بازخوانی و تصحیح برخی از واژگان چینی سفرنامه ختای مندرج در زبدة التواریخ حافظ ابرو
آرشیو
چکیده
در مجلد چهارم مجمع التواریخ حافظ ابرو که زُبدَهُ التواریخِ بایسنغری نام دارد، ذیل حالات و حوادث سال 825 ق. از سفری یاد رفته است که ایلچیان دربار شاهرخ تیموری به سرزمین ختای و شهر «خان بالق» داشته اند. یکی از آنان خواجه غیاث الدین نقاش، ایلچی بایسنغرمیرزای تیموری حاکم هرات، بود که حافظ ابرو «مضمون و مُحَصَّلِ» سفرنامه او را در تاریخ خود نقل کرده است. با توجه به اینکه این سفر در دوره تیموری (هم زمان با سلسله مینگ) و به «ختای» صورت گرفته، واژگان و اصطلاحات متعددی به زبان چینی در آن به کار رفته است. تا کنون چند تصحیح از متن زبده التواریخ، و نیز این سفرنامه صورت گرفته است؛ از جمله چاپ سیدکمال حاج سیدجوادی که مهم ترین تصحیح صورت گرفته از این متن در ایران و محل مراجعه اهل تحقیق بوده و هست؛ اما در تصحیح برخی از واژگان چینی این متن لغزش هایی روی داده است که در پژوهش حاضر با مراجعه به کهن ترین دست نوشت های این متن از جمله دست نوشت محفوظ در کتابخانه ملک (کتابت 830 ق. که به باور نگارندگان نسخه «مُبیَضّه» و به منزله نسخه اصلی این متن است و مصححان پیشین به روش درستی در امر تصحیح از آن سود نجسته اند) این واژگان تصحیح و شرح داده شده اند. در این پژوهش همچنین به برخی از خوانش های خطای مصحح که ناشی از شیوه رسم الخط دست نوشت هاست، برخی از خطاهای نحوی در ترجمه فارسیِ مصطلحات چینی، ذکر شکل چینیِ نام چند شهرِ یادرفته در سفرنامه که در تلفظ فارسی دارای ریختی دیگرگون اند، و همچنین ریشه شناسی و بررسی تلفظ چینی چند واژه نیز پرداخته شده است.Re-reading and correcting some of the Chinese words in the Khitai travelogue included in Hafiz-i Abru's Zubdat al-Tawarikh
In the fourth volume of Hafez-e Abru’s Majmaʿ al-tawarikh, titled Zobdat al-tawarikh-e Baysonghori, under the events of the year 825 AH, a journey is mentioned that the ambassadors of Shahrokh Timur’s court took to the land of Khitai and the city of Khanbaliq. One of them was Khwajah Ghiyath al-Din Naqqash, the ambassador of Baysonghor Mirza Timuri, the ruler of Herat, whose travelogue’s “content and substance” Hafez-e Abru has quoted in his history. Considering that this journey took place during the Timurid period—simultaneous with the Ming dynasty—and to “Khitai,” numerous Chinese words and terms have been used in it. Several corrections have been made to the text of Zobdat al-tawarikh, as well as to this travelogue, including the edition by Seyyed Kamal Haj Seyyed Javadi, which is the most important correction of this text in Iran and the reference point for researchers. However, in the correction of some Chinese words in this text, errors have occurred, which have been corrected in the present study by referring to the oldest manuscripts of this text, including the manuscript preserved in the Malek Library—copied in 830 AH, which the authors believe to be the “fair copy” and equivalent to the original version of this text, and which previous correctors did not properly utilize in their correction. This research addresses the errors of the previous correctors, resulting from the handwriting style of the manuscripts, syntactic errors in the Persian translation of Chinese terms, mentioning the Chinese form of the names of several cities mentioned in the travelogue that have a different form in Persian pronunciation, as well as the etymology and examination of the Chinese pronunciation of several words. IntroductionOne of the prominent historical works of the ninth Islamic century (Hijri) is Majmaʿ al-tawarikh. This book was authored by Abd Allah ibn Lotf Allah ibn Abd al-Rashid, known as Hafiz-e Abru. Hafiz-e Abru designated the fourth volume of his book as Zobdat al-tawarikh Baysonghori, which encompasses events from the year 736 to 830 AH. In the description of events and circumstances of the year 825 AH, he mentions a particular journey undertaken by envoys of the Timurid Shahrokh’s court to the land of Khitai and the city of Khanbaliq. The delegation consisted of 300 individuals, among whom was Khwajah Ghiayth al-Din Naqqash, the envoy of Baysonghor Mirza, the Timurid ruler of Herat. The author of Zobdat al-tawarikh cites a summarized and concise account of his travelogue within his work. Research Questions and HypothesesGiven that Khwajah Ghiayth al-Din Naqqash’s travelogue pertains to a journey to Khitai, what errors have occurred in the transcription of Chinese words in the most important editions of Hafez-e Abru’s Zobdat al-tawarikh?The hypothesis of this research is that different kinds of errors have been introduced into the transcription of Chinese words in these editions. By examining ancient manuscripts of Zobdat al-tawarikh and re-evaluating this travelogue from the perspective of the Chinese language, it is possible to determine the correct transcription of these words. Background of the ResearchContemporary studies on Khwajah Ghiayath al-Din Naqqash’s travelogue can generally be categorized into three groups: corrections, annotations, and translations. The first critical edition of this work was undertaken by Professor Mohammad Shafiʿ in 1930 in Lahore, Pakistan. Among Iranian scholars, Ali Mazaheri was the first to publish the book Jaddeh-e Abrisham in French, in Paris. Seyyed Kamal Haj Seyyed Javadi also edited and published Zobdat al-tawarikh based on several manuscript copies; however, the text of the travelogue in his edition contains errors both in the editing approach and in the transcription, especially concerning Chinese words. Research MethodologyThis study is based on a systematic comparison and review of the oldest manuscripts of Zobdat al-tawarikh and a re-examination of the printed editions of the travelogue, with particular focus on the Chinese vocabulary within the text. Discussion and AnalysisWithin the text of Khwajah Ghiayth al-Din’s travelogue, as presented in Zobdat al-tawarikh—including the edition by Haj Seyyed Javadi and the original manuscripts—numerous errors are evident, both in the transcription methodology and in the recording of Chinese words. ConclusionSome of the errors in the transcription of Chinese words in Khwajah Ghiayth al-Din’s travelogue stem from the orthographic characteristics of the manuscript copies, while others result from issues related to manuscript punctuation and the typesetter’s copy errors. Since the Malik manuscript is a copy in Hafez-e Abru’s own hand, it is likely that some of these transcriptions reflect orthographic changes and phonetic transformations of Chinese words within the Persian language over time, which Hafez-e Abru may have recorded as they appeared.As previously noted, the correct transcription of “سامکونی” (as in Seyyed Javadi’s edition of Zobdat al-tawarikh) is “Shākkūnī,” derived from the Sanskrit term (शाक्यमुनि), a title for the Buddha. In Chinese, this is rendered as “Shijiāmóuní” (释迦牟尼) or “Shijiāmóuní Fó” (释迦牟尼佛). The main reason for the error in Seyyed Javadi’s edition and subsequently in Fatehi’s edition is the unjustified deviation from the Malik manuscripts and the error’s adoption from Fatehi’s manuscript. Furthermore, the transcription “شب چراغ” in Seyyed Javadi’s edition is incorrect; the correct term is “شبِ چراغ” which refers to the Lantern Festival (灯节 Dengjie), a traditional Chinese celebration. The names of the cities “سکجو” and “قمجو” (which should be read as سُکجو and قَمجو, respectively) are ancient names of “Suzhou” (苏州) and “Ganzhou” (赣州). The Chinese origin of the word “کی دی فو” is 急递铺 (jidipu), meaning “Express Postal Station.” The correct transcription of “جینو” and “بافو” should be “چیفو” (车夫) — meaning coachman — and “مافو” (马夫) — meaning horse groom or stable master. Similarly, “لوفو” (骡夫) refers to a muleteer. The correct term for the “بینه” (“بینه ختایی”) in Seyyed Javadi’s edition is “پیپَه” (琵琶), the traditional stringed instrument, not “Pipa” as a type of mouth organ, which Seyyed Javadi and Mazaheri mistakenly identified. Additionally, “داجی” appearing in the text (Hafez Abrū, 1380: 821) likely should be “داجین” (大人Daren), meaning an esteemed person. Words such as “قَلَغی” (Turkish; a type of silk fabric), “تُرقو” (Turko-Mongolian; a type of red silk), “لو” (罗; a silk fabric), “شا” (纱; a very fine non-silk textile, generally cotton or linen), “لِنگ” (绫; a traditional Chinese silk fabric with a diagonal pattern), and “کَبکی” (a type of velvet fabric) refer to various Chinese textiles, as indicated.
تبلیغات
