Adaptation of Buyruk Manuscripts to Impart Alevi Teachings: Mehmet Yaman Dede and the Arapgir-Çimen Buyruğu

J. Karolewski
{"title":"Adaptation of Buyruk Manuscripts to Impart Alevi Teachings: Mehmet Yaman Dede and the Arapgir-Çimen Buyruğu","authors":"J. Karolewski","doi":"10.1515/9783110741124-023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Today, many Alevis believe that the central teachings of their religious tradition are represented in a book called Buyruk, or Command. In the last decades, some twenty books have been published to make the relevant texts, originally written in the Perso-Arabic alphabet of Ottoman Turkish, available for readers familiar only with the Latin-based alphabet of modern Turkish. However, too little is known about the manuscripts that served as exemplars for these printed works. The Arapgir-Çimen Buyruğu is such a manuscript, however, through its last owner Mehmet Yaman Dede, a religious specialist of the tradition, it can now be understood how variously he adapted its contents for presentation in a published version for community members eager to become acquainted with these writings. It is suggested here that his work on both text and manuscript reflects earlier practices, partly rearranged, however, and that his endeavours must be reflected in light of his life story, and his educational history in particular. Buyruk is a living document. There is no single definitive version agreed upon by all Alevis. Numerous versions of the text exist in manuscript form. It is readily available in a variety of inexpensive published versions. Although these versions differ both in length and content, they generally contain a similar collection of narratives, descriptions of ritual, poetry, and explanations of theology. This definition of Buyruk, as presented by Vernon Schubel, alludes to major questions that are to be raised in the following. In the absence of a definitive version of Buyruk, can we assume that some scribes, compilers and others involved in the production of such manuscripts were free to make changes in order to adapt the texts to certain needs? Moreover, are there adaptations that can be linked to requirements in teaching and learning? And last but not least, how do recent print versions relate to the previously handwritten collections of texts? || 1 Schubel 2010, 331. 466 | Janina Karolewski Given the different text versions in Buyruk manuscripts, it is apparent that they have been subject to adaptation from the outset. Indeed, it is probably fair to admit there has been a generally unstable transmission of Buyruk texts. But some manuscripts known to us thus far, display massive textual parallels. When cursorily comparing the latter, we observe a number of recurring modifications – among them abbreviated or expanded text versions, but also differences in spelling or word choice. An ideal case, however, enabling an understanding of which scribe departed from his exemplar when copying and which copyist tried to faithfully reproduce the texts before him, is a rarity. For this reason, we have decided to focus here on an individual case in which we can compare the manuscript exemplar with the resultant adaptations, albeit in print. Following an overview on Buyruk manuscripts and printed versions, we will introduce the Alevi religious specialist Mehmet Yaman Dede (1940–2014), who worked intensively with written sources of his tradition. Then, we will zoom in on the Arapgir-Çimen Buyruğu, the manuscript which served Mehmet Yaman Dede as an exemplar for his printed Buyruk publications. Finally, we will analyse his adaptation strategies, which, as proposed, can be interpreted to some extent as continuations and rearrangements of practices that were already commonly employed with manuscripts. 1 Buyruk books: From manuscripts to prints The Alevis are members of a marginalised religious tradition from Anatolia and other neighbouring regions, often referred to as Alevilik, or Alevism. In their private book collections so-called Buyruks or Buyruk manuscripts are often || 2 See e.g. Karakaya-Stump 2010, 279; Kehl-Bodrogi 1997, 135; Otter-Beaujean 1997, 224; Yildiz 2017, 80. 3 The first critical Buyruk edition was accomplished by Rıza Yıldırım only after the submission of the present paper (see Yıldırım 2020). We thank him for sharing parts of his, at that time, still unpublished book with us. 4 We feel deeply indebted to the late Mehmet Yaman Dede and his son Prof. Dr. Ali Yaman, Abant İzzet Üniversitesi, Bolu, Turkey, for their boundless confidence through all the years. Our research would not have been possible in this form without their support. We also express our thanks for giving the authorisation for publishing all images reproduced here. 5 For a short introduction to the Alevi tradition see Dressler 2008; and for a special focus on teaching and learning in Alevi communities, see the contribution by Janina Karolewski in the present volume (Section ‘Educational Setting’, pp. 151–184). Adaptation of Buyruk Manuscripts to Impart Alevi Teachings | 467 found. The designation Buyruk, translated as ‘command’, can be understood as a label that Alevis used to apply to books belonging to a corpus or set of texts. It is said that this corpus or set contains the central religious and social teachings of Alevi communities. It seems to have been a rare exception to indicate this label within the manuscripts, either as a heading or on the cover. Buyruks, therefore, can have both identical or non-identical titles, if at all, and they can comprise similar texts, display textual differences, vary in extent and order, and so forth. The earliest copies are said to date back to the first quarter of the 17 century, but most of the recently documented manuscripts were copied between the late eighteenth and early twentieth century. Buyruk texts are usually composed in Ottoman Turkish, i.e. Turkish written in Perso-Arabic characters, with occasional use of short phrases in Arabic. Alevi religious specialists educated in the Arabic alphabet made use of these text collections to acquire knowledge themselves and disseminate it among their community members and followers. The specialists were not allowed, however, to disclose the texts to outsiders, and it is even said that access to Buyruks had been restricted to chosen, presumably male-only members of the ocaks, or holy lineages. Such esoteric codes of conduct, in part at least, are present in many Buyruks and are a common feature regarding mystic interpretations of Islam. The common use of Buyruks and many other manuscript books came to an almost absolute end by the mid-twentieth century approximately. Following the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, several reforms and modernisation programmes took hold in Turkish society, severely affecting the educational practices of Alevi communities. The most significant and obvious repercussion was the conversion to the Latin alphabet, which was implemented by means of || 6 For short overviews on Buyruks see e.g. Otter-Beaujean 1997; Karakaya-Stump 2010; for comprehensive analysis, see Kaplan 2010; Yıldırım 2020. 7 We suggest this understanding of Buyruk (Karolewski 2018, 81–82), which is based on the concept of multiple-text manuscripts as ‘corpus organisers’ (see Bausi 2010). See also Ayfer Karakaya-Stump 2010, 279. 8 On these copies see e.g. Yıldırım 2012, 178, n. 5. The earliest occurrence of the label Buyruk, however, has been attested as 1857, when the protestant missionary Dunmore reported on Alevis in larger Dersim (see e.g. Karakaya-Stump 2010, 278). It remains unclear when the label Buyruk came into being. 9 See e.g. Kaplan 2010, 43–58; Yıldırım 2020. 10 Also referred to as Arabo-Persian characters or alphabet. 11 See e.g. Kaplan 2010, 92; Karakaya-Stump 2010, 282; and the text sample in Appendix 1 and 2. 468 | Janina Karolewski various literacy campaigns and the introduction of public schooling. Furthermore, social changes such as secularisation, industrialisation and urbanisation led to an abandoning of Ottoman Turkish manuscripts for the transmission of Alevi practices and beliefs. Many young Alevis opted for state school and university education, paving the way for well-paid jobs, especially in the civil service, thus supporting social mobilisation in manifold ways. Not only did education shift to other domains of knowledge, but Alevis left their villages for fast-growing provincial capitals and urban centres such as Ankara and Istanbul, some even migrating abroad. In 1958, Sefer Aytekin was the first to publish texts from several Buyruk manuscripts in the form of a small book (Aytekin 1958), which was well-received by many Alevis, interested in what they assumed to be their written tradition. In the following years, other popular Buyruk publications in the Latin alphabet were published. The editors, frequently Alevis themselves, often published their own books or worked with small publishing houses specialised in such publications. Towards the late 1980s in particular, these publishing houses began to meet the demand of many young Alevis who felt the need to engage with their tradition, from which they felt they had become estranged from over the previous decades. Aside from the numerous popular editions and compilations that still appear to this day, growing academic interest in Buyruks has spurred further publications and editions from the early 2000s. The most outstanding among them, nevertheless, were those appearing in the series titled Alevî-Bektaşî Klasikleri, that is to say Alevi-Bektaşi Classics. The series was established by Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, or Religious Foundation of Turkey, which is a subordinate to Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı, the Presidency of Religious Affairs. The presidency had previously turned down requests by Alevis to receive recognition of their own religious authorities or forms of religious practice. But the situation purportedly changed in 2007, when the government initiated the so-called ‘Alevi Opening’ for the purpose of bringing together state officials, Alevi functionaries and specialists on the issue. While this process ended without any real political outcome around 2015, || 12 On the Turkish language reform, see Lewis 1999, esp. chap. 2 and 3. 13 For these social transformations see e.g. M","PeriodicalId":103492,"journal":{"name":"Education Materialised","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education Materialised","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110741124-023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Today, many Alevis believe that the central teachings of their religious tradition are represented in a book called Buyruk, or Command. In the last decades, some twenty books have been published to make the relevant texts, originally written in the Perso-Arabic alphabet of Ottoman Turkish, available for readers familiar only with the Latin-based alphabet of modern Turkish. However, too little is known about the manuscripts that served as exemplars for these printed works. The Arapgir-Çimen Buyruğu is such a manuscript, however, through its last owner Mehmet Yaman Dede, a religious specialist of the tradition, it can now be understood how variously he adapted its contents for presentation in a published version for community members eager to become acquainted with these writings. It is suggested here that his work on both text and manuscript reflects earlier practices, partly rearranged, however, and that his endeavours must be reflected in light of his life story, and his educational history in particular. Buyruk is a living document. There is no single definitive version agreed upon by all Alevis. Numerous versions of the text exist in manuscript form. It is readily available in a variety of inexpensive published versions. Although these versions differ both in length and content, they generally contain a similar collection of narratives, descriptions of ritual, poetry, and explanations of theology. This definition of Buyruk, as presented by Vernon Schubel, alludes to major questions that are to be raised in the following. In the absence of a definitive version of Buyruk, can we assume that some scribes, compilers and others involved in the production of such manuscripts were free to make changes in order to adapt the texts to certain needs? Moreover, are there adaptations that can be linked to requirements in teaching and learning? And last but not least, how do recent print versions relate to the previously handwritten collections of texts? || 1 Schubel 2010, 331. 466 | Janina Karolewski Given the different text versions in Buyruk manuscripts, it is apparent that they have been subject to adaptation from the outset. Indeed, it is probably fair to admit there has been a generally unstable transmission of Buyruk texts. But some manuscripts known to us thus far, display massive textual parallels. When cursorily comparing the latter, we observe a number of recurring modifications – among them abbreviated or expanded text versions, but also differences in spelling or word choice. An ideal case, however, enabling an understanding of which scribe departed from his exemplar when copying and which copyist tried to faithfully reproduce the texts before him, is a rarity. For this reason, we have decided to focus here on an individual case in which we can compare the manuscript exemplar with the resultant adaptations, albeit in print. Following an overview on Buyruk manuscripts and printed versions, we will introduce the Alevi religious specialist Mehmet Yaman Dede (1940–2014), who worked intensively with written sources of his tradition. Then, we will zoom in on the Arapgir-Çimen Buyruğu, the manuscript which served Mehmet Yaman Dede as an exemplar for his printed Buyruk publications. Finally, we will analyse his adaptation strategies, which, as proposed, can be interpreted to some extent as continuations and rearrangements of practices that were already commonly employed with manuscripts. 1 Buyruk books: From manuscripts to prints The Alevis are members of a marginalised religious tradition from Anatolia and other neighbouring regions, often referred to as Alevilik, or Alevism. In their private book collections so-called Buyruks or Buyruk manuscripts are often || 2 See e.g. Karakaya-Stump 2010, 279; Kehl-Bodrogi 1997, 135; Otter-Beaujean 1997, 224; Yildiz 2017, 80. 3 The first critical Buyruk edition was accomplished by Rıza Yıldırım only after the submission of the present paper (see Yıldırım 2020). We thank him for sharing parts of his, at that time, still unpublished book with us. 4 We feel deeply indebted to the late Mehmet Yaman Dede and his son Prof. Dr. Ali Yaman, Abant İzzet Üniversitesi, Bolu, Turkey, for their boundless confidence through all the years. Our research would not have been possible in this form without their support. We also express our thanks for giving the authorisation for publishing all images reproduced here. 5 For a short introduction to the Alevi tradition see Dressler 2008; and for a special focus on teaching and learning in Alevi communities, see the contribution by Janina Karolewski in the present volume (Section ‘Educational Setting’, pp. 151–184). Adaptation of Buyruk Manuscripts to Impart Alevi Teachings | 467 found. The designation Buyruk, translated as ‘command’, can be understood as a label that Alevis used to apply to books belonging to a corpus or set of texts. It is said that this corpus or set contains the central religious and social teachings of Alevi communities. It seems to have been a rare exception to indicate this label within the manuscripts, either as a heading or on the cover. Buyruks, therefore, can have both identical or non-identical titles, if at all, and they can comprise similar texts, display textual differences, vary in extent and order, and so forth. The earliest copies are said to date back to the first quarter of the 17 century, but most of the recently documented manuscripts were copied between the late eighteenth and early twentieth century. Buyruk texts are usually composed in Ottoman Turkish, i.e. Turkish written in Perso-Arabic characters, with occasional use of short phrases in Arabic. Alevi religious specialists educated in the Arabic alphabet made use of these text collections to acquire knowledge themselves and disseminate it among their community members and followers. The specialists were not allowed, however, to disclose the texts to outsiders, and it is even said that access to Buyruks had been restricted to chosen, presumably male-only members of the ocaks, or holy lineages. Such esoteric codes of conduct, in part at least, are present in many Buyruks and are a common feature regarding mystic interpretations of Islam. The common use of Buyruks and many other manuscript books came to an almost absolute end by the mid-twentieth century approximately. Following the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923, several reforms and modernisation programmes took hold in Turkish society, severely affecting the educational practices of Alevi communities. The most significant and obvious repercussion was the conversion to the Latin alphabet, which was implemented by means of || 6 For short overviews on Buyruks see e.g. Otter-Beaujean 1997; Karakaya-Stump 2010; for comprehensive analysis, see Kaplan 2010; Yıldırım 2020. 7 We suggest this understanding of Buyruk (Karolewski 2018, 81–82), which is based on the concept of multiple-text manuscripts as ‘corpus organisers’ (see Bausi 2010). See also Ayfer Karakaya-Stump 2010, 279. 8 On these copies see e.g. Yıldırım 2012, 178, n. 5. The earliest occurrence of the label Buyruk, however, has been attested as 1857, when the protestant missionary Dunmore reported on Alevis in larger Dersim (see e.g. Karakaya-Stump 2010, 278). It remains unclear when the label Buyruk came into being. 9 See e.g. Kaplan 2010, 43–58; Yıldırım 2020. 10 Also referred to as Arabo-Persian characters or alphabet. 11 See e.g. Kaplan 2010, 92; Karakaya-Stump 2010, 282; and the text sample in Appendix 1 and 2. 468 | Janina Karolewski various literacy campaigns and the introduction of public schooling. Furthermore, social changes such as secularisation, industrialisation and urbanisation led to an abandoning of Ottoman Turkish manuscripts for the transmission of Alevi practices and beliefs. Many young Alevis opted for state school and university education, paving the way for well-paid jobs, especially in the civil service, thus supporting social mobilisation in manifold ways. Not only did education shift to other domains of knowledge, but Alevis left their villages for fast-growing provincial capitals and urban centres such as Ankara and Istanbul, some even migrating abroad. In 1958, Sefer Aytekin was the first to publish texts from several Buyruk manuscripts in the form of a small book (Aytekin 1958), which was well-received by many Alevis, interested in what they assumed to be their written tradition. In the following years, other popular Buyruk publications in the Latin alphabet were published. The editors, frequently Alevis themselves, often published their own books or worked with small publishing houses specialised in such publications. Towards the late 1980s in particular, these publishing houses began to meet the demand of many young Alevis who felt the need to engage with their tradition, from which they felt they had become estranged from over the previous decades. Aside from the numerous popular editions and compilations that still appear to this day, growing academic interest in Buyruks has spurred further publications and editions from the early 2000s. The most outstanding among them, nevertheless, were those appearing in the series titled Alevî-Bektaşî Klasikleri, that is to say Alevi-Bektaşi Classics. The series was established by Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı, or Religious Foundation of Turkey, which is a subordinate to Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı, the Presidency of Religious Affairs. The presidency had previously turned down requests by Alevis to receive recognition of their own religious authorities or forms of religious practice. But the situation purportedly changed in 2007, when the government initiated the so-called ‘Alevi Opening’ for the purpose of bringing together state officials, Alevi functionaries and specialists on the issue. While this process ended without any real political outcome around 2015, || 12 On the Turkish language reform, see Lewis 1999, esp. chap. 2 and 3. 13 For these social transformations see e.g. M
今天,许多阿拉维派信徒相信,他们宗教传统的核心教义体现在一本名为《命令》(Buyruk)的书中。在过去的几十年里,已经出版了大约20本书,以使最初用奥斯曼土耳其语的波斯语-阿拉伯语字母编写的相关文本可供只熟悉现代土耳其语拉丁字母的读者使用。然而,人们对作为这些印刷作品范例的手稿知之甚少。Arapgir-Çimen Buyruğu就是这样一份手稿,然而,通过它的最后一位主人Mehmet Yaman Dede,一位传统的宗教专家,现在可以理解他是如何将其内容改编成出版版本,以供渴望了解这些作品的社区成员使用。这里建议,他的工作在文本和手稿反映了早期的做法,部分重新安排,然而,他的努力必须反映在他的生活故事,特别是他的教育历史。比鲁克是一个活生生的文件。没有一个所有阿拉维派都同意的确定版本。许多版本的文本以手稿形式存在。它有各种廉价的出版版本。虽然这些版本在长度和内容上有所不同,但它们通常包含类似的叙述,仪式描述,诗歌和神学解释。弗农·舒贝尔(Vernon Schubel)对Buyruk的定义暗示了以下将要提出的主要问题。在没有确定版本的贝鲁克的情况下,我们是否可以假设一些抄写员、编纂者和其他参与制作这些手稿的人可以自由地进行修改,以使文本适应某些需要?此外,是否存在与教与学的要求相关联的适应性?最后但并非最不重要的是,最近的印刷版本与以前的手写文本集有什么关系?[| 1 Schubel 2010, 331.]考虑到比鲁克手稿中不同的文本版本,很明显,它们从一开始就受到了改编的影响。事实上,公平地说,比鲁克文本的传播总体上是不稳定的。但目前已知的一些手稿显示了大量的文本相似之处。粗略地比较后一种,我们观察到一些反复出现的修改——其中包括缩写或扩展文本版本,但也有拼写或单词选择的差异。然而,一个理想的情况是,能够理解哪个抄写员在抄写时偏离了他的范例,哪个抄写员试图忠实地复制他面前的文本,这是罕见的。出于这个原因,我们决定把重点放在一个单独的案例上,在这个案例中,我们可以将手稿范例与最终的改编进行比较,尽管是在印刷中。在概述比鲁克手稿和印刷版本之后,我们将介绍阿勒维宗教专家Mehmet Yaman Dede(1940-2014),他对其传统的书面资料进行了大量研究。然后,我们将放大到Arapgir-Çimen Buyruğu,这是穆罕默德·亚曼·德德(Mehmet Yaman Dede)印刷的Buyruk出版物的范例手稿。最后,我们将分析他的适应策略,这些策略可以在某种程度上解释为已经普遍用于手稿的实践的延续和重新安排。Alevis是来自安纳托利亚和其他邻近地区的一个被边缘化的宗教传统的成员,通常被称为Alevilik或Alevism。在他们的私人藏书中,所谓的“比尤鲁克”或“比尤鲁克手稿”经常是[| 2]参见Karakaya-Stump 2010, 279;Kehl-Bodrogi 1997, 135;Otter-Beaujean 1997, 224;Yildiz 2017, 80。3 .本论文提交后,Rıza Yıldırım才完成了首个重要的Buyruk版(见Yıldırım 2020)。我们感谢他与我们分享他当时尚未出版的书的部分内容。4 .我们对已故的穆罕默德·亚曼·德德先生和他的儿子阿里·亚曼博士教授(İzzet Üniversitesi,土耳其博卢)多年来给予我们无限的信任深表感激。如果没有他们的支持,我们的研究不可能以这种形式出现。我们也对授权发布此处转载的所有图片表示感谢。关于Alevi传统的简短介绍,见Dressler 2008;特别关注阿勒维社区的教学,见Janina karolowski在本卷中的贡献(“教育环境”部分,第151-184页)。改编比鲁克手稿以传授阿列维教义| 467发现。名称Buyruk,翻译为“命令”,可以理解为Alevis用来应用于属于语料库或文本集的书籍的标签。据说这个语料库或集合包含了阿勒维社区的核心宗教和社会教义。 在手稿中标明这个标签,无论是作为标题还是在封面上,似乎都是一个罕见的例外。因此,Buyruks可以有相同或不相同的标题,如果有的话,它们可以包含相似的文本,显示文本差异,在范围和顺序上有所不同,等等。据说最早的抄本可以追溯到17世纪的前25年,但大多数最近记录的手稿都是在18世纪末到20世纪初之间抄写的。比鲁克文本通常由奥斯曼土耳其语组成,即用波斯语-阿拉伯语字符书写的土耳其语,偶尔使用阿拉伯语的短句。受过阿拉伯字母教育的Alevi宗教专家利用这些文本集获取知识,并将其传播给社区成员和追随者。然而,专家们不被允许向外人透露这些文本,甚至有人说,进入比鲁克的途径被限制在被选中的,可能是只有ocaks或神圣血统的男性成员。这种深奥的行为准则,至少在某种程度上,出现在许多布鲁克人身上,是对伊斯兰教神秘主义解释的共同特征。布鲁克和许多其他手稿书籍的普遍使用大约在二十世纪中期几乎绝对结束。1923年土耳其共和国成立后,土耳其社会实施了若干改革和现代化方案,严重影响了阿莱维社区的教育实践。最重要和最明显的影响是向拉丁字母的转换,这是通过以下方式实现的:关于Buyruks的简短概述,参见Otter-Beaujean 1997;Karakaya-Stump 2010;全面分析见Kaplan 2010;Yıldırım 2020。7我们建议对Buyruk (karolowski 2018, 81-82)有这样的理解,这是基于多文本手稿作为“语料库组织者”的概念(见Bausi 2010)。另见Ayfer Karakaya-Stump 2010, 279。关于这些副本,参见Yıldırım 2012, 178, n. 5。然而,Buyruk这个标签最早出现是在1857年,当时新教传教士Dunmore在较大的Dersim报告了Alevis(见例如Karakaya-Stump 2010, 278)。目前尚不清楚Buyruk这个品牌是何时诞生的。9参见e.g. Kaplan 2010, 43-58;Yıldırım 2020。也被称为阿拉伯-波斯文字或字母。11参见e.g. Kaplan 2010, 92;Karakaya-Stump 2010, 282;以及附录1和附录2中的文本样本。Janina karolowski各种扫盲运动和公立学校的引入。此外,诸如世俗化、工业化和城市化等社会变化导致奥斯曼土耳其手稿被遗弃,以传播阿勒维派的实践和信仰。许多年轻的阿拉维派选择了公立学校和大学教育,为高薪工作铺平了道路,特别是在公务员部门,从而以多种方式支持社会动员。不仅教育转向了其他知识领域,而且阿拉维人离开了他们的村庄,来到了快速发展的省会城市和城市中心,如安卡拉和伊斯坦布尔,有些人甚至移居国外。1958年,塞弗·艾特金(Sefer Aytekin)第一个以小书的形式出版了几本比尤留克手稿的文本(Aytekin 1958),这受到了许多阿拉维人的欢迎,他们对他们认为是他们的书面传统感兴趣。在接下来的几年里,其他流行的布鲁克拉丁字母出版物出版了。这些编辑通常是Alevis本人,他们经常出版自己的书,或者与专门出版此类出版物的小型出版社合作。特别是在20世纪80年代后期,这些出版社开始满足许多年轻的Alevis人的需求,他们觉得有必要参与他们的传统,他们觉得他们在过去的几十年里已经疏远了。除了至今仍有许多流行的版本和汇编之外,从21世纪初开始,对Buyruks的学术兴趣日益浓厚,催生了更多的出版物和版本。然而,其中最突出的是那些出现在题为Alevî-Bektaşî Klasikleri的系列中,即alavi - bekta<e:1>经典。该系列是由土耳其宗教基金会(rkiye Diyanet vakfyi)建立的,该基金会隶属于宗教事务主席Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı。总统此前拒绝了阿拉维派要求承认他们自己的宗教权威或宗教活动形式的请求。但据称情况在2007年发生了变化,当时政府发起了所谓的“阿勒维开放”,目的是将国家官员、阿勒维工作人员和专家聚集在一起讨论这个问题。虽然这一进程在2015年左右没有任何真正的政治结果,但关于土耳其语改革,参见Lewis 1999,特别是第2章和第3章。 在手稿中标明这个标签,无论是作为标题还是在封面上,似乎都是一个罕见的例外。因此,Buyruks可以有相同或不相同的标题,如果有的话,它们可以包含相似的文本,显示文本差异,在范围和顺序上有所不同,等等。据说最早的抄本可以追溯到17世纪的前25年,但大多数最近记录的手稿都是在18世纪末到20世纪初之间抄写的。比鲁克文本通常由奥斯曼土耳其语组成,即用波斯语-阿拉伯语字符书写的土耳其语,偶尔使用阿拉伯语的短句。受过阿拉伯字母教育的Alevi宗教专家利用这些文本集获取知识,并将其传播给社区成员和追随者。然而,专家们不被允许向外人透露这些文本,甚至有人说,进入比鲁克的途径被限制在被选中的,可能是只有ocaks或神圣血统的男性成员。这种深奥的行为准则,至少在某种程度上,出现在许多布鲁克人身上,是对伊斯兰教神秘主义解释的共同特征。布鲁克和许多其他手稿书籍的普遍使用大约在二十世纪中期几乎绝对结束。1923年土耳其共和国成立后,土耳其社会实施了若干改革和现代化方案,严重影响了阿莱维社区的教育实践。最重要和最明显的影响是向拉丁字母的转换,这是通过以下方式实现的:关于Buyruks的简短概述,参见Otter-Beaujean 1997;Karakaya-Stump 2010;全面分析见Kaplan 2010;Yıldırım 2020。7我们建议对Buyruk (karolowski 2018, 81-82)有这样的理解,这是基于多文本手稿作为“语料库组织者”的概念(见Bausi 2010)。另见Ayfer Karakaya-Stump 2010, 279。关于这些副本,参见Yıldırım 2012, 178, n. 5。然而,Buyruk这个标签最早出现是在1857年,当时新教传教士Dunmore在较大的Dersim报告了Alevis(见例如Karakaya-Stump 2010, 278)。目前尚不清楚Buyruk这个品牌是何时诞生的。9参见e.g. Kaplan 2010, 43-58;Yıldırım 2020。也被称为阿拉伯-波斯文字或字母。11参见e.g. Kaplan 2010, 92;Karakaya-Stump 2010, 282;以及附录1和附录2中的文本样本。Janina karolowski各种扫盲运动和公立学校的引入。此外,诸如世俗化、工业化和城市化等社会变化导致奥斯曼土耳其手稿被遗弃,以传播阿勒维派的实践和信仰。许多年轻的阿拉维派选择了公立学校和大学教育,为高薪工作铺平了道路,特别是在公务员部门,从而以多种方式支持社会动员。不仅教育转向了其他知识领域,而且阿拉维人离开了他们的村庄,来到了快速发展的省会城市和城市中心,如安卡拉和伊斯坦布尔,有些人甚至移居国外。1958年,塞弗·艾特金(Sefer Aytekin)第一个以小书的形式出版了几本比尤留克手稿的文本(Aytekin 1958),这受到了许多阿拉维人的欢迎,他们对他们认为是他们的书面传统感兴趣。在接下来的几年里,其他流行的布鲁克拉丁字母出版物出版了。这些编辑通常是Alevis本人,他们经常出版自己的书,或者与专门出版此类出版物的小型出版社合作。特别是在20世纪80年代后期,这些出版社开始满足许多年轻的Alevis人的需求,他们觉得有必要参与他们的传统,他们觉得他们在过去的几十年里已经疏远了。除了至今仍有许多流行的版本和汇编之外,从21世纪初开始,对Buyruks的学术兴趣日益浓厚,催生了更多的出版物和版本。然而,其中最突出的是那些出现在题为Alevî-Bektaşî Klasikleri的系列中,即alavi - bekta<e:1>经典。该系列是由土耳其宗教基金会(rkiye Diyanet vakfyi)建立的,该基金会隶属于宗教事务主席Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı。总统此前拒绝了阿拉维派要求承认他们自己的宗教权威或宗教活动形式的请求。但据称情况在2007年发生了变化,当时政府发起了所谓的“阿勒维开放”,目的是将国家官员、阿勒维工作人员和专家聚集在一起讨论这个问题。虽然这一进程在2015年左右没有任何真正的政治结果,但关于土耳其语改革,参见Lewis 1999,特别是第2章和第3章。 这些社会转变参见M 这些社会转变参见M
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信