آسیبشناسی تصحیح در دو چاپ پیشین دیوان عماد فقیه کرمانی | ||
| تاریخ ادبیات | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 18، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 89، اسفند 1404، صفحه 86-111 اصل مقاله (506.44 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: علمی - پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.48308/hlit.2025.240535.1412 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| سمانه عابدینی* 1؛ مجید دادفر2 | ||
| 1دانشآموختۀ دکتری زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشگاه الزهرا (س)، تهران، ایران | ||
| 2دانشآموختۀ دکتری زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشگاه شهید چمران، اهواز، ایران | ||
| چکیده | ||
| در تصحیح متون کهن علاوه بر تهیۀ دستنویسهای معتبر استفاده از روشهای علمی و شناخت معیارهای تصحیح و نگاه انتقادی امری ضرور است. عماد فقیه کرمانی از شعرای سدۀ هشتم هجری است که دیوان اشعار وی را یک بار رکنالدین همایونفرخ و یک بار یحیی طالبیان و محمود مدبری چاپ کردهاند. با وجود دو تصحیح از دیوان عماد به دلیل عدم استفاده از دستنویسهای معتبر و همچنین عدم روشمندی در تصحیح، لغزشها و ایراداتی در هر دو چاپ به چشم میخورد. یکی از ایرادات موجود در هر دو چاپ ضبطهای اشتباه در تصحیح همایونفرخ و ورود همان ایرادات بدون اصلاح در تصحیح طالبیان و مدبری است. با بررسی دستنویسهای هر دو چاپ مشخص شد این ایرادات ناشی از بدخوانی دستنویسها است. طالبیان و مدبری بدون در نظر گرفتن ضبطهای درست دستنویسهای مورد استفادۀ خود برخی از این مشکلات را در متن مصحح خود تکرار کردهاند. همچنین در این تصحیح بدون رجوع به اصل دستنویسهای چاپ همایونفرخ متن چاپشده را با حرف اختصاری «چ» و نسخه بدلهای آن را با حرف اختصاری «نچ» در پاورقی آوردهاند. در این پژوهش سعی شده است تا علاوه بر نشان دادن مشکلات مشترک در هر دو چاپ با خوانش درست و دقیق دستنویسهای مورد استفادۀ آنها و دستیابی به دستنویسهای تازهیافته، صورت صحیح ابیات را به دست دهیم. | ||
تازه های تحقیق | ||
| ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| دیوان اشعار عمادالدین علی فقیه کرمانی؛ تصحیح انتقادی؛ نبود روششناسی علمی؛ دستنویسهای نویافته | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A Critique of the Editorial Methodology in Two Previous Editions of the Divan of Emad Faqih Kermani | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Samaneh Abedini1؛ Majid Dadfar2 | ||
| 1PhD in Persian Language and Literature, Al-Zahra University, Tehran, Iran | ||
| 2PhD in Persian Language and Literature, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| Introduction In the critical editing of classical texts alongside the use of reliable manuscripts, the application of scientific methods, familiarity with editorial criteria, and a critical approach are essential. Despite two existing editions of Emad Faqih Kermani’s Divan (poetry collection), due to the lack of methodological rigor in their editing, certain errors in the recording of verses remain. This study aims to identify the shared issues in both editions while offering accurate readings of the manuscripts they relied upon, as well as newly discovered manuscripts, to reconstruct the correct versions of the verses Literature Review Khwaja Emad al-Din Ali Faqih Kermani was an 8th-century poet and mystic. His works include a Divan and several long masnavis collectively titled Panj Ganj (The Five Treasures). The first critical edition of his complete works was prepared by Rokn al-Din Homayoun-Farrokh (1969), followed by a second edition of the Divan by Yahya Talebian and Mahmoud Modabberi (2001). Homayoun-Farrokh’s edition—the most renowned—was printed only once, nearly 50 years ago. The second edition, published in 2001, saw limited distribution during a commemoration ceremony in Kerman. Prior to these editions, Ahmad Nazerzadeh Kermani defended his doctoral dissertation, An Analysis of the Divan and Biography of Emad al-Din Faqih Kermani (1953), under the supervision of Badiozzaman Forouzanfar, examining Emad’s poetry using extant manuscripts. In 1998, Dariush Kazemi and Mohammad Hossein Gholati published 100 ghazals from the Divan. Additionally, Samaneh Abedini, Nasrin Faqih Malek Marzban, and Mehdi Nik-Manesh critiqued both editions in their article, “The Necessity of a New Critical Edition of Emad Faqih Kermani’s Divan”. Methodology Homayoun-Farrokh relied on three manuscripts (No. 1030 from the Islamic Consultative Assembly Library, Manuscript “A” dated 795 AH, and No. 13512 from the same library), while Talebian and Modabberi relied on three others (the Topkapi Palace Library manuscript dated 841 AH, the Soviet Academy of Sciences manuscript based on microfilm No. 44-175 from the University of Tehran, and the Leningrad Academy of Sciences manuscript). For this study, all manuscripts referenced in both editions—except Manuscript “A” from Homayoun-Farrokh’s personal collection—were re-examined, along with nine additional manuscripts (Nos. 181 and 182 from the Sepahsalar Library, and manuscripts from the Nurosmaniye, Fatih, Rashid Efendi, Leningrad, Minovi, Manguisa, and Tajikistan libraries). Discussion Editing classical texts requires not only access to reliable manuscripts but also the use of scientific methods, editorial standards, and a critical perspective. The existing editions of Faqih Kermani’s Divan suffer from inconsistencies due to the neglect of early manuscripts, misreadings, and a lack of systematic editing. Neither edition specifies a base manuscript, nor do their editors clarify their editorial methodology. A comparison of the manuscripts with both editions revealed that despite the availability of authoritative early copies, neither edition consistently followed a single base manuscript. Instead, both appear to combine readings from multiple sources, leading to textual instability. For instance, Talebian and Modabberi frequently relegated the more accurate readings of the Topkapi (“b”) and Soviet Academy (“a”) manuscripts to footnotes, or relied on Homayoun-Farrokh’s printed variants (marked “ch” and “nc”) rather than consulting the original manuscripts directly. Shared errors in both editions stem from misreadings or typographical mistakes in Homayoun-Farrokh’s edition, which were uncritically carried over into Talebian and Modabberi’s work. The latter either reproduced these errors without noting variants or retained incorrect readings in the main text while placing the correct versions in footnotes. In this study, a newly identified manuscript was selected as the base text. However, since it does not contain all of Faqih’s poems, the Nurosmaniye manuscript was used to supplement missing verses. Conclusion This research critiques the manuscript selection and methodological shortcomings of both editions. By collating their source manuscripts with newly discovered, more authoritative copies, it rectifies shared errors and establishes a more reliable text. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Divan of Emad al-Din Ali Faqih Kermani, critical edition, lack of scientific methodology, newly discovered manuscripts | ||
| اصل مقاله | ||
|
| ||
| مراجع | ||
|
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 211 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 102 |
||