Feqiyê Teyran’s Kurmanji poetry survives through manuscripts, editions and performance. Named narrative poems, a newly published lyric and an oral story about the poet reveal how that tradition developed—and why his dates remain disputed.

Domed stone pavilion with arched iron gates among leafless trees and snow at the memorial tomb associated with Feqiyê Teyran in Werezûz, Miks
The tomb associated with Feqiyê Teyran at Werezûz, Miks/Bahçesaray, photographed by Dûrzan Cîrano on 23 January 2018, CC BY-SA 4.0. This is a modern view of a commemorative site; the poet’s burial traditions and chronology are disputed. Dûrzan Cîrano · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 4.0.

A name, a region and uncertain dates

Feqiyê Teyran is the name by which the Kurmanji poet Muhammed is remembered. Feqî evokes the religious student; Teyran means “of the birds.” Ahmet Özel associates him with Müküs/Miks and its surrounding villages rather than giving Cizre as a secure birthplace. Özel also explains why the claim that he was Melayê Cizîrî’s pupil is not established: the poetic exchange between them can indicate friendship and mutual recognition rather than a proven classroom relationship. [1] Exact dates need attribution. M. Zana Karak adopts 1563–1632, while Özel discusses conflicting manuscript, poetic and burial evidence and allows a death in or after 1640. Philip Kreyenbroek’s survey uses 1590–1660. A single unqualified pair of dates would hide this disagreement. [1] [2] [4]

Read named works rather than an invented canon

Kreyenbroek identifies the story of Şêxê Senʿanî, Qewlê Hespê Reş, the poem of the black horse, and the story of Bersîs among the surviving works. He places Feqiyê Teyran within the classical Kurmanji tradition alongside Cizîrî and the predecessors celebrated by Ehmedê Xanî. The stories and their forms deserve attention in their own right, without reducing the poet to a “missing link” between two supposedly complete stages of literature. Kreyenbroek also warns that knowledge of early Kurdish literary history remains incomplete and that nineteenth-century biographical notices can be unreliable. [2]

Accessible language does not mean simple construction

Perwiz Cihani studies the poet’s style through twenty-two topics, emphasizing vernacular expression, meaningful repetition and the relation of language to poetic purpose. His classification does not simply reproduce the generic labels used in every literary survey. [3] A concrete example appears in Karak’s study of a newly published lyric beginning “Îro ji destê dilberê.” Karak identifies internal rhyme and the device of carrying a word or phrase from the end of one unit into the next. He classifies this particular twelve-couplet poem as a musammat and muʿad ghazal, explaining how its internally rhyming structure can also be arranged as quatrains. Genre should therefore be discussed at the level of a text and edition. [4]

What a newly found manuscript can establish

Karak located that lyric in a miscellany he calls the Keşkola Malbata Hezanî, copied by Hecî Haris Begê Hezroyî and his son Mehmet Ceylan. His attribution draws on an Arabic heading naming Feqiyê Teyran, together with language and stylistic comparison. He supplies transcription, analysis and manuscript images. This is evidence for a transmitted attribution and a reasoned scholarly identification, not an autograph written in the poet’s own hand. The finding also illustrates why a divan assembled after a poet’s lifetime can change as further witnesses become available. [4]

The poet also became a character in oral tradition

Yaşar Kaplan examines an anonymous bayt about Feqiyê Teyran, his Christian companion Tûma and a dialogue with the great river. His source is a performance by Mela Ebdullahê Xwarikî; an interview dates its recording to 1983 in İskenderun. Kaplan distinguishes folk narrative from passages related to the poet’s “Ey Avê Av” and compares different written versions. That distinction matters: a story about the poet is not automatically a poem wholly composed by him, and narrative wonders do not become independently verified episodes of his life. The interaction of performance and manuscript is part of the work’s history. [5]

Remembering him without confusing a monument with proof

Özel records competing burial traditions, including Werezûz and Şandis, and describes the later domed structure at the former site. [1] The photograph here documents that Werezûz memorial in January 2018. Its location and modern appearance belong in the caption; the image cannot settle the competing dates or burial claims. [6]

Sources and further reading

  1. Ahmet Özel, “Faki-yi Teyran,” TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (2020): name, Müküs connections, chronology, Cizîrî relationship and competing burial traditions.
  2. Philip G. Kreyenbroek, “Kurdish Written Literature,” Encyclopaedia Iranica (2005; updated 2018): named works, early Kurmanji tradition and limits of biographical evidence.
  3. Perwiz Cihani, “Feqîyê Teyran’ın Şiirlerinde Üslup,” Bingöl Üniversitesi Yaşayan Diller Enstitüsü Dergisi 5/10 (2019), pp. 101–122: stylistic study and classification.
  4. M. Zana Karak, “Helbesteke Nûpeyda ya Feqîyê Teyran,” Nûbihar Akademî 15 (2021), pp. 109–119: manuscript, attribution, transcription and formal analysis.
  5. Yaşar Kaplan, “Di Navbera Çanda Nivîskî û Devkî da Beyta Feqîyê Teyran,” Nûbihar Akademî 18 (2022), pp. 11–45, doi:10.55253/2022.nubihar.1215773: performance source and oral/written transmission.
  6. Dûrzan Cîrano, Tirbeya Feqîyê Teyran, Werezûz/Miks, 23 January 2018, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0.