The Problem of Authorship Attribution of the 'Alāka Work to Its Author

Abstract

In the realm of manuscript studies, one of the crucial issues pertains to the determination of authorship attribution. During periods when works were duplicated through transcription, challenges arose when authorial information was not explicitly recorded, leading to situations where copyists, biographical, and bibliographical works attributed the same piece to different names. Such circumstances not only complicated author identification but also occasionally gave rise to widespread errors. This study focuses on the 'Al? ka text, a prominent work in the field of rhetoric ('ilm al-bay? n), serving as an exemplar of this attribution problem. Traditionally ascribed to Mahmoud b. Abdullah al-Ant? k? (d. 1161/1747), the authorship of the 'Al? ka text has not been subjected to substantial scrutiny. Contrary to the prevailing consensus, this study undertakes an examination of the authorship of the 'Al? ka text, positing that it does not belong to al-Ant? k? but rather to his contemporary, Mehmed al-Sobicev? (d. 1161/1748). Consequently, this paper aims to explore and evaluate the issue, considering both individuals' attribution to the work. Multiple pieces of evidence and sources have been utilized to potentially identify the correct author. These include aligning historical data mentioned in the text with the lives of probable authors, identifying self-references in the works of potential authors, analyzing the writing style of the author, utilizing multiple identified copies of the work, seeking information on the author in commentaries, annotations, and related works, and consulting library catalogs, biographical, and bibliographical works. The investigation revealed that some copies attribute the work to Mahmoud al-Ant? k?, the evidence supporting this is primarily found in certain completion records. On the other hand, Ibn Karatepeli Huseyin b. Mustafa al-Ayd? n? (d. 1191/1777), Seyyid Hafı z al-Siroz? (d. 1269/1852), Bağ datlı İ smail Pasha (d. 1920), Bursalı Mehmed Tahir (d. 1925) and Ö mer Rı zâ Kehhâ le (d. 1987) also attributed the text 'Al? ka to al-Ant? k?. However, when the copyright date of the work and the place where it was copyrighted are examined, no presumption has been reached indicating that the author is al-Ant? k?. Therefore, the work's attributed to him is limited to the few sources mentioned above. Most of these sources belong to recent periods. Those who attribute the work to alAnt? k? either did not see the copies bearing the name of al-Sobicev? or were under the influence of Ibn Karatepeli, who was one of those who attributed the work to al-Ant? k?. In addition, Muhammad R? gib al-Halab? (d. 1370/1951), who grew up in Aleppo and was a member of the Rid? iyye madrasah where al-Ant? k? was also a teacher, did not mention 'Al? ka, , although he was the person who gave the most detailed information about alAnt? k?'s life. As in al-Ant? k?, the author's name is mentioned as Mehmed al-Sobicev? in many copies of 'Al? ka. In addition, al-Sobicev?, in his work named Mirs? du'l-h? d?, , mentions the existence of a work he wrote on the science of elucidate, which includes the subject of 'Al? ka. It has been determined that the work he mentioned is the famous 'Al? ka text. A student of al-Sobicevi who copied the text 'Al? ka attributed 'Al? ka to him. The copyright of the work and the place where it was written are associated with the life of al-Sobicev?. In the commentary of Bekir b. Ahmad al-Mantaş aw? (d. after 1149/1736), the student of the author who was one of the commentators on the subject, there are signs indicating that the author is al-Sobicev?. The text of 'Al? ka is partially similar to al-Sobicev?'s works in terms of language and style. Also, one of the commentators of 'Al? ka, , Muhammad b. Mustafa al-Kalbas? n? (d. after 1184/1771) attributed the work to al-Sobicev?. As a result, when the proportion of the work is evaluated for both individuals, it is seen that Mehmed al-Sobicev?'s name comes to the fore. In other words, the source and evidence citing the attribution of the work to Mahmoud al-Ant? k? are not seen as strong as the sources and evidence proving the attribution of the work to Mehmed al-Sobicev?. Therefore, it is highly probable that the author of the text is Mehmed al-Sobicev?. The method used in this study was comparison and analysis. Manuscript and printed sources were used in the preparation of the research.