Among the numerous works of Farsi Literature, Manavi Manavi by Molana Jalal-e- Dine Mohammad Molavi Rumi has been considered to be one of the rarest, and whose credible versions and attempts to its amendments had stood the test of time, being well favored with good oucome. When Reynold A. Nicholson accomplished the task of publishing and emending the first complete translation of the Masnavi into English between 1925 and 1940, there had still been many of significant literary works that were unknown or covered with dust on the corner of the libraries. Although Nicholson had attempted to collect all known credible manuscripts of the Masnavi pritor to embarking on the corrections, he found out some manuscripts, which belonged to the seventh century much near to the time the orginal text was created, and one of which was the 677 manuscript that was kept in the museum of the Maulana's shrine in Ghonieh (Konya). Nicholson understood its outstanding significance after reseiving and evaluating the manuscript, and relied on it in the publishing of the third book onward. He also added appendices to present the differences between its recording and the two Books of One and Two.This manuscript was published in facsimile in 1371 by the high effort of Nassrollah Pour Javadi and the technical specialists in the University Publishing Center and by the cooperation of Toufigh Sobhani. Since then it has been available for the researchers and Molavi's enthusiasts. Due to the unique status of this manuscript in maintaining the correct form and perusal of Masnavi, some of the Masnavi researchers have published it simultaneously.This article compares and contrasts the first one thousand lines of the Book On in six publishing, based on the Konya manuscript, some of which have incorporated Nicholson's publishing records as the redundant manuscript in the margins, with the facsimile publishing and demystifies their differences line by line. These differences are related to different perusal of the single edition, the proofreaders' guite differing preferences in maintaining or altering the style of letters, the pronunciation of the words, and carelessness during the typesetting stage and the typographical errors, etc.This contrast shows that, in reading the text in the recent prints there has been referred to the previous letter publishing of the Nicholson's editions and the Konya manuscript more than the references made to the facsimile publishing.