نقد تصحیح چند بیت از شرف نامه در چاپ های موجود بر اساس منابع آنها (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
این مقاله ده بیت از شرف نامه نظامی گنجه ای را در چاپ های موجود از آن بررسی می کند. این ابیات از میان مواردی برگزیده شده اند که ضبط یا جایگاه آنها هم در متن تصحیح شده حسن وحید دستگردی و هم در متن عبدالکریم علی اوغلی علی زاده یوگنی ادواردویچ برتلس (مشهور به چاپ باکو) ناپذیرفتنی یا تصرف دیده به نظر می رسد. در نقد تصحیح، علاوه بر این دو چاپ یادشده، به سه چاپ جدیدتر بهروز ثروتیان، برات زنجانی و سامیه بصیرمژدهی و قدیمی ترین دست نویس هایی مراجعه شده است که مبنای چاپ های موجود بوده اند؛ این نسخه ها به نیمه دومِ سده هشتم هجری تعلق دارد یا منسوب به سده هشتم است. متقدم ترینشان در سال 754ق کتابت شده و تاریخ آخرین مورد 786-788ق است. استفاده از این نسخه ها در مقاله پیشِ رو تا حد مقدور با مراجعه به عکس اصلی آنها بوده است. در بررسی هر مورد ابتدا صورت ضبط شده در چاپ وحید دستگردی می آید و سپس نسخه بدل ها با آن سنجیده می شود، نگاشت یا نگاشت های پذیرفتنی باتوجه به بافت متن و شواهد دیگر پیشنهاد خواهد شد. شش مورد از موارد ده گانه در هیچ کدام از سه ویراست جدیدتر نیز صورت صحیحِ خود را نیافته است. چاپ های جدیدتر در این موارد تا حد زیادی تابع چاپ های قدیمی تر بوده اند و کمتر از آنچه توقع می رود بر دست نویس های اساسِ خود تکیه کرده اند.A Textual Criticism on Several Verses from Nizami's Shararf-nama
This article examined 10 verses from Nizami Ganjavi’s Sharaf-nama as they appeared in various printed editions. The selected verses were those where the readings or placements seemed "unacceptable" or misplaced in both Vahid Dastgerdi's edition and the Baku edition. In addition to these two versions, this critical review also referenced 3 more recent editions by Behruz Servatian, Barat Zanjani, and Samiyeh Basir Mozhdehi, as well as the oldest manuscripts that served as their sources, dating back to or attributed to the second half of the 8th century AH. Whenever possible, these manuscripts were consulted through their original images. For each case, the reading in Dastgerdi's edition was presented first followed by a comparison with variant readings and then an acceptable reading was proposed based on the context and supporting evidence. Notably, six of the ten cases had not been accurately represented in any of the three more recent editions. These newer editions had largely adhered to the older ones and had relied less than anticipated on the manuscripts that informed their creation.
Keywords: Textual Criticism, Manuscripts, Iskandar-nama, Sharaf-nama, Nizami.
Introduction
There are 5 editions of Nizami's Sharaf-nama available. Among these, Vahid Dastgerdi's edition is the most widely used, while Alizadeh & Bertels' edition, known as the Baku edition, is considered more textually reliable. The editions by Behruz Servatian, Barat Zanjani, and Samieh Basir-Mozhdehi also present notable differences in their sources and should not be overlooked by researchers. In this article, we examined 10 instances that appeared "unacceptable" or "tampered with" in both Dastgerdi's and the Baku editions. Of these, nine involved errors in the recording of the verses, while one pertained to an incorrect placement of a verse. We analyzed these cases across the three later editions—Servatian, Zanjani, and Basir-Mozhdehi—as well as the manuscripts they utilized, critiquing the recordings from all five editions. Finally, we proposed the recordings that we found acceptable based on our analysis.
Materials & Methods
In this study, we extracted the differences in the recordings from the five aforementioned editions and their sources. The oldest manuscripts used in the existing editions of Sharaf-nama consisted of 8 copies attributed to or belonging to the second half of the 8th century. For brevity, each manuscript was named after the location where it was held. The eight copies were as follows:
Tabriz: A manuscript from the National (Central) Library of Tabriz cataloged as No. 1200 (previously 40) and dated 754 AH.
Paris 1: A manuscript from the National Library of Paris identified as Suppl. Persan 1817 dated 763 AH.
Oxford: A two-volume manuscript from the Bodleian Library of Oxford cataloged as Ouseley 274 and 275 and dated 766-767 AH.
Paris 2: A manuscript from the National Library of Paris identified as Suppl. Persan 580 and dated 767 AH.
Saint Petersburg: A manuscript from the Library of Saint Petersburg (formerly Leningrad) cataloged as MsO 354 and dated 777-778 AH.
University 1: A manuscript from the Central Library of the University of Tehran cataloged as No. 5134 and dated 786-788 AH.
University 2: A manuscript from the Central Library of the University of Tehran cataloged as No. 5179 with a possibly erroneous date of 718 AH likely from the second half of the 8th century.
Encyclopedia: A copy from the library of the Great Islamic Encyclopedia Center cataloged as No. 1111, known as "Sa'dlu," undated but attributed to the 8th century.
Among these copies, four were utilized in the Baku edition (2, 3, 4, and 5), one in Servatian's edition (1), three in Zanjani's edition (2, 6, and 7), and two in Basir-Mozhdehi's edition (7 and 8). The manuscripts used by Dastgerdi remained unknown; however, based on the printed text, it appeared he had likely had access to some of these copies.
Research Findings
This study closely examined 10 verses from Nizami Ganjavi’s Sharaf-nama, focusing on discrepancies identified in various printed editions. The verses were selected based on their perceived "unacceptable" readings or placements in both Vahid Dastgerdi's and the Baku editions. The analysis revealed the following key findings:
Correct Recordings Identified: Among the ten verses, the Baku edition successfully identified the correct recording in 8 instances. Notably, five of these correct cases were found in its primary source, Paris 1, although the Baku edition did not utilize this source consistently.
Servatian's Edition: Behruz Servatian's edition relied on the Tabriz manuscript and the footnotes of the Baku edition. He presented two cases that matched our identified "correct" readings, both of which were located in the Tabriz manuscript.
Zanjani's Findings: Barat Zanjani identified the correct forms in 7 cases using the manuscripts Paris 1, University 2, and University 1. Of the four cases deemed "correct" in University 2, two had been altered by previous readers. Zanjani accurately recorded two cases; however, one of his selections did not align with the older copies.
Basir-Mozhdehi's Approach: Samiyeh Basir-Mozhdehi used the Baku edition but did not pay attention to its footnotes. From the two copies she referenced—University 2 and the Encyclopedia—she recorded 6 instances as "acceptable," correctly transcribing one case from the Encyclopedia.
General Observations: Overall, it appeared that the textual critics in these ten cases overlooked their primary sources more than necessary and were influenced by Dastgerdi's and the Baku editions. The findings suggested that had the critics transcribed the forms from their main sources instead of relying on prior editions, they would have achieved a higher accuracy in their recordings.
Transcription vs. Correction: In ambiguous cases, transcription—if based on a well-chosen source—proved to be more reliable than presenting "corrected" recordings. In such situations, annotating the transcription with a question mark (?) or noting the verse ambiguity could enhance clarity.
This analysis highlighted the complexities involved in textual criticism and underscored the importance of thorough scrutiny of source materials in the study of classical literature.
Discussion of Results & Conclusion
It was noted that Dastgerdi did not disclose his sources. However, among the ten verses examined in this article, the Baku edition successfully identified the correct recordings in 8 instances. Coincidentally, five of these cases were found in its primary source, Paris 1, yet the Baku edition did not follow this source. While not recognizing these correct recordings in a work as extensive as Sharaf-nama did not detract from the overall value of this edition, it highlighted certain discrepancies. Without generalizing or judging the entirety of the critics' works, the number of acceptable forms in the three newer editions and their relation to the sources were as follows:
Servatian based his work on the Tabriz manuscript and the footnotes of the Baku edition, resulting in 8 acceptable recordings. Out of 10 cases, he had presented two that aligned with our "correct" findings, both of which were located in his primary source, Tabriz.
Zanjani identified the correct form in 7 cases using Paris 1, University 2, and University 1. Of the four cases we marked as "correct" in his main source, University 2, two had been altered by previous readers of that manuscript. Zanjani recorded two cases accurately; in the first, his selected recording did not match the three older copies, while in the second, he adhered to his original source, University 2.
Basir-Mozhdehi also utilized the Baku edition, but it was evident that she did not consider its footnotes. In the two copies she referenced, University 2 and the Encyclopedia—excluding the two common cases—6 instances were recorded as "acceptable". She had accurately recorded one case that was correct in her original source, the Encyclopedia.
These observations indicated that all textual critics in these ten cases had, to varying degrees, overlooked their primary sources and had been influenced by the editions of Dastgerdi and Baku. This influence was particularly evident in the relationship between Dastgerdi and the Baku edition. Without intending to draw broad conclusions or make sweeping judgments, it could be argued that if each critic had transcribed the forms from their main sources rather than relying on prior editions, they would have achieved greater accuracy in their recordings. In ambiguous cases, transcription—provided the source was well-chosen—tended to be more reliable than presenting "corrected" recordings. In such instances, one could follow transcription with a question mark (?) or note the ambiguity in the annotations.
تبلیغات
