Mirror of Heritage
Year:2016 | Volume:14 | Issue:58|Papers Count:18

The Mer’at-e Oshshaq is a treatise on the Sufi terminology in one introduction and two themes [matlab]. The author’s emphasis is on the exegesis of figurative terms, to which he refers as “specific implications”. The Mer’at-e Oshshaq has been published based on some incomplete manuscripts and attributed to an unknown writer. In the present article, on the basis of some existing clues and an old creditable complete manuscript newly discovered, the identity of the author of the treatise has been ascertained.

The Der’al-Sihhah (written in 1683 CE) by Mohammad-Hashem Tabib-e Tehrani, is a Persian work on the subject of phlebotomy and bloodletting of which three editions are available: one edited by Mir Hashem Mohaddes and published by the Pazhuhesh-gah-e Olum-e Ensani, in 2011; the second is a text that was edited by Mohammad Moshtari and Sina Chavushi and published first in the periodical Payam-e Baharestan (2012 CE.), and a second time with the financial support of the Safir-e Ardehal Publishers; the third edition was undertaken by Hamidollh Afrasiyabiyn that was published by the Shahed University in collaboration with the Alma’i publishers in 2014 CE.With the countless errors it suffers from, the Safir-e Ardehal edition is hardly worth the name of tashih (literally “correction”). In comparison with that of Mohaddes, Afrasiyabiyan’s edition is somewhat more polished up and furnished with more detailed glosses. Nonetheless, it has not turned out so refined as it should have.In this critique, for reasons that will follow, we set the Mohaddes edition as our basis and show a number of the incorrect recorded variants and readings in the other two editions.

The Latayef-nameh of Fakhri-e Heravi is one of the oldest and most noted translations of one of the ancient poets’ memorials on Persian poetry, namely the Majales al-Nafayes. Of this translation two editions were made about eighty years ago, which, due to the kind of editing methodology and depending on one single manuscript as well as the editors’ insufficient efforts in the research process, neither of the two editions is void of any mistakes and lapses.In this article, first a passing glance is taken at the important aspects of the Majales al-Nafayes and its extant translations. Then, by comparing its two translations, the Latayef-nameh and the Hasht Behesht, with their Chaghatai original and with the Arafat al-Asheqin, text and contents of the original and its translations are examined and a good number of their errors and defects are corrected. In this study, several newly- found old manuscripts of the two translations and both the printed and manuscript texts of the Turkish original are drawn on.

Informology [ettela’shenasi] is a new science in the field of Information Science and “knowledge science” [danesh-shenasi] (the erstwhile librarianship and information science) on the one hand and in information philosophy on the other. Its method, designated ‘Method of Information Analysis” [ravesh-e tahlil-e ettela’ shenakhti, RTA], consists of a set of activities in six stages, which tries to determine the general mood of a thing or phenomenon from an information point of view [informativity]. This method possesses certain capacities and possibilities that reveal themselves in the various areas of knowledge through interdisciplinary studies.Text redacting, whose theoretical deliberations in Iran, relative to its practical considerations, have remained rather thinner, is one of the areas to which RTA could contribute.In the present enquiry, it has been demonstrated that a redactor first tries to understand his text. In the second stage, he becomes acquainted with the setting and mood in which that text has originated and lived. The third stage constitutes the process of recognizing the favorable condition that the redactor is supposed to attain. In the fourth stage, the distance between the present condition and the desired condition is calculated. In the fifth stage where one has already identified the obstacles on the way to the desirable condition, one endeavors to remove them. Finally, in the sixth stage, the amount of time required to change the existing condition to the desired one is estimated.

In this article, Shahrokh Moosavian’s recent commentary on the Nafsat al-Masdoor by Shehab al-Din Mohammad Kharandazi Zeidari, has been compared with an earlier commentary prepared by the late Amir-Hoseyn Yazdgerdi and, by drawing on various examples, both the weak and strong points of the two commentaries have been critically examined. The conclusion from this comparison is that in Moosavian’s commentary not only have the ambiguities in the Nafsat al-Masdoor not been removed, but also, contrary to one’s expectation, numerous oversights have led to many unwarranted additions and omissions, as well as many mistakes in the text of the Nafsat al-Masdoor, and certain inaccuracies in Moosavian’s commentary.

The most important Persian version of the Sandbad-nameh, was written by a witty scribe named Mohammad-Ali b. Ali Zahiri of Samarqand, shortly after the translation by Nasrollah Monshi of the Kalileh va Demneh in the latter’ style and genre. The traces of very formal florid prose and stylized divani and court letters are clearly seen in this book. Two scholarly editions of the book are obtainable: one by Ahmad Atash produced in Turkey, and the other by Kamal al-Dini published in Iran. Despite all the efforts made by these two scholars in amending the Sandbad-nameh, there are still cases in it that call for greater and more meticulous examination.In this article, by considering certain manuscript variants and textual and external evidences, the writer makes an effort to propose new readings for those cases that have incurred distortions and ambiguities in both editions.

Rashid al-Din Vatvat was a 12-century poet-writer at the Khwarazmshahid court, singing most of his panegyrics in praise of Atsez Khwarazmshah. In 1960 CE, Saeid Nafisi edited and published Vatvat’s Divan (collection of poetry). Although his edition, which has remained the sole amended version available of the poet’s Divan, is to be welcome, it is not free from certain errors and imperfections as the redactor had no access to the oldest manuscript of the Divan at the time and there seems to have been some rush in collecting and publishing the poet’s verses. Besides, Nafisi’s is not a critical edition and he has made no mention of the variations of the manuscripts used.In the present article, based on documented evidence and examples, attempts have been made to show the errors unjustifiably entered in the Divan, and put forward their correct versions.

Satire is one of the sub-categories of lyric literature, which due to the dominance of ethical criticism, has not as yet received proper attention. This study has addressed the most important stylistic characteristics of Suzani’s satires examining them at linguistic, literary and intellectual levels. However, attempts have been made to avoid mentioning verses in which obscene and repulsive expressions have been used. The research method adopted is descriptive-analytical, and the findings are examined by applying the technique of content analysis in the manner of library and document search.The results indicate that Suzani’s satires are mostly personal, indirectly sardonic and unrealistic. Further, his use of Qur’anic references demonstrates that his knowledge of Arabic and Qur’anic sciences was mediocre. His language is not polite and, instead of competing against his opponent’s poetic art, he chastises his physical and temperamental qualities.

Shams al-Din Mohammad b. Abd al-Karim Tabasi, with the nom de plume, “Shams”, was one of the Persian poets in the latter half of the 12th c and the beginning of 13th c. As there exists no independent manuscript of his Divan, it has not yet been properly and fully amended.In 1964, by making use of two old manuscripts, and comparing them with several other manuscripts, Taqi Binesh presented an edition of the Divan with an extensive and valuable introduction along with some useful glosses. Nonetheless, despite the redactor’s indisputable endeavors, there have entered a number of inaccuracies into the Divan due to Binesh’s overdependence on his primary manuscript.In this article, by drawing on an old manuscript and comparing it with several other manuscripts, steps have been taken towards rectifying those inaccuracies.

The Tarikh-e Beyhaqi is amongst the exquisite works of Persian literature and one of the creditable sources on the history of Iran. In respect of form and content as well as its writing style, this book is of immense significance. Because of this same importance, the book has always been the focus of attention, enjoying widespread public reception; it has consequently been edited and printed many times, the latest being the edition undertaken by Mohammad-Ja’far Yahaqqi and Mehdi Sayyedi published in 2009. However, in spite of the editors’ great discernment, there still remain a number of manuscript variants and glosses that are of doubtful nature and require further consideration.In this article, besides examining the remaining part of the fifth part of the Tarikh-e Beyhaqi, some of the inadequacies of this part and expository notes on its text are pointed out.

The Tarikh al-Yamini by Abu Nasr-e Otbi is a historical work that, due to its ornate and florid Arabic prose has been subject to very many distortions and misrepresentations. Sadr al-Afazel Khwarazmi. one of the earliest commentators of the Ketab al-Yamini, has revealed some of the corruptions and distortions penetrating the book and put forward his corrective views in his Al-Yomni.The present review mainly addresses a sample of such distortions and inaccuracies that Sadr al-Afazel has quoted from one or several manuscript copies of the Ketab al-Yamini available to him. In cases where no example supporting the preference of Sadr al-Afazel.s view over those of previous commentators and redactors was found, mention was limited to differences between those views only.

The Hekmat - e Sadeqiyyeh is one of the important works of Hakim Mohammad Sadeq-e Ardestani of which two editions have been made so far. Both editors have utilized a very limited number of imperfect manuscripts all with the second part of the work missing; they have in fact emended only a selection of Ardestani, s Hekmat. In addition, they do not seem to have consulted the commentaries and glossary written on this book so that they would add necessary grammatical and philosophical notes and glosses to their editions.In this article, while addressing the textology of the Hekmat-e Sadeqiyyeh, the requirements for a critical edition of this work are put forth. To this end, the two afore-mentioned editions are separately compared with newly discovered and more complete manuscripts and then evaluated.

The 17th century was the peak of the burgeoning of Persian lexicography in the Indian Sub-continent. The Farhang-e Rashidi, compiled by Abd al-Rashid Tatavi of the scholars and poets of Pakistan’s Sind, is apparently the first critical Persian dictionary written in 1064 H./ 1654 CE.After the Preface (Dibacheh), the author, following the first and second letters of the words, have provided a dictionary in twenty-five chapters (bab), his main sources being the Farhang-e Jahangiri and the Farhang-e Sorouri. By summarizing the previous dictionaries and amending their misreadings and critically assessing their words and citations, Tatavi has set a novel model in dictionary writing. After presenting the words, the author states the metaphorical expressions (este’arat) of each chapter, most of which are, of course, to come under irony or sarcasm (kenayat).By benefiting from the oldest manuscript of Tatavi’s Farhang in Iran and collating it with three other manuscripts -not yet used in any other redaction-, the writers of the present review have attempted a study of this dictionary.

Benefiting by ancillary sources such as dictionaries, anthologies and other miscellanies, is helpful to the editor in collating, collecting and recording the correct versions of poems.The sole edition of Qatran-e Tabrizi’s poetry undertaken by Hoseyn Nakhjavani, suffers from deficiencies and problems with regard to recording the proper variants and number of the verses.In this study, the writer tries his best to eliminate some of the defects of Nakhjavani’s edition in the hope that he would play a part in enhancing the Divan. Therefore, by utilizing some of manuscript anthologies and divans at the Majles and National Libraries, not accessible to the late Nakhjavani at the time, and such poets’ memorials as the Majma’-al-Fosaha and dictionaries such as Sehah al-Fors, Farhang-e Jahangiri, Farhang-e Rashidi, and Anjoman-aray-e Naseri, he presents a number of preferred variants of verses and introduces 88 distichs of Qatran’s newly found poetry.

Up until now several commentaries and explanatory accounts have been made of Sa’di’s ghazals (lyrics) the most important of them being Sharh-e Ghazliyat-e ostad-e sokhan sa’di-e Shirazi, by Khalil Khatib Rahbar; Gozideh-ye ghazaliyat-e Sa’di, by Hasan Anvari; Sharh-e ghazalha-ye Sa’di, by Mohammad Reza Barzgar and Tooraj Aqdaei; and Ghazaliyat-e Sa’di, by Farah Niyazkar.The Sokhan Publishers has of late brought, in its “Of Persian literature heritage” series, an anthology of Sa’di’s ghazals selected by Mohammad Ja’far Yahaqqi together with notes and glosses, entitled Bedin shirin sokhan goftan (Singing [poetry] as sweet as this). The ghazals are taken from Gholam-Hoseyn Yusofi’s edition of Sa’di’s lyrics.In the present article, after giving a brief description of the book, its comments and glosses will be discussed. Based on evidence and textual proofs, attempts have been made to present remarks regarding the commentator’s lapses followed by clearer interpretation of the meanings of the verses in question.

The dictionary Kholasat al-loghat, compiled by Ebn-e Abu al-Mohsen Mohammad Jonabadi (died in the 16th century) consists of two chapters. The first chapter includes Arabic words together with their Persian translation, and the second chapter comprises Persian words followed by their Arabic meanings.The present article makes a thorough study of this dictionary in respect of the languages and dialects used in it. The prominent languages appearing in this word list are: Arabic (with Shami, Yamani, Kufi, Baghdadi and Mesri [Egyptian] dialects); Indian; Turkish; Rumi [Latin!]; and the Iranian languages including Pahlavi, Khwarazmi, and the Ancient Persian. Besides, this article addresses the dialects of different cities and regions of Iran named in the dictionary: places such as Azerbaijan, Isfahan, Khorasan, Kerman, Shiraz, Hamadan, Marv and Transoxiana. In the end, reference is made to the degree of influence received by the Kholasat al-loghat from other word lists, especially from the Taj al-masader.

Some forty to fifty years have passed since the publication of two editions of Anvari’s Divan, one by Saeid Nafisi and the other by Modarres Razavi. With the appearance of other manuscripts inaccessible to those two late scholars, some of the deficiencies and lapses of the two editions have come to light, thus making it necessary for Anvari’s Divan to be emended anew according to the newly found reliable manuscripts, and his ambiguous and obfuscate verses, not interpreted yet or interpreted incorrectly, be explained and expounded.The writers of this review endeavor to first enumerate the problems with the editions prepared by Nafisi and Modarres Razavi, and then introduce the newly found manuscripts, concluding with a brief presentation of their own techniques used in a fresh redaction of Anvari’s Divan.

The Golshan-e Raz is one of the most important and most concise mystical poems in Persian, composed by Sheikh Mahmud Shabastari in the mathnavi form and in the aruzi meter of hazaj-e mosaddas-e mahzuf. Thanks to its significance and succinctness, the Golshan-e Raz has drawn the interest of many scholars, resulting in a substantial number of commentaries on the book. One of them is the work of Ahmad b. Moosa Rashti-e Ostadi, a 15th century scholar and a student of Shams al-Din Maghrebi. In this work, which represents one of the examples of free-flowing prose from the Timurid period, nearly all the couplets of the Golshan-e Raz, excepting a few, have been interpreted.This study addressed a brief introduction and examination of the commentary in question and presented the characteristics of its contents and style, giving also a description of its existing manuscripts. Also, some of the couplets in Ostadi’s commentary have been compared with those in Lahiji’s an Elahi Ardabili’s commentaries in order to demonstrate its merits and faults.