Parodinin bir alt türü olan pastiş, bir eserden ziyade bir edebî türü veya edebî bir akımı taklit etmesiyle diğer parodi türlerinden ayrılır. Bu çalışmada bir pastiş örneği olarak Orhan Şaik Gökyay'ın Dûçent-nâme adlı eseri ile onun öykündüğü Türk Edebiyatı'nın mizahî eserleri arasındaki münasebet incelenecektir. Fatih dönemi Sahn-ı Seman müderrislerinden olan Molla Lûtfi, tamamen kurmaca olarak yazmış olduğu Harnâme adlı mizahî hikâyesinde devrin ilim adamlarını ve aralarındaki rekabeti eşek istiaresi etrafında sade bir halk Türkçesi ile anlatmıştır. Orhan Şaik Gökyay, Molla Lûtfî'den beş yüz yıl sonra yine ilim dünyasındaki rekabeti ve çekememezliği Dûçent-nâme adlı eserinde mizah konusu yapar. Her iki eserin ortak noktası kendi dönemlerinin gözde tür ve anlatım imkânlarından yararlanmak yerine sıra dışı bir şekilde farklı bir dil ve üslup kullanmış olmalarıdır. Eserinde Eski Anadolu Türkçesi ile süslü nesir dilini karıştıran Orhan Şaik, ilmî yazma eserlerdeki gibi konuyu ele almış ve düşüncelerini uydurma sözlüklerden ve mitolojik kavramlardan yararlanarak somutlaştırmaya çalışmıştır. Yazar, bir anlamda Dûçent-nâme ile başta Molla Lûtfî'nin ve Şeyhî'nin Harnâme'si olmak üzere Klasik Türk Edebiyatı'nın belli başlı eserlerini bir potada eriterek oyuncu bir ruh hali ile orijinal bir pastiş örneği vermiştir. Orhan Şaik Gökyay, bu pastiş ile edebî geleneğin bir bütün olduğunu ve birbirlerinden kopamayacakları gibi birbirlerini besleyeceklerini göstermiştir

Being a sub-genre of parody, pastiche, differs from the other types of parody in that it imitates a certain literary genre or movement rather than a specific work. In this article, Dûçent-nâme, an example of pastiche by Orhan Şaik Gökyay is studied in terms of its relations to its humorous precedents in Turkish Literature. Molla Lûtfî, a professor of Sahn-ı Seman in Fatih period, depicts the position of the scholars of his age with special reference to the rivalry among them, in his humorous fiction story titled “Harnâme”. Lûtfî tells the story around an “ass” metaphor in plain folk Turkish. Orhan Saik Gökyay, 500 years later, refers to this very same topic in his humorous work “Dûçent-nâme”. The common aspect between these two works is that neither used the favourite genres or styles of their age; instead, they were both written in an unusual literary style. Orhan Şaik Gökyay, who habitually blended The Old Anatolian Turkish and a pompous language style in his writing, engaged some fictitious vocabulary in his work to gether with some mythological concepts in order to embody his ideas. In a sense, the author gave a good example of a pastiche, in a playful mood, making a good use of the references to the work of Molla Lûtfî and that of Şeyhî, two prominent works of Classical Turkish Literature. Orhan Şaik Gökyay draws attention to the unity of the literary traition, laying emphasis on how the genres interactand feed each other. Parody can be defined as reproducing a new, humorous, literary form based on a former, well-known, serious work, copying the theme and style of the previous one. Depending the relation between the source and target texts, parody is divided into three sub-genres, pastiche being one of them. Pastiche differs from the other kinds of parody in that it imitates a certain literary genre or movement rather than a specific work. In this work, the relation between Harnâme, a humorous work by Molla Lûtfî and the literary prose style of the Classical Turkish Literature as imitated in Dûçent-nâme, an example of pastiche by Orhan Şaik GÖKYAY, is going to be studied. Adopting a bizzare theme for his pastiche, Dûçent-nâme, Orhan Şaik GÖKYAY, deals with the so-called academics who look down on the scholars, like himself, holding no post at a university. To do that, GÖKYAY, as a source text, takes Harnâme, which is a thoroughly fictitious tale, by Molla Lûtfî who used to be one of the professors at Sahn-ı Seman Madrasahs of Fatih period. Molla Lutfi, in his authentic, fictitious tale, depicts the rivalry and jealousy among scholars of his age around an allegory, comparing the scholars to ‘’donkeys’’ and madrasahs to ‘’stables’’using a plain, humorous language.The tale starts in a serious manner, like any scientific book, with some Arabic clichés giving praise and glory to Allah and prayer for the Holy Prophet Muhammed. Then, the author shifts toTurkish stating that Turkish would be beter for narrating tales. In the tale, a professor’s objection and disapproval against the vizier of the time is narrated when one of his rivals, inferior to him, is appointed to a post that he thinks himself would beter deserve. The story is told around an allegory of a donkey in a humorous, ironical way. Doing this, Molla Lûtfî, not only criticized the scholars of his day, but also tried to show his plot an imaginary one. In the same way, Orhan Şaik GÖKYAY, too, who knew Molla Lûtfî well and also translated a copy of his work Harnâme, printed in Cairo, used the same ‘’donkey’’ metaphor in his humorous work to depict the incompetency and jealousy among the scholars of his day. At the beginning of his work, he ridiculed the situation referring both to Şeyhî’s lines and to the work of Molla Lûtfî’s: Bir duçent var idi zaîf ü nizâr Cehl elinden kati şikeste vü zâr With these lines, Orhan Şaik GÖKYAY draws in the minds of his readers an image of an assistant professor who is desperate as a consequence of his own ignorance and incompetency. Not satisfied with that much, GÖKYAY, also teases with the definition of the word “duçent’’ imitating the way archaic boks used while explaining a serious subject matter. In fact, he tries to disgrace the scholars who selfishly claim themselves to be the only authorized people to deal with scholarly issues. He introduces his work satirizing these so-called scholars as “a key to the castles of laughter’’. He also mentions an imaginary dictionary as a resource for the meaning of theword “duçent’’ supporting the definition with some mythical terminology. Though etymologically German, GÖKYAY transcribes the word as if it was a word of the OttomanTurkish ridiculing at the same time the habit of the Turkish people in adopting and using loan words. He calls the works of some authors who plagiarize others’ works as “menakıpname’’ in fact disgracing them as false legends (mock epic). Again in an attempt to try to discredit the scholarly abilities and competencies of the people he is criticizing, he deliberately mixes the grammar rules of Turkish and Arabic and makes a mess to amuse the reader. At times he even inserts words from recipes within a completely serious context to produce humour. Orhan Şaik GÖKYAY, in the last chapter of his book, following the traditional sequence, he finalizes his work with a little story, revealing the extent of the so-called scholars’ ignorance and also a prayer for him self so as not to be like those. He transcribes his own name as ‘Urhan’ referring to the Old AnatolianTurkish period. And thus, involving both the pompous language of the Classical Turkish Literatureas well as the plain expressions of Old AnatolianTurkish, GÖKYAY engages the facilities of the two languages. In Dûçent-nâme, which ridicules the prose and scientific language of the Ottoman times, Orhan Şaik GÖKYAY, builds very long paragraphs connecting sentences with linking words and often ordering the synonymous words one after another from various languages, that is Arabic, Turkish and Persian. Among these prolonged paragraphs, he some times tells anecdotes in between as well. In his work, GÖKYAY is more concerned with highlighting the mistakes of the criticized person rather than his personality. Therefore, in accordance with the dual structure of irony, he often uses made-up vocabulary, as well as mythical terms and concepts, references to never existed dictionaries bearing similar titles to those of the ancient manuscripts, pretending them to belong to earlier times. Spelling words in an incorrect way and making deliberate mix-ups in grammar GÖKYAY gives his book rather an arbitrary but ejoyable identity. Thus, as a result of these combined styles and unusual use of lexical items, he creates an masterpiece of In conclusion, both Molla Lûtfî and Orhan Şaik GÖKYAY, with their unmatced works, tried to depart from the traitional styles of their own age and established a ground of unprecedented examples in our literature. Consequently, they both proved that it could be possible to produce humour using the facilities of a language itself. Besides, they also emphasized the strong link between the modern and classical literature, drawing attention to the unity and the interaction between them.