In my essay, I will analyze Kitab-i Dede Korkut’s two stories and Geoffrey Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Then I will try to make connections between these texts in order to compare to societies that they belong to as two medieval societies.

 Initially, I want to give what medieval means. It means, “produced in or connected with the middle ages” (Summers) Hence, medieval civilizations represent Middle Ages.

            In Kitab-i Dede Korkut first story tells the story of how Prince Uruz son of Prince Kazan was taken prisoner, and second one tells about Wild Dumrul. When I am analyzing these texts, I will focus on medieval civilizations.

At the beginning of the middle ages, Turks had nomadic civilizations so that history writing, science and agriculture had not been developed yet. Dede Korkut lived at these centuries, therefore, his stories were not written at first. He told verbally and listeners told his stories among Turks. However, after conquests Turks partly became settled civilizations. Hence, with the development of history writing, science and literature, they wrote Dede Korkut’s verbal stories.

Now, I will give a summary and then analyze Dede Korkut’s two stories. First one is Prince Uruz was taken as a prisoner. One day Oghuzs was celebrating their victory. Price Kazan was sitting behind the royalty members. At that time, he looked his right side and he laughed, then he looked at his left side. He saw his son Uruz and wept so Prince Uruz asked why Price Kazan wept when he saw Uruz. Kazan answered, “ I thought of my end and I wept, for on a morrow when time comes round and I die and you are left, other members of royalty will not give you my crown and my throne.” (p. 89) Hence, Uruz complain about why Kazan does not rely on him. After that dialogue, Kazan took his three hundred warriors with him, and Prince Uruz took forty chestnut-eyed (well educated and trained about war) young man to hunt. When they were hunting, they saw six separated clouds of dust had drawn near to them. Kazan said, “you can be sure it is the enemy that comes” (p. 91) relying on his experiences. Kazan prepared his warriors. Also, Uruz prepared his forty young men, however, Kazan said that Uruz must watch Kazanto teach how to battle so; Uruz took his warriors on mountain. However, Uruz could not suppress his emotions to fight and show himself. Therefore, he attacked to enemy without permission of Kazan. But, enemy captured Uruz and killed his forty warriors. After the war Kazan could not find his boy on mountain so he thought that his shy son went home because of his war fear. However, he could not find his boy at home so he understood that Uruz was a captive. Kazan gave orders to ninety thousand young Oghuz to follow him. They were confronted with the enemy. They attacked; however, they could not beat the enemy. After a while, Oghuzs beat enemy with the helps of other Turkish Khans such as Kara Gone, Wild Dundar, Kara Budak, Sher Semseddin and Bayindir Khan who came near Prince Kazan to help his army against unbelievers. Also, Lady Burla, who is Kazan’s wife, could not sit still so she came near Kazan to help him. Finally, Oghuzs beat enemy, help Uruz and “ Of fifteen thousand unbelievers, some were killed and the rest were captured” (p. 106) To celebrate victory, Prince Kazan had forty tents pitched. There was feasting for seven days and nights.

            The second story is about Wild Dumrul. He built a bridge and took money from all who crossed. And he beat who did not cross. Also, he says, “Is there a man wilder than I, braver than I, to come and fight me! Let word of my manliness, my heroism, my courage, my gallantry, spread abroad as far as the land of the Greeks, the land of the Syrians.” (p. 108) One day, a fine handsome warrior dies when a portion of a tribe encamped near the bridge. When Wild Dumrul heard that, he asked ‘ Who has killed your warrior?’ and people said ‘ By Allah, and angel Azrael’ Wild Dumrul says ‘I will beat Azrael so he will not take any more fine warriors’ lives.’ However, these sentences were not pleasing God. Therefore, God orders to Azrael “ Go, Azrael, appear before the eyes of that crazy pimp; turn his face pale, make his soul yelp and bring it here.” (p. 108) When Azrael appeared Wild Dumrul terrified a lot. However, “ Wild Dumrul drew his black sword and lunged at Azrael. Azrael became a dove and flew out of the smoke-hole.” (p. 110) Therefore, Dumrul thought that he terrified Azrael so he caught as a bird. And, he raised his horse to find Azrael in the forest. However, Azrael showed himself to Dumrul’s horse. Horse threw Dumrul to the ground and Azrael settled heavy on his breast. At that time, Dumrul began to hovel: “ Don’t take my soul Azrael, mercy!” (p.110), and said “ I have an old father and mother; come, lets go; one of them might give their souls, then you take it and leave mine.” (p. 111) Azrael accepted his idea. Dumrul went near his father. He asked his father that he could give his soul for his son, but his father answered as he can do everything for him, however, “ the world is sweat and life is dear; I cannot give up my life.” (p. 113) Therefore, Dumrul went near his mother, he asked same question and heard the same answer. Dumrul lost his hope. He went near his family to say goodbye. However, his wife said “Do not leave the two boys fatherless; let my life be sacrificed for yours” (p.115) Then Dumrul supplicated “…Everlasting, all-powerful God! On the great highways, I shall build hospices for your sake…if you will take, takes both our lives. Most honored, mighty God!” (p. 115) Dumrul’s words were pleasing to God and He ordered to Azrael “ Take the lives of Wild Dumrul’s parents; I have granted him and his wife a hundred and forty years of life.” (p. 115) Finally, Dumrul lived a hundred and forty years more, together with his companion.

In the middle ages, according to Turks obedience to Khans is very important to survive their societies. Also, it is current for Prince. Hence, in this story Dede Korkut aims to explain the importance of obedience to Khans. He used Prince Uruz as an example. He was taken as a prisoner after he did not listen his father’s command. On the other hand, in that story, he gives some information about Turkish society and traditions. For example, he says about traditional celebrations after victories “ Kazan had forty tents pitched. There was feasting for seven days and nights there was feasting.” (Lewis, p 106), and about the importance of horses in wars, also in social life he says “ Uruz was keeping his Arab horse for this (battle) day; his day has come.” (Lewis, p 105)

That story was about the fight between Azrael and Wild Dumrul. I think the original story considers a different character against Dumrul, because Azrael is an angel according to Islam. If I support Dede Korkut lived before Turks follow Islam as a religion, Azrael cannot be a character in that story. However, the content of the story is more important because, I support that Dede Korkut was a mentor. Hence, I will focus on his advices in that story also, some evidence about medieval Turkish society and culture. In my opinion, that story includes advices to people about fear of death and the danger of pride. Wild Dumrul was a very proud person. He said, “Is there a man wilder than I, braver than I, to come and fight me! Let word of my manliness, my heroism, my courage, my gallantry, spread abroad as far as the land of the Greeks, the land of the Syrians.” (Lewis, p 108) However, Azrael beat him. Hence, Dumrul understood that there are other creatures, which can beat him so; the advice is, pride is not a good personal feature because; there might be others who are successful than you. On the other hand, Dede Korkut mentioned on fear of death. After Dumrul was beaten, he went near his parents and asked them “ I ask life from you, will you give me your life.” (Lewis, p 112) His parent’s answers were same “ The world is sweat and life is dear; I cannot give up my life.” (Lewis, p 113) However, Dumrul’s wife accepted to give his soul for him. Hence, at the end of the story God forgave Dumrul’s and his wife’s souls and took his parent’s souls. I think Dede Korkut advise people not loving life so much and advise to love and to devote yourself for your loves. On the other hand, in that story we can understand that medieval Turks had nomadic civilizations because; in stories people usually talk about tents not about houses. And, “ Men press those grapes and the red wine comes; those who drink of that wine become drunk.” (Lewis, p 110) This sentence mentions about wine and becoming drunk, which are banned in Islam’s beliefs. Therefore, I think that words might not be changed or it presents that Turks drank wine after they accepted Islam so that, they could not follow exactly the rules of Islam.

The Canterbury Tales, which is the most famous work of Geoffrey Chaucer, can be considered the first collection of short stories in English. The entire collection was probably written between the years 1387 and 1400. There were thirty pilgrims and Chaucer planned to write a hundred and twenty stories that include four stories of each pilgrims. Each of them would tell two stories while they were going to Canterbury and two stories when they were coming back. However there are twenty-four stories instead of a hundred and twenty. So, it means Chaucer changed his mind and limited stories to twenty four or there was not enough time to complete the story, because he died. 

Then, I am giving a summary of fist part, The General Prologue. At the Tabard Inn, which is a tavern in Southwark, near London, storyteller comes here. There is a company that includes twenty-nine pilgrims. These pilgrims are traveling to the holy place of the martyr Saint Thomas Becket in Canterbury. The storyteller joins them to go Canterbury. The storyteller gives descriptions to twenty-nine pilgrims which includes a Knight, Squire, Yeoman, Prioress, Monk, Friar, Merchant, Clerk, Man of Law, Franklin, Haberdasher, Carpenter, Weaver, Dyer, Tapestry-Weaver, Cook, Shipman, Physician, Wife, Parson, Plowman, Miller, Manciple, Reeve, Summoner, Pardoner, and Host. The Host recommends to the group to ride in together and amuse with telling stories. He decides that each pilgrim will tell two stories on the way to Canterbury and two on the way back. In the final he decides the best narrator who will receive a meal at Bailey’s tavern that other pilgrims which is paid by others as their courtesy. Innkeeper and Host, said to the pilgrims traveling to Canterbury “It’s that you each, to shorten the long journey, shall tell two tales en route to Canterbury and coming homeward, another two, stories of things that happened long ago. Whoever best acquits himself, and tells the most amusing and instructive tale, shall have a dinner, paid by us all. Here in this roof, and under this roof-tree, when we come back again from Canterbury.” (Coghill, p 21) The pilgrims draw lots of times and make a decision that the knight will tell the first tale.

Even though Medieval England was far less complicated than life today, we can see that people got on fairly well with one another, and there was perhaps more communication between people in Chaucer’s time than today.  In the Middle Ages it was not unusual for people of different social classes to stick together as pilgrims as they would not somewhere else in life. So we hear firstly the storyteller’s explanation of most of the group in a ironic and often very funny manner, in the General Prologue.

Perhaps the pilgrimage is false scenery, but it is clearly not strange to have all legislatures of society traveling together, communing with one another with the same purpose of reaching Canterburyand Beckett’s tomb.  The Pilgrims show the same contact with one another as we might wait for today if a similar pilgrimage were to be accepted. We have the different contentions between certain members of the party, and although invectives are hurled between members of the group, the feeling is that in true Christian spirit they are able to excuse one another the invectives, for no one leaves the party and they all keep on together in the company. One gets the feeling that there are less obstacles between the social classes in Medieval England, and that maybe the Church legislatures are more down to earth than their complements are today. Maybe this is because life was a bit more essential in the 14th Century than it is today.

In Kitab-i Dede Korkut it was told about the social structure and religion. As I said before, it was mentioned about military and relations in government. In the second story of Kitab-i Dede Korkut religious life of Turks who lived that period of time was told. So we can learn some information about the religious life and social structure and state. However in Canterbury Tales the relationships between pilgrims were told. And we can see there were no social classes during that period, because people who came from different locations and classes were together. However such things were not mentioned in Kitab-i Dede Korkut.

We have got some problems when we try to make comparison, because again there was a problem about whether we can trust them as a historical document. This is also the basic requirement for history. We must first investigate about the resources that we use. Because we must be sure that resources can be used. If they are not reliable, we can’t use. Here, the key word is “historical”. We should consider this at first. Being historical of something depends on whether we are able to use them in order to compare or consider historical events from the perspective of cause-effect relationship, which is the basic relationship in history. Some things, which can’t be real or are not real, were told in the texts, Canterbury Tales and Kitab-i Dede Korkut. However, we don’t use exactly and use them just able to make interpretations about the society that they were written for. From this standpoint of view, we may not demonstrate them as historical documents; but according to understanding of texts we can say, “This societies were living like that…” We can make such interpretations and comments about societies. But, we shouldn’t forget that we can’t use them as historical documents always or not all parts of them. So, we are able to use some parts if they meet the necessary requirements.

In conclusion, the stories can be useful to learn about the societies that they belong to. We can learn that how did they live or what were the basic features of the society? From this perspective they are really useful, but there is a problem that we can’t use them as historical document to trust the information about the society. However we can add our personal comments and find out a result.   

           

Bibliography

KISHLANSKY, Mark, Patrick GEARY & Patricia O’BRIEN, Civilization in the West, vol. I, 1997

LEWIS, Geoffrey (trans), The Book of Dede Korkut, 1974

SUMMERS, D., Longman: Glaskow, 1999

COGHILL, Neville (trans), Chaucer: The Canterbury Tales, 1984