outstanding character of Central Asian literary tradition used the term Cagatay in a very special meaning. Cagatay Jafzi is in contrast to tiirk till The phrase éagatay lafsi refers to an elaborated, highly ornamented and elegant literary style governed by special rules whereas iiirk tili seems to be applied as a general and semantically neutral term. Two main points should be stressed here. First, the term Cagafay occures only once in the full coevre of Nava’i who, considering his enormous contribution to the establishment and promotion of a Turkic literary tradition can be deservedly regarded the founder of a Central Asian literary tradition’ and second, when speaking about the language he chose to convey his ideas he used only Tiirk tili or Tiirki but never Cagatay. The next example of Cagatay as a linguistic term is to be found in a 17" century historical work by an author whose language is usually labelled Cagatay in Turkic Studies. The following Jines by Abi al-Gézi Bahadur the khan of Khiva are most thoughtprovoking because the author states that he deliberately chose pure Turkic to write his chronicle and tried to avoid using Chaghatay expressions because for ordinary people whom his book was meant for could not casily understand that style, Bu térilkni yaks va yaman baréalart bilsiin tip tirki tli birlen aytdim. Tiirkini ham anda aytip men kim bes yasar oglan tilSiiniir bir kalima éagatay tiirkisindin farsidin “arabidin gosmay men ravsdn bolur.? “{ wrote my book in Turkic in order to make this history, all its bad and good event widely known and thus I tried to use a Turkic [style] thet is easily understandable even for a five-year-old child. With this purpose in mind I avoided using Chaghatay, Persian and Arabic phrases.” Unfortunately enough neither of our authors define the exact meaning of Cagatay but Aba al- Gazi like Nava’ earlier also seems to make a considerable distinction between the semantically neutral phrases Tiirk tili or Téirki and Cagatay, a term they apply when they wish to refer to an ornate literary style. This hypothesis seems to be verified by another statement of Abd al-Gézi. In his other work, a detailed account of the history of Turkmen people he included the following passage: Baréa biling kim bizdin burun irk? tarth aylganlar “arabi lugatlarm qosub tururlar ve farsini hem qosub tururlar ve tiirkt hem saj* qilip tururlar. Ozlerining hiinerlerini ve ustddliglarin halgga ma‘lim qilmag iiétin, Biz qaysistm gilmadug aning iictin kim © Navé’t, Ali Sit: Mizdn al-Avedn, Ed, by K. Eraslan, Tork Dil Kurumu, Ankara 1993, p. 11. i Borovkoy, A. K.: AliSer Navoi kak osnovopolofnik uzbekskogo literatumogo jazyka. In: Aliger Navoi Sbormik state Ex. by A. K. Borovkoy, Moskva 1946, pp. 92-120 "Eg. Ve bu bendening dagi rért divanimga kim Tirkte til bile nazm tapip durur ve ebyét Sadedi yigirmi bis mingge Jaginlaispdr... (Nava, “Ali Sir: Mizén al-Avzdn. p12), > Desmaisons, P. 1: Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares par Aboul-Ghazt Behddour Khan, Philo Press, Amsterdam 1970, p.37.NOTES ON THE LITERARY-LINGUISTIC TERM “CAGATAY” 251 bu kitébni oquguct elbetie tirk bolgust turur. Bas tirklerge tiirkane aytmag kerek td ularnng barcasi fahm qilgaylar."° “You should all know that everybody who undertook to give an account of the history of the Turks before me used Arabic, Persian and Turkic words. By this procedure they Wanted to make a show of their sublime skills and exalted talents. I chose to leave their course because the readers of this books and the audience of these stories will by all means consist of Turks and for Turks one must write in Turkic in order to make the words casily understandable to them.” It might sound strange but except for the examples quoted above Cagatay is not used as a linguistic term referring to Central Asian Turkic or any of its variants by any other so-called Cagaiay author. The phrases usually applied for designating contemporary Turkic are tiirkée, tiirk tii, rrk elfazi. When hunting for the word Cagatay in the so-called Cagazay sources one can not avoid reading through Nava'i’s famous “linguistic” work, the Mihdkamat al-Lugatayn (“Comparison of Two Languages”). In his pamphlet that should be considered a summary of Nava’’s ambitious literary programme of creating a Turkic literary tradition, the author enumerates all the virtues of Turkic and tries to persuade his readers that his mothertongue equals or even excells Persian in its capacity fo be a medium for poetic expression. By doing so Nava’? aims at convincing his Turkic fellow poets to use their mothertongue for literary purposes. In the introductory part of the treatise the author names the four important languages of contemporary Islamic word. These are Arabic, Persian (férsf), Hindi (hindiistani) and Turkic. For this last item he uses the term turki'' and not Cagaray and this is the word he uses throughout the text when he contrasts the advantages of Turkic with the shortcomings of Persian. As we have mentioned earlier only two occurrences of the term Cagatay have hitherto been discovered in the whole corpus of the so-called Cagatay literature, Turing to another major group of sources one finds that Persian authors ot authors writing in Persian followed in the footsteps of their Turkic colleagues and the term they amost exclusively used for Turkic is turki. But there are rare exceptions. Javhar Aftabéi an old servant of the Indian Timurids and a famous memoir writer of Akbar’s age relates an interesting episode of the war between two sons of Babur, Humayiin and Kamran in his Tazkirat al-Vagidt. The victorious emperor Humayin and his trusty adviser Ali Dfist are discussing what to do with the defeated Kamran who had been taken prisoner. While narrating the events the author makes a remark that is important for us stating that the confidential conversation was in Cagatay Turkic.” The Lugat-i Turf is one of the many Turkic grammars explained in Persian produced on Indian soil. Its author a certain Abl ad-Din Tiirkmen who must have been one of the many Turkic immigrants looking for a living in the promising land of India, tried to compile a learning aid that could serve as a basic reference for beginners wishing to study Turkic that played a special role in the life of the Mughal élite. In the introductory lines of his treatise our author provides the reader with a general description of Turkic stating the following: Bi-dan ki dksér Ahi ad-Din Turkmén bin Bayrém ‘Ali Bi Agar ba-gadr-i qudrat va istitécat-i If ast ki lisdn-i jam®-i turkiya ki az du zubén biriin nist tagrir dahad, Yaki 'Kononoy, A. N.: Rodaslovnaja iiurkmen, Moskva Leningrad 1958, pp. 6-7. “Nava’s, Mir Ali Sir: Muhdkamat al-Lugatayn, Ed, by R. Devereaux, Leyden 1966, p. 4 “Elliot, H.M.—Dowson, J: The History of India as Told by ts Own Historians. Vol. 5. New Dethi 1996 (reprint), p.148,252 BENEDEK PERI éagataiya ki dar casr ba-aymagiya mansith ast va zubén-i duvvum ba-turkondniya résih ast. “Let it be known that this unworthy person Abl ad-Din Turkmen the son of Bayram Bi from the Agar tribe trying his best aims at describing the language of the Turks that consisis of nothing else but two dialects. The first one is Chaghataiyya that is called Aymagiyya nowadays and the second one is the tongue of the Turkmen people.” It is clear that the Mughal authors quoted here did not use the term Cagaiay in the same sense as Navi’? and Abi al-Gézi did. Since in early Mughal sources Cagatay was applied to members of the royal family and to their retinues as an ethnic label and from the 18" century the term Aymag or its Indian version Awimag was generally meant to designate the Turkic tribes of Central Asia the term seems to refer here to the spoken language of the Turkic population of a wide territory that once belonged to the Ulus of Chaghatay. While exploring Turkic grammatical, lexicographical literature one must not forget about the author of Sanglah the most often quoted native Turkic-Persian dictionary. It is well known that Mirza Mahdi Khan wrote a voluminous introduction to his lexicographical work endeavouring 10 supply his readers with a detailed grammatical description of Turkic. In this introductory part bearing a separate title, Mabdn? al-Lugat the author makes a clear distinction between the characteristic features of various “versions” of Turkic. The grammatical forms which in some way differ from “standard” Turkic that he calls Turki, he labels them réimf, frdnf or in a few cases Cagatay. When trying to evaluate these data one must always bear in mind that Sanglah is not a common Turkic-Persian dictionary. Being modelled on a firm Persian lexicographical tradition it’s a sort of poetical dictionary taking its stock of interesting, difficult or rare words from the works of classical poets mainly from the oevre of Nava’ as the examples in each entry clearly shows. It is thus more then plausible to state that the phrase /ugar-i Cagatay refers to the highly ornamented literary style we have already mentioned. Central Asia had very close cultural ties with the Ottoman Empire in the 15" century’ that is in the golden age of classical Central Asian Turkic literature. Nav4'f's verses became extremely popular among Ottoman poets and it was fashionable to imitate them. It is no wonder that several Central Asian poets tried their luck in Istanbul. The literary activities of the successful ones are recorded in contemporary literary anthologies together with a few sample lines from their poetical achievements. Latifi compiling his tazkira in the 16% century mentions a certain Jamili of whom he says the following: Tiirkée Sir séyleyen Tiirkistén sa°irlerindendir. Sirlerinin cogu Neva i tarzindadir.’® “HJe was one of the poets from Tiirkistan who composed poetry in Turkic. Most of his verses are in Nava’?’s style.” The popularity of Nava'?’s style is clearly indicated by the numerous poems composed not only by ,professional” Ottoman poets but by also ,amateur” enthusiasts. The most famous of these latter ‘ones is a 16" century imperial admiral, Seydi “Ali Re’ts who after a long and adventurous journey visited the Mughal court where his gazals and chronograms written in Central Asian Turkic earned him high esieem and the reigning monarch, Humayén, a poet himself awarded him with the title the ° Al ad-Din Turkmin: Lugat-i taki, British Library, Or. 1912, fol. 371a. 4 Mansuroglu, M.: Das Altosmanisch, In: Philologiae Turcieae Furdamenta. Vol. |. Wiesbaden 1959, pp. 180-181 'S Jgen, M.(ed,): Lath tezkiresi. Ankara 1990, p. 128.‘NOTES ON THE LITERARY-LINGUISTIC TERM “CAGATAY” 253 “second Mir °Ali Sir” and said that if he persevered in his efforts he would surely outshine the fame of the great poet among the “Cagaiay people” within a year." The memoires of the Ottoman traveller contains his numerous verses. Seydi °Ali Re’is composed his poems both in Ottoman Turkish and in Central Asian Turkic under the pen-name “Katibi” which would indicate that for him there existed only a stylistic difference between his Turkish and Turkic pieces. This assumption seems to be reinforced not only by the ease he handles the language but also by the fact that he did not think it important to mention that these latter ones were composed not in Ottoman Turkish but in a different language. As it has already been referred to the standard and stilistically neutral terms for Turkic in contemporary sources were tii, tiirk tili, tirk elféci, ete. Nevertheless there are a few examples that Nava’i used other words as well. In his introduction to one his divans he enumerates all those pocts whom he considered worth remembering for their contribution to the promotion of Turkic poetry. He acknowledges the talents of Mavlind Sakaki and Mavland Lutfi with the following words of appreciation saying: ..ve uygur ibdretining fusahdsidin ve tiirk elfézining biilegdsidm Mevlind Sekkaki ve Mevlénd Luft — rahimahuma Alléhu — kim birining latif gazelliyati intisart “Iraq u Hurdsan'da bi-nihdyet-durur hem divanlart mevjid bolgay.” “From among the eloquent personalities of Uygur expressions and the thetors of Turkic words there is Mevlénd Sekkaki and Mevlind Lutfi - Allah should have merey on them. The gazals of one of them are well-known throughout Irak and Khurasan and he is the author of a divan as well.” The exact meaning of uygur ibdreri — as it is the case with Cagatay — is not casy to define. Nevertheless it is not improbable that Nava’t refers here to the still living tradition of using the Uygur script because manuscripts in Uygur letters containing the works of these poets have been preserved. It is also possible that we are simply facing a common figure of speech, well-known in the Arabic-Persian rhetorical tradition. Tarsi* is a very often used means of stylistic expression usually consisting of two synonymous phrases. If it is so, uygur ibdreri should be considered a mere synonym for tiirk e/fézi. This explanation seems to be supported by two further quotations. One is from the Majalis an-Nafa’is a rare representative of the genre of poetic anthologies in Central Asian Turkic. Its author is Nava’? who — of course — included both of the aforementioned poets in his razkira. He says a couple of words of Sekkaki but this time without mentioning the language he used as a poetic medium. The few lines praising the poetical achievements of Mevlana Lutfi however supply the reader with interesting data claiming that he composed poetry in tiirki: Mevidnd Lutfi caleyhi’r-rahme: Oz zaménurung melik ul-keldmi erdi. Farst ve tiirkide naziri yoq erdi. Ammé tiirkude Schreti kiprek erdi. Ve tirkée divam meshar...'* “He was the king of words in his own age and there was no one who could have been compared to him neither in Farsi nor in Turki. But his fame is greater in Tirki and his divén in Taxis is famous.” "6 Seydi ‘Alf Re's: Mirdt al- Memélik. Ed. by Ahmed Jovde, Istanbul 1313, p49. " Uratk, T.: Ture divan dibageteri. Ankara 1990, p. 64 "* Nava’s, Mir ‘Ali Sir; Majlis an-Nafiis, In: Ali Sir Nevat. Vol. 4. Ed. by A. 8, Levend, Ankara 1968, p. 73.254 BENEDEK PERI ‘The other example supporting the hypothesis that uygur ibaret! was used only as a stylistic cana comes from Mevidnd Lutti himself who in his mainavi titled Gal @ Nevritz shares the secret with his readers why he started composing his poem. Buyurdi kim gil fashda derhél Giil ii nevriiz Gvazesin sal “Ayiib ol qissan: tirké tiline ‘Ki tatqan til haldvatdin biline™ “He ordered that during the season of the rose Speak of the fame of Giil and Nevroz ‘Tell that story in the Tiirki tongue Anyone who tastes it should not say it’s wrong” It is Navé't again who supplies us with yet another interesting and thought-provoking term for ‘Turkic. In his Najm al-Javahir we find the following lines: Ve peritan héterga ve dBifte amirga bu sevaé kép dagdage salur kim titrkt tili bile men ham ol lent drdste qulay ve bu milddeed kp tereddttd ytkiriar erdi kim mogol iislbt bile men hem ol jevahirni aytqaymen.™ «To this troubled mind and this perplexed soul the wish to adome hat presiott stone in the Tiirki lmguage brings much vexation and the desire 10 user that gem in the Mogol manner causes @ lot of pain.” We can only guess why Nava’i used the expression Mogol usta as « synonyie of Tairkt tli in his ast. Would it be too daring to assume that it refers to the still living tradition of Uygur literacy as in the passage we quoted earlier? Summing up the results of our research we might come f0 the conclusion that Central Asian authors writing in Turkic usually applied the phrases alrkce, tiirki, tiirk tli, tirk elfazi to whe medium of their artistic expression. As it has been pointed out Cagatay as a term oceurs ‘very rarely jn our native sources and even then it either refers to a highly exalted and elegant literary style or in Mughal sources to the spoken language of the ‘Turkic population of the former Timurid realm, Having analysed the data of native authors it seems worth rethinking whether it is appropriate to use the term for deseribing the language of each and every literary work produced in Central Asian Turkic in the 15-19" century especially jf their authors — e.g. Abd al-Gazi — were proud of avoiding the use of phrases characteristical of the highly elaborate literary style, Cagatay. References ‘Ahi ad-Din Turkamdn: Lugat-i turk, British Library, Or. 1912 Blagova, G. F.: Tjurksk. Eayataj —russk. Zagataj/dzagataj. (Opyt sravnitel’nogo izuSenija starogo Sv vstvovenija). n: Tjurkologiceshij sbornik 1971. Moskva 1972, BP. 167-205 Boeschoten, H.— Vandamme, M.: Chaghatay. In: The Turkic Languages. Ed. by L. Johanson — E. A. Csat6, London 1998, pp. 166-178 et ° Lat: Gil w Nevrtz. Library ofthe Hungarian Academy of Sclenets ‘Tordk 0. 182, fol. 4a 2 MeL MirAlt Si Nazm ulfavabit In: Ali ir Neva Vol. 4. Ba by A.S. Levend, Ankara 1968, p. 39.NOTES ON THE LITERARY-LINGUISTIC TERM “CAGATAY” 255 Borovkov, A. K.; AliSer Navoi kak osnovopoloinik uzbekskogo literatumogo jazyka. In: Aliger Navoi. Sbornik stare}. Ed. by A. K. Borovkov, Moskva 1946, pp. 92-120 Desmaisons, P. 1.: Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares par Aboul-Ghazi Behddour Khin. Philo Press, Amsterdam 1970 Eckman, Fanos: Cagatay dili hakkinda notlar. In: 7DAY-Belleten 1958, pp. 136-141 Eliot, H. M.— Dowson, J: The History of India as Told by Its Ovm Historians. Vol. 5. New Delhi 1996 (reprint) Hidayat Husayn, M. M.: The Mirz Namah (The book of the perfect gentleman) of Mirza Kamran ‘with an English translation. In: Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 9 (1913), pp. 1-13 isen, M.(ed.): Latif tezkiresi. Ankara 1990 Kononov, A. N.: Rodoslovnaja tjurkmen. Moskva — Leningrad 1958 Lutft: Gill i Nevraz. Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Térdk O, 182 M.: Das Altosmaniseh. In: Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden 1959 “All Sit: Mizdn al-Avzdn, Bd. by K. Eraslan, Turk Dil Kurumu, Ankara 1993 Nava’, Mir “Alt Sir: Majlis an-Nafiis. In: Ali Sir Nevai, Vol. 4. Ed. by A. 8 Levend, Ankara 1968, Pp. 61-86 Nava’, Mir “Ali Sir: Muhdkamar al-Lugatayn, Ed. by R, Devereaux, Leyden 1966 Nava’i, Mir Alf Sir: Nazm ul-Javahir, In: Ali Sir Nevat. Vol. 4. Bd. by A. S. Levend, Ankara 1968, pp. 37-42 Samojlovie, A. N.: K istori literatumogo stedneaziaiskogo-tureckogo jazyka. In: Mir Ali-Sir. ‘Sbornik pjatisorlenju so dnja rozdenija. Ed. by V. V. Battol’d, Leningrad 1928 Scydi “Ali Re'fs: Mirdi al-Memdlik. Ed. by Ahmed Jevdet, istanbul 1313 Uzgér, T.: Tarkge divan dibaceleri. Ankara 1990