متن شناسی تحریمة القلم و تصحیح ابیاتی از آن (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
ازجمله آثاری که از سنائی غزنوی، شاعر زبان آور و دوران ساز تاریخ ادبیات فارسی باقی مانده، مثنوی کوتاه تحریمهالقلم است. این مثنوی را استادان دانشمند مجتبی مینوی (1336)، رضا مایل هروی (1346) و محمدتقی مدرس رضوی (1348) تصحیح کرده اند. آخرین کوشش، یعنی تصحیح شادروان مدرس رضوی، در نیم قرن اخیر همواره محل توجه و مراجعه اهل تحقیق بوده است. بااین حال، در این چاپ سهوهای متعددی دیده می شود که غالبا به سبب برخی کاستی ها در منابع مصحح و اشکالات روش شناختی رخ داده است. در این نوشتار پس از جست وجو و تحصیل همه منابع شناخته شده این مثنوی تا امروز، نخست به تبارشناسی این منابع و نقد و تحلیل متن شناختی آنها پرداخته ایم، سپس براساس این دست نوشت ها، با توجه به قراین موجود در خود متن، مضامین و ساخت های مشابه در سایر متون ادبی و عرفانی کهن، فرهنگ های قدیم و جدید و تحقیقات معاصران، تعداد قابل توجهی از ابیات متن مصحح مدرس رضوی را تصحیح و اصلاح کرده ایم.Textual Criticism of Taḥrimat al-qalam beside Editing Some Couplets of it
Sanāʾī is one of the epoch maker and eloquent poets in history of Persian literature. Among survived works by him one can name the short mathnavī Taḥrīmat al-qalam . This mathnavī has been edited by Mujtabā Mīnuvī (1957-8), Riżā Māyil Hiravī (1967) and Muḥammad-Taqī Mudarris Rażavī (1969). The last effort, i.e. the edition by the late Mudarris Rażavī, has been the target of researchers' attention and reference during the last half century. But in this edition one can still see a variety of omissions and slips which is mostly emerged through partial deficiency of editor's sources as well as methodological mistakes. In this research, after searching for and acquiring all of the known manuscripts up to now, we have dealt with their examination and genealogy, in addition to the history of the text. Then we have edited and reformed a remarkable number of couplets in Mudarris Rażavī's edition, with regard to manuscripts of the text, the text's evidence, analogous concepts and structures in other literary and mystical texts, old and new lexicons, in addition to the contemporary researches. 1. Introduction In addition to this fact that Sanāʾī is an epoch maker poet, he is also a work-intensive and a variety of literary works is attributed to him. During the last 60 years, the authority of short Mathnavīs has been seriously doubted. Although de Bruijn has questioned attribution of Taḥrīmat al-qalam to him, and de Blois accordingly has so, most of the researchers before de Bruijn, and albeit after him, have accepted Taḥrīmat al-qalam 's attribution to Sanāʾī and unlike to other works like Sanāʾī- ābād , ʿIqnāmah , Tariq ul-tahqiq , etc. Taḥrīma is regarded as an undoubted work by him. Taḥrīmat al-qalam is contained in two of the oldest documents of Sanāʾī's works: 1- Velieddin 2627 (now in the Bayezit Library, Istanbul) which was copied at Herat in 683-84 A.H. /1284-85; 2- Unquestionably early (second half 6 th cent.), but not dated, is the Taḥrīmat al-qalam that is contained in the kulliyyāt manuscript that was kept at the Kābul Museum before its building was pillaged and destroyed during the upheavals of the past few decades in Afghanistan. Its present whereabouts are unknown, but fortunately it had been published in a facsimile edition in Kābul in 1977. These two are manuscripts of Sanāʾī 's collected works ( Kull īyāt ). It should be noted that other old manuscripts only include some works by Sanāʾī, so absence of a certain work can not be used as an evidence for its authority's disapproval. Additionally, none of the spurious Mathnavīes is contained in the old sources. Works such as Ṭarῑq ut-Taḥqῑq , ʿiqnāmah , Sanāʾī- ābād , Bahr ām va Behrūz , etc. are attributed to Sanāʾī only in the manuscripts dated to 11 th A.H. and thereafter. Some of these Mathnavīes contained in the manuscripts of 9 th and 10 th A.H. centuries, and are attributed to poets other than Sanāʾī. 2. Theoretical Framework This research is on the framework of textual criticism. Textual criticism tries to reach to the nearest version of the text seeped from the writer's pen, based on the most reliable, accurate and oldest sources. In order to achieve this aim, the critic follows principles and methods in which the selected version of the text is chosen based on the evidence and documents. The critic also avoids conjectures and arbitrary or taste-connected applications. 3. Methodology Manuscripts consisting of Taḥrīmat al-qalam are our main documents and sources in editing the lines (“Bayts” hereafter). Additionally, other works by Sanāʾī, works by his contemporaries, mystical texts and lexicons, etc. expand our source basis. The dominant characteristic of all these manuscripts is that they are written between 6 th – 9 th centuries A.H. and there is no trace of Taḥrīma in manuscripts thereafter. Survived manuscripts of this text that we know are four: Velieddin 2627 (now in the Bayezit Library), dated 683-4 A.H., Istanbul; kulliyyāt manuscript that was kept at the Kābul Museum (No. 318 in catalogue by de Beaurecueil); facsimile edition in Kābul in 1977; Fātih library 3734, by Gulšanī Hiravī in 884 A.H., Istanbul; Hâlet Efendi Ilavesi 61, Istanbul. Considering our final selected text, it seems that validity of Kābul manuscript stands at the first level, and Veliuddin Efendi at the second. 4. Discussion & Results From 103 Bayts collected in Mudarris Rażavī's edition, we re-edited Bayts No. 3, 4, 22, 23, 33, 34, 38, 42, 44, 47, 52, 58, 64, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 90, 102. Our editions include lexical cases, grammatical forms, verb applications, order and arrangement of Bayts, etc. besides, in this paper a few misprints are mentioned and re-edited. 5. Conclusions & Suggestions In regard to the small number of this Mathnavī (103 Bayts), mistakes and slips count of Mudarris Rażavī's edition (34 cases) are remarkable. This fact shows that subsequent researches are necessary to achieve a recension such as many other texts. Another achievement gained through our research refers to the degree of validity and accuracy of text variants in the existing manuscripts of this Mathnavī. In most cases the records of Kābul are more accurate and older than other manuscripts. However, the late fact is not generalizable to other works by Sanāʾī. Select Bibliography de Blois, Francois, 2004. Persian Literature: A Bio-Bibliographical Survey , Vol. V (Poetry of the Pre-Mongol Period), London and New York: Routledge Curzon. de Bruijn, J. T. P., 1983. Of Piety and Poetry: The Interaction of Religion and Literature in the Life and Works of Ḥakīm Sanā'ī of Ghazna , Leiden: Brill. Idem, “the Qalandariyyāt in Persian Mystical Poetry,” in The Legacy of Mediaeval Persian Sufism , ed. Leonard Lewisohn, London and New York, 1992: 75-86. Idem, 1957-8. “Taḥrīmat al-qalam, ed. by Mujtabā Mīnuvī in Farhang-i Īrānzamīn , v, 5“ 15. [in Persian] Idem, 1969. Mathnavīhā-i Hakim Sanāʾī , ed. by Muḥammad-Taqī Mudarris-i Rażavī, Tehran Intišārāt-i Dānišgāh-i Tihrān. [in Persian] Idem, 1998. Ḥadiqat al-ḥaqiqa wa šariʿat al-ṭariqa (Faḵri-nāma) , ed. Muḥammad-Taqī Mudarris-i Rażavī, Tehran: Intišārāt-i Dānišgāh-i Tihrān. [in Persian] Idem, Kullīyat, ms. Velieddin 2627 (now in the Bayezit Library, Istanbul) copied at Herat in 683-84 A.H. /1284-85 Idem, 1977 . Kullīyat-I ašʿār-i Ḥakīm Sanāʾī Ġaznavī (quddisa sirruh), čāp-i ʿaksī, ed. By ʿalī-Aṣġar Bašīr, Kābul. [in Persian] Sanāʾī-i Ġaznavī, Ḥakīm Majdūd-i Ᾱdam , 2009. Dīvān , ed. Muḥammad-Taqī Mudarris-i Rażavī, Tehran: Intišārāt-i Sanāʾī. [in Persian] Utas, Bo, 1973. Ṭarῑq ut-Taḥqῑq: A Critical Edition, with a History of the Text and a Commentary , Lund: Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies.