ABSTRACT
Finally some suggestions will be made regarding possible alternative ways to describe works such as these. The two conventional European taxonomic categories most plausible for the Köroğlu cycle are epic and romance. For both of these categories there exists an abundance of criteria, but no general agreement about applying them, not even to European works. Especially in the case of epic, one of the most firmly established and ancient of genres, this becomes problematic. Epic has always been a highly esteemed genre, often considered the most elegant of literary forms. Indeed, one sometimes senses an eagerness among scholars to identify a heroic work under study as an epic, whether out of loyalty to the conventions of literary criticism, or out of a wish to confer a cultural badge of honor upon the people possessing the work. But using this epic yardstick for non-European traditions does not always succeed. Before reviewing scholarly attempts to decide whether the Köroğlu cycle belongs in this category, a review of western notions of “epic” will be useful. Criteria for the epic genre have existed ever since Aristotle’s Poetics, where he specified factors of form and content to describe an epic. His criteria for form included verse format, a specific meter, and length and scope enough to accommodate episodes.1 Later critics have suggested that episodes are not appropriate to an epic, but that it should indeed be of great length.2 In terms of content, Aristotle believed that an epic must convey a sense of grandeur and deal with aristocratic characters,3 and later critics have echoed this view, stating that an epic should possess “weight,” “aristocratic dignity,” and “magnificence,”4 and also be of some national significance for the people among whom it arose.5 The degree of supernatural assistance given to the hero is also sometimes considered to be a distinguishing factor between epic and romance, with the epic hero being more able than his romantic counterpart to function without divine help.6 There is not universal agreement among Western literary critics about what constitutes an epic, but even if one opts instead to use a term from the indigenous taxonomy, as many critics prefer to do, one runs into similar problems. The closest one-word equivalent of “epic” in Islamicate literature is the Persianorigin word dāstān (Turkish destan). While dāstān/destan is on the whole a more inclusive and flexible term than is “epic,” there exist differing views on it as well. In its broadest sense it simply denotes a story of any kind. Thus Ferdowsi uses it to denote individual stories within his Shāh-nāma, and Zabihollāh Safā lists many different kinds of dāstān-didactic, religious, and fantastic dāstāns-alongside the heroic and indisputably epic Shāh-nāma.7 Other scholars, such as Julia Rubanovich in her careful analysis of dāstāns as compilations of Persian oral narratives, take a somewhat narrower view of its meaning.8 And while some Persian folklorists have noted the problem of impreciseness in the terminology of their field,9 others have simply accepted dāstān as the equivalent of épopée or “epic,” presumably with similar criteria in mind. The problems in applying the criteria of genres, whether Western or nonWestern, to the Köroğlu complex are compounded by the fact that the character of the hero, the plot, the supernatural elements, and even the form differ so
greatly between the eastern and western versions of the story. To deal first with the criteria for form mentioned so far: length, verse format, and non-episodic structure. Nearly all Köroğlu versions are of a length appropriate to an epic; abridged versions are always considered to be in another category, perhaps romance, perhaps hikāye.10 Most western versions are prosimetric, while some eastern versions (the Tajik and Afghan ones) are entirely in verse. All are episodic, but the degree of elaboration of the episodes differs greatly. For example, the Uzbek branches of the dāstān can be quite long, each dealing with a different one of Gurogli’s heroes, while the Azeri and Turkmen episodes are relatively concise and self-contained, though more than one story may be included in a chapter. In the published Tajik version,11 the episodes tend to ramble one into another, the chapter titles being quite arbitrary and describing only a part of the action in that chapter. As for the criteria regarding content, the only way in which all the Köroğlu versions conform to the common standard for epic is in having heroic battles and other conflicts as their overall theme. The Turkmen version is the only one incorporating any hint of national significance for Köroğlu.12 None of the versions can be called exactly uplifting in purpose, though Gurogli as a just ruler in the eastern versions may appear to be on a higher moral plane than the western outlaw. Insofar as the social standing of the hero is a factor, the socially marginal bandit of the western Köroğlu versions would not be considered an epic hero, while the ruler of the eastern versions might be, even if it is a tribal sort of aristocracy in question. Supernatural assistance is almost totally absent in the western versions, the Azeri Köroğlu being quite self-sufficient and capable of achieving feats of “epic” proportions with only his fine horse Kırat as a helper. In contrast, the eastern Gurogli seems to require the help of a deus ex machina for even a simple kidnapping. In spite of the multiformity of the versions and their lack of conformity to the criteria, most scholars who have written on the Köroğlu complex have not hesitated to call it an epic or some equivalent thereof in another language, such as epos (preferred by Memmedyazov,13 Seyit Karryev,14 Zarifov and Zhirmunsky,15 and Braginskij16), or destan (used by Boratav,17 Raʾis Niya,18 Tahmasıp,19 and most Turkish sources).20 Since both epic and destan are rather ill-defined, and since the features shift from one version of Köroğlu to another, this description has always been less than satisfactory, a bit careless as well as vague.21 Two scholars deeply experienced in Turkic literature have tried to be more exact in applying these imprecise terms to the Köroğlu complex: Pertev Naili Boratav and (much later) Karl Reichl. Both men initially embraced the native taxonomy, later modifying their views to bring them more in line with Western genre categories, and subsequently modifying them again. The basic issue has always been how to relate dāstān to “epic,” these two terms being only roughly equivalent to each other. Boratav, the great pioneer in the study of Köroğlu, originally thought of Köroğlu as a destan. He even entitled his groundbreaking book Köroğlu Destanı in 1931 and discussed why it should be so considered, rejecting Le Tourneau’s
view that only Indo-European peoples have epics.22 However, over the next few decades he revised his views on the matter several times in an apparent attempt to reconcile the terms “epic” and destan. In the 1940s, in his book Halk Hikāyeleri ve Halk Hikāyeciliği,23 he took the extreme view that there are no Turkic works that belong in the category of destan, with the possible exception of the Manas cycle of the Kirghiz. He saw even Dede Korkut as representative of a transitional phase leading to folk romance, and he considered Köroğlu as belonging in this latter category. In the 1950s, in his article on Köroğlu in the İslam Ansiklopedisi,24 Boratav again called the Köroğlu stories folk tales or halk hikāyeleri. Later, however, by the 1960s, he seems to have become resigned to designating Köroğlu as an épopée in his article “L’épopée et la ‘ḥikāye’ ” in the Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta.25 In this latter article, Boratav’s system of categorization of Turkic epic material is substantially different from the one he had suggested in Halk Hikāyeleri. Here he divides Turkic epic works into two large categories, the epic proper and the hikāye, but this time he places the Köroğlu destanı among the epics proper, in the subset of those historical epics whose heroes were later more or less coincidentally found to have had an actual historical identity. (He also regards Dede Korkut here as a true epic, depicting the times of the Oğuz conquests of Anatolia.) In the Fundamenta article, Boratav regards the hikāye as the transitional step to the modern romance, being shorter in length and on the whole more lyrical in subject matter, though some flexibility exists regarding both these criteria, and he concedes that hikāyes with heroic themes may exist. He no longer regards Köroğlu as an example of the hikāye, but he does note that, taken separately, the Köroğlu episodes could be regarded as hikāyes, and that the two genres have influenced each other. (As true examples of the hikāye he cites such works as Kerem ile Aslı and Emrah ile Selvi.) And there still remains some confusion as to what Boratav thinks constitutes a destan. In the Fundamenta article, he says a destan is a long narrative poem commemorating an important event and can in no way be classified as epic poetry.26 However, in the 1984 edition of Köroğlu Destanı the title remains unchanged, and no further explanation is offered. So first and last Boratav seems to have regarded Köroğlu as a destan or “epic,” though he obviously had reservations about the matter. More precise than Boratav’s views, and in my opinion closer to the mark, are Karl Reichl’s views on the genre of the Köroğlu complex in his 1992 book, Turkic Oral Epic Poetry. Reichl’s approach here makes allowances for the various factors that seem to have troubled Boratav. Reichl points out the limitations of the term destan in describing the forms of Turkic oral epic, but by allowing for subgenres within the larger category of destan, he resolves many of the difficulties. Of the several subgenres, Reichl places Köroğlu under the heading of “heroic romance,” as it is “romance-like in its plot-structure and in its style, even if the heroic qualities of the protagonists are emphasized.”27 Thus he considers heroic romance as part of destan rather than as opposed to it. The versions containing many supernatural elements are also accommodated by such an inclusive concept of destan.
