جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « correction » در نشریات گروه « ادبیات و زبان ها »

The Jami’s “Haft Awrang” and its consequent work, "Sobhat Al-Abrar," despite its language's lack of complexity, has remained unaltered from tampering and distortions by abrogators and copyists. This fact has prevented the proponents from having a reliable printed version of it. Apart from publications outside of Iran, the printed version by Mostafa Modarresi Gilani (1958) and the edition by Miras-e-Maktoob Publications (2012) are two widely used and trusted versions within Iran. The “Miras-e Maktoob” Publications' printed edition, despite being the most recent edition of this work, is not free from errors and misreadings. In this article, the text of "Sobhat Al-Abrar" from the Miras-e Maktoob Publications is examined and edited based on three handwritten copies (two from the Ayasofya Library and one from the Library of the Islamic Consultative Assembly), the variants mentioned in the footnotes of the Miras-e-Maktoob Publications' edition, and Modarresi Gilani's printed edition. The results indicate that, in most cases, Modarresi Gilani's printed edition is superior to the corrected Miras-e-Maktoob Publications' version despite the latter's chronological precedence. The handwritten copies used, the variants and literary traditions, also confirm this. Additionally, this article addresses other errors and editorial mistakes found in this correction. 

Golzar's essay is a work of order and prose that was written in the eleventh century AH and imitated by Saadi Golestan. Although this treatise is a successful example of imitation of Sa'di's Golestan, it remains uncorrected. The introduction of this lesser-known work and its authorship style in imitation of Golestan is the main topic of this research.

This study was conducted in a descriptive-analytical manner. In this research, in addition to introducing Golzar's treatise, the author's style in imitation of Sa'di's Golestan has been discussed.

This work consists of eight chapters which includes 142 stories of the lives of sultans, ordinary people and mythical figures, historical and religious anecdotes. It seems that other poems narrated from Sa'di, Hafez, Rumi, and Ibn Fajr are other poems of the author of this work. By following Golestan's writing style, the author of Golestan has turned Golzar's essay into a remarkable example of educational works in terms of the psychological and steadfastness of words, the application of literary arrays, the selection of anecdotes, and the strength of poems, but its prose has been approached to technical prose and in some cases to the prose of the artifact.

Golzar's treatise which is included in the collection of works by the imitators of Golestan Sa'di, in its formal features include: compilation of the foreground, the reason for the compilation of the book, its dedication to the king of the time of the author, the titles of the gates, the themes and their plurality and linguistic features including: narrative centered, observance of arrogance and abbreviation, politeness, simplicity and mentality, the use of literary arrays (similes, metaphors, metaphors, metaphors, allegories, allegations, saja and descriptions) directly from Golestan Sa'di. Influence is accepted.

Ghazaliyat Shams is one of the valuable works of Rumi along with Masnavi. Research on Shams lyric poems is much less than Masnavi and not in its proper place. After Forouzanfar's publication of Shams lyric poems, research works should be taken from the text of this publication and if another edition was done, it would not be enough to research and correct Forouzanfar at all. Ghazaliyat Shams is a work that needs more copies and more extensive research to provide a better edition. Forouzanfar correction although one of the best examples of research in this field, is not without its drawbacks. The drawbacks of this edition, apart from the discussion of typography and how to use them, fall into two categories: The first category is related to Forouzanfar's choices, which sometimes ignore the artistic and narrative infrastructures and cause wrong choices. This negligence and wrong choice has naturally damaged the meaning of the bit as well. Paying attention to some versions of exchanges and infrastructures will make a better choice. The second category is related to the problems that seem to be most of the printing defects that have been done in the printing house and have entered the text.

Hakim Sanai Ghaznavi is a revolutionary poet in the history of Persian poetry who was at the forefront of innovation when it comes to the forms of Masnavi (couplet poem), ode, and sonnet by introducing new concepts. Sanai’s collection of poems has been revised several times so far, among which we can mention the corrections by Modares-Razavi, Mazaher Mosfa, Shafi'i Kadkani (selection of sonnets and odes), and Jalali Pandri (sonnets). In one of his Ghalandari (wandering Dervish) sonnets, there is a composition that seems to render a more accurate meaning with a different reading of the sonnet. Intratextual signs, as well as the frequency and functions of the new readings in the rest of Sana'i poems, make the new reading more likely. This review study applies a descriptive-analytical method based on the analyses of the critics’ readings of the target composition. Among those who have modified Sanai, Modares Razavi, Mosfa and Shafii Kadakani have come up with similar recordings. Only Jalali Pandri and later Barzegar Khaleghi have proposed the new readings. This means that the collection of poems by Sannai is still in need of review and correction.

verse by Amir Khosro DehlaviAbstract:In the poem Shirin and Khosro by Amir Khosro Dehlavi (born: 651 AH, died: 725 AH), which was collected in imitation of Khosro and Shirin Nizami, there is a verse as follows:I am a subservient for your slaves to worshipThis verse in Shirin and Khosro, which was edited by Ghazanfar Aliyev and published by the Institute of Asian Nations in Moscow (1961) and also in Khamseh of Amir Khosro Dehlavi, which was revised by Amir Ahmad Ashrafi (1983), is the same as mentioned, means, in that verse, the above combination "Religion" is stated.In the present research, which was conducted in the field and in the library, this researcher faced the question of whether there was any revision in the above work or not? Because the key words of this verse such as "servant", "subservient" and "maid" do not have a precise semantic relationship with "ritual worship or religion".On the other hand, in the three manuscripts of Amir Khosrow's khumsa in the library of the Islamic Council, instead of religion-worship, low-level worship is mentioned to prove that it is a valid combination that Amir Khosrow borrowed from Nezami, but due to the low prevalence of this combination in Persian literature and the closeness of the writings of ritual and low in the manuscripts, it was corrected or distorted by the hand writers.

One of the most popular Persian folk tales is the story of Amir Hamzah Sahebqeran, which has been written in Arabic, Persian, Urdu, Arabic, and Turkish. There are many manuscripts of this story, some of which are incomplete and the end of the story is unclear. Apparently, the latest version of this story - that has been known - is the version that was written by a poorly educated but tasteful scribe, named Mashadi Baqer Bazari, in Shaban 1339 A.H, and recently, with the efforts of Masoumeh Talebi, it has been corrected, and published under the title "The Tale of coffee shop ". Despite the corrector's efforts, there are several flaws in the correcting of this book, which the author reminds in this article, Since the corrected version was unique, therefore, due to the lack of another version of the work, the author of this research with a descriptive-analytical method and using things such as: stylistic features, historical sources, contemporary sources with The target version, the divans of the poems that the author used in his work, and even the references to some issues in the book itself, provide suggestions for revising parts of the correction of the legend of the coffeehouse. The result of this research, in addition to showing the correct recording of some words, and sentences, includes the necessity and necessity of adding headings in the text, , not changing some words in the base version and Indexes are also listed at the end of the book

In recent years, the identification and correction of the Nakkali of Shahnameh scrolls have greatly impacted the view of Shahnameh-scholars toward the scrolls. The findings indicate that the Nakkali scrolls were not just a product of the mind and imagination of the bards; even in some cases, the scrolls date back to the pre-Islamic or, at times, the Islamic era preceding the compilation of the Shahnameh, by Hakim Abulqasem Ferdowsi. On the other hand, the corrected Nakkali scrolls differed in language and style from what the bards recited in a bardic assemblage. Consequently, the correction of the Nakkali scrolls should be done in a specialised manner and in accordance with the correct scientific standards so that the results could lead to a better understanding of the scrolls and their sources. Edited by Jalil Doostkhah and published in 1396 [2017], Shahnameh Nakkalan is among the best researched Nakkali Shahnameh scrolls. This article investigates Shahnameh Nakkalan from two perspectives: the first part will explore the mistakes and contradictions of the author, Murshid Zariri, and the second part conducts a thorough investigation of Jalil Doostkhah’s editing methodology. This critique concludes that both the authorship and curation have been unfaithful to some sections.

Various editions of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh have been attempted over the past two hundred years to bring the epic closer to what Ferdowsi originally penned. Despite these efforts, the valuable verses, numerous appended couplets, and various other flaws persist in this epic masterpiece. The absence of ancient manuscripts emphasizes the need to consider alternative methods in correcting Shahnameh. One such approach is self-correction, considering elements such as similes, metaphors, interpretations, and their equivalents. This method can rectify many discrepancies. In this article, the second hemistich of the couplet “kherad chon shaved kehtar-e kam o rashk /Chonan dan ke divane khanad pezeshk (When wisdom becomes less than desire and envy, know it like a physician who considers someone insane)” is corrected and analyzed based on the proverb “Hasad [rashk] dardist bi-darman (Envy is an incurable pain)” and the recurrence of this proverb in other verses of Shahnameh and Persian literary texts, presented as “Chonan dan ke daroo na-danad pezeshk (Know that, like a physician who does not know the remedy)”.

Among the famous and reliable corrections of Saadi's Bustan, including the corrected version of Professor Gholam Hossein Yousefi, despite many merits, there are some mistakes.
Professor Yousefi's proofreading is important in the literary and academic community and is used and cited by professors and students as one of the main sources of Saadi's poetry. The author, who has been teaching Busan at the university for several years, while appreciating the valuable efforts of Professor Yousefi, considers it her duty to share with the readers of this work, the problems that have occurred to her while studying and teaching.
For this purpose, she first extracted the verses that seemed to have a connection with other verses in terms of meaning or syntactic structure, etc. Saadi and sometimes other poets chose the preferred recording.
Therefore, in this article, twenty-six examples of these problems are classified and discussed in the following order:Problems related to the meaning of the word or sentence.
Verses that do not match Saadi's speech style.
Problems that are related to the syntax of words.
Problems caused by not paying attention to the script of the text.
Problems related to the connection of verses.

This study examines a verse used in Lataif al-Tafsir of Zahed Darwajeki. In this context, in addition to mentioning the relatively remarkable mistakes in correcting and using the manuscripts, we focused one verse of this commentary, containing a very important from the viewpoint textual criticism studies. The editor, informed by his wrong reading of the available manuscripts, have impaired the authenticity. According to the available manuscripts of Lataif al-Tafsir and other secondary sources, it seems that a part of the commentary has been misinterpret, which contains verses by Muhammad Kateb Abdoh, and this reference of Zahed Darwajeki could be one of the oldest sources for the poems of this poet.

Sad Meydan is one of the oldest mystical works in the Persian language, which was the result of Khajeh Abdollah Ansari's sermons in Muharram 448 AH. The twenty-first field (Meydan) of Sad Meydan is about ‘tavakkol’ (trust) and it is stated in it: “Trust is ghantare-ye yaghin (the bridge of certainty) and emad-e iman (the pillar of faith) and mahall-e ekhlas (the place of sincerity)”. This statement is also mentioned in other books such as Tafsir Kashf al-Asrar, Ons al-Taebin and Hadighat al-Haghighat. However, in the manuscripts and prints of these texts, the combination of ‘mahall-e ekhlas’ (The place of sincerity) is also found in four other forms: mahakk-e ekhlas (the touchstone of sincerity), mokh-e ekhlas (the brain of sincerity), mikh-e ekhlas (the peg of sincerity), mahz-e ekhlas (the absolute of sincerity). Each of the editors of these texts has accepted and printed this combination in some way.

In the midst of the Mongol invasion of Iran and the subjugation of the cities, two authors with a time difference of a few years, translated Marzbanname of Marzban bin Rostam bin Shahryar bin Shervin bin Rostam bin Qaran, from the simple prose of the first centuries of Persian prose style, into the artificial prose style; these works were produced in the sixth and seventh centuries. (Mojtabaei, 1390: 185). First, in 598 AH (about 15 years before Varavini), Muhammad bin Ghazi Malatiwi wrote his version of Marzbannameh called Roza-tol-Oqul in artificial and mutakalf prose style. This work is closer to the Marzbannameh of Marzban bin Rostam from two perspectives: firstly, (unlike Varavini's Marzbannameh), the anecdotes and chapters are not summarized, and secondly, the translation or rendering of phrases, from the semantic point of view, is much more trustworthy than the Varavini Marzbannameh. (Varavini, 1376: nineteen). A few years after that, Saad al-Din Varavini wrote another version of Marzbannameh; this work is a rewriting and a summarizing of Marzbannameh of Marzban bin Rostam through its removing, introducing, and delaying chapters and anecdotes.
A comparison of the number of articles, treatises, and books written about Varavini's Marzbannameh and Roza-tol-Oqul Malativi reveals that of these two texts, Marzbanamah written by Saad al-Din Varavini has been popular with readers and researchers from the past centuries until now, and that Roza-tol-Oqul has been less the subject of criticism and research. Perhaps the efforts of researchers and the title of the book chosen as “Marzbannameh” can be considered as one of the main reasons for the popularity of Varavini’s work.


In this study, based on the version of the National Library of Iran, some errors in Marzbannameh have been corrected, and in some cases, suggestions have been made for the comparative correction of some other distortions. Based on evidence from Marzbannameh and other old texts, numerous examples are given to confirm the acceptable recording.
 


Conducting research on ancient texts of Persian literature without having a neat and original text is subject to all kinds of errors. Marzbannameh is one of the forerunners of Persian prose texts, which has been discussed in various studies from stylistics, rhetoric, historical, grammatical, and many lexical perspectives. However, despite several corrections, and writing of numerous commentaries on this book, misreadings and omissions have made their way into it, and these errors need to be corrected.
As mentioned earlier, in this study, suggestions have been made for correcting several spellings in different chapters of Marzbannameh, some of which are supported by the version of the National Library of Iran ‒ which has not been used by any of the correctors of Marzbannameh. Accompanied by evidence from Persian literary texts, comparative corrections are suggested, and based on evidence from Marzbannameh and other old texts, numerous examples are given to confirm the acceptable recording.
 


In the last century, three corrections of Varavini's Marzbannameh have been printed; however, there is still room for correction and an original and worthy report of this important and valuable text. Being in a rush and not knowing about the existing versions, or the unavailability of all the old versions of Marzbannameh made the task difficult for the correctors of this technical and complicated text, and caused various changes and spellings to remain hidden from their eyes. In this study, relying on the version of the National Library of Iran and some other versions, as well as citing evidence from ancient Persian literary texts, some deviations in Marzbannameh were reported and corrected.
Also, in other cases, suggestions were made for comparative correction of several other spellings in Marzbannameh, and efforts were made to emphasize the correctness of these suggestions based on intratextual and extratextual evidence.

Saif al-Din Asfarangi is one of the Iranian poets in the late sixth and mid-seventh centuries AH. His divan is only surviving work of this poet. Esfarangi Divan firstly corrected and lithographed in Pakistan in 1978. This divan was corrected in 2017 by Farzad Jafari; Several manuscription of this work are available, such as the manuscripts of the Russian State Public Library, the manuscript of the Pakistan Treasure Library, the manuscript of the Turkey Topkapusaray Library, the manuscript of the Sepahsalar Library, and so on. Among the manuscripts, Jafari has chosen the manuscript of the Russian State Library (A) as the basic manuscript and has used other manuscripts in the correction. Although the correction presented is scientific and critical, there are errors and mistakes in it, and in some cases, carelessness in the correction is obvious. The present article tries to reveal and correct some of these errors and mistakes in this correction with a scientific and critical way.

Manuscripts are the precious written heritage of any nation. Correcting and recognizing these texts is the first and most important step in reviving these works. One of the manuscripts that has not been studied and scientifically corrected by researchers is the manuscript of Dor Al-Majales by Seif-Al-Din Zafar Ibn Borhan Nobahari which is attributed to the seventh century AH because of calligraphy and writing style. This study aims to introduce briefly the manuscript of Dor Al-Majales and check its linguistic coordinates.The present study was conducted using content analysis method with library tools and descriptive-analytical method. The study area and population is the manuscript of Dor-Al-Majales preserved in the library of the Islamic Consultative Assembly.Seven versions of the manuscript of Dor-Al-Majales are available in Iranian libraries based on the catalogs of manuscripts. There is no information about the author's name in the biographies. This manuscript is a kind of event writing as pemonstrative prose which contains a short introduction and thirty-three chapters. The themes of each chapter are educational, religious and historical concepts. The structure of this version in each chapter is as an anecdote in the anecdote. The most important excellent feature of style in Majales is the simplicity, fluency and easy-understanding its language and expression.By examining the manuscript of Dor-Al-Majales, the extent and quality of linguistic changes in phonetic, lexical and syntactic dimensions are largely understood. At the phonetic level of language, pemonstrative prose reveals spoken expressions.

One of the most significant Persian histories is Jami’ al-Tawarikh by Khajeh Rashid al-Din Hamadani. It includes the chronicles of different ethnic groups and nations. Its “history of Iran and Islam section” was textually criticized by Mohammad Roshan based on the manuscript of the Archive and Library of the Topkapı Palace Museum in Istanbul, No. 1653, and published by Mirath Makhtub Publishing House. This manuscript is a collection of chronicles by Hafez Abrous that Mirath Maktub has published its translation. There are several errors and slips in the textually criticized text. The proofreader could not read words, he replaced them with dotted lines. In the present article, the errors were corrected, and some words replaced by dotted lines were identified. The correction method is comparative: Roshan’s textually criticized text was compared with the translation of (Majma ul-Tawarikh) and the correct forms of some of the wrong words were retrieved. In the cases of dotted lines, the text was supplemented. The research result shows that the number of errors in the textual critic’s manuscript and the number of cases left blank are considerable. Apparently, one of the main reasons that caused the textual critic to slip in reading some words or leave them blank is that most of the words in the manuscript were the basis. This article aims to make the next edition of this section more complete by showing these flaws and errors, presenting the correct forms, and completing the parts with dotted lines.

In the republishing of the Adventures of Hajji Baba of Ispahan, Jamalzadeh made changes so that the language, expression, tone and writing style of Mirza Habib Isfahani were altered. His changes in the “fragments of old phrases” and “morphology and syntax of sentences” aroused the reaction of the literary community of that time. While Jamalzadeh retained the main framework of the book, his method does not correspond to any of the technical terms for critical correction of texts. In order to understand the whys and wherefores of his method for republishing the book, the present study compared and analyzed three works: Mirza Habib Isfahani’s manuscript, Phillott’s edition, and Jamalzadeh’s reprint. Twenty percent of the volume of the book was selected for analysis: the author’s preface and fifteen chapters (five chapters from the beginning, middle and end of the work). The results indicate that the changes can be subsumed under three categories: 1. reduction through deletion or replacement; 2. expansion and finding equivalents; 3. transposition of parts of speech. The largest volume of changes in the text were created by expansions and finding equivalents for words, phrases and sentences and transpositions of parts of speech while deletions and replacements were used the least. These changes serve two main purposes 1. strengthening the fictional elements of the book and 2. bringing the story closer to the understanding of the common people based on the capabilities of the popular language, in the continuation of the simple writing movement of the Qajar era. However, Jamalzadeh inflicted irreparable blows on the prose rhetoric of Mirza Habib’s translation.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, Shāhnāmeh scholars have used another meaning of the word "Āzār" in the hemistich "bar in Khastegihā bar āzār kist" and have defined "Āzār" as "a kind of burning medicine or ointment that is rubbed on the wound". The author here has used the word "Āzārchoob" as a variety of the word "Āzār" through a medicinal plant, called "Āzārchoob" which is frequently used as a pain reliever to bruises or fractures in Fars province. He has considered "Āzārchoob" as another evidence of the meaning of "Āzār" to "ointment" in this hemistich of Shāhnāmeh. Therefore, it is necessary to record and correct the word "kist" in the intended hemistich, which appears in some editions of Shāhnāmeh, especially in the edition of Khaleghi Mutlaq by considering the meaning of "Āzār" and according to the recording of some versions of this word in Khaleghi Mutlaq's edition, as "Chist". In addition, it is advised to go for the recording and correction of "tan-āzār" and changing it into "bar āzār" in the hemistich "bar in Khastegihā tan-āzār Chist" in line with the recording of some copies in the print of the Absolute Creator. In the same way, the statement "Āzār-e Kist" should be corrected to "āzār Chist" in the hemistich "bar ān Khastegihā bar āzār-e kist", according to the recording of some copies in the print of the Absolute Creator.

Manuscripts are among the most valuable cultural heritage of nations. Dealing with these sources is actually recognizing the identity of a nation and protecting it, and it is a way that leads to the realization of the ideals of that nation. A huge part of our cultural background is locked up in these precious works and is not adorned with the ornament of desire; therefore, the need to revive these texts is obvious to everyone. Shah Daei Allah Shirazi is a mystic of the 9th century AH and one of the successors of Shah Nematollah Vali Kermani. He was engaged in preaching in Shiraz for thirty years. First, he became one of the companions of Sheikh Abu Ishaq Bahrami, then he went to Kerman in order to fulfill his soul and desire to visit Shah Nematollah Vali. He has an honorable position as a poet and a high thought. Among his works, we can mention his Divan, which includes Setteh Masnavis, Sanctums Divan, Import Divan, Export Divan, the new word, the renewed grace. Among his other works are Nasaiem al-Ashar in the description of "Golshan Raz" and Javahar al-Konooz in the description of "Saad al-Din Hamouyeh's quatrains". In addition, he has an apostolate on mystical issues; among them, Osveh-al-Kasveh, an explicit expression, Tohfa Al-Mushtaq, Solveh Al-Qulob. One of the valuable works of Shah Daei Shirazi is his Setteh Masnavis. This book mentions mystical issues, examines the principles and rules of spiritual journey, and describes the stages of Sufism.
Methodology.

 The Setteh Masnavis of Shah Daei was published only once in the year (1339) by the efforts and corrections of Mohammad Dabirsiyaghi, and after that no further corrections were made. In his correction, the late Dabirsiaghi used the copy of the Malek library numbered (4912) with the abbreviation "Mel" and the copy of the Majles library with the abbreviation "Maj", and in both versions, the Masnavi of "The love letter" is incomplete. Also, he mentions the British Museum copy numbered (B.P.5268 MS. Elliot 48) to which the abbreviation "B" has been assigned and mentions it as the most complete and best copy of Shah Daei's collections; and in fact, it is the same version as the Badalian library. Despite the fact that the late Dabirsiaghi saw the British Museum copy and considered it the most complete copy; but unfortunately, it has not been used and it has not been mentioned except for a few cases; however, many of the defects in his edition can be corrected with this edition.

Discussion and review:

In this research, which is the result of the re-correction of " Setteh Masnavis", the reasons for the need to re-correct this work, including the problems related to the correction method, misreading and incorrect reading of the text, neglecting the sources, comparative correction and misappropriation in the text and incorrect selection are examined. It is placed and many examples have been proposed for each title. Another disadvantage of Dabirsiaghi printing is the weakness in providing annotations. In this book, annotations are given in a brief and indicative form at the bottom of each page. What is certain is that not having an authentic version in one's possession, along with irregularity in the method of correction and arbitrary correction, anxiety in choosing the main and replacement version, disregarding external sources and carelessness in editing the text, are the main reasons for the occurrence of these errors and the corrections in Setteh Masnavis.

Although the correction of Professor Dabirsiaghi's Masnavis of Setteh Shah Daei is very valuable and valid, it is not without the need for correction, revision and correction of defects, and what has been said is only a small part of the errors, misreading and defects introduced, it is valuable in correcting this work. . By confronting the existing versions and studying secondary sources such as cultures, reminders and other works of Shah Daei, we tried to provide the readers with a revised and scientific correction of this work. Relying on these sources, especially the valuable copy of the Badalian Museum (Britain) or the copy of the University of Tehran, many misreading, omissions, and ambiguities can be resolved in the correction of Dabirsiaghi.

The previous custom in correcting the texts was that the most archaic manuscript was absolutely the basis, and except for gross errors in the oldest manuscript, they did not consider it permissible to deviate from the oldest recording. Although this method was correct in most of the revised texts, the nature of Hafez’ poems and the variety of his sonnets were such that in the work of correcting his poetry, relying only on the oldest manuscript does not lead to a superior recording. On the one hand, Hafez was constantly in the process of completing various aspects of his poetry and possibly changing and modifying them, and on the other hand, he did not collect his poems himself, and the oldest written copy of Hafez’ Divan is dated after his death, which is said to have been collected by Mohammad Golandâm. It is possible that other people have been assigned to collect and edit Hafez’ sonnets. Based on this, in addition to the fact that we are faced with several original copies, the existence of numerous secondary manuscripts as well as the distortions of the scribes in his Divan, and the number of recordings in some verses and disagreements about them have caused that only referring to the older manuscripts will not cause these disagreements to disappear. In such a case, one of the ways is to examine disputed verses based on textual/semantic documents and rhetorical techniques

The ode of Dandanieh is one of the few ode poems composed by Rudaki Samarkandi, which fortunately has been preserved from looting and sedition and has been registered as a valuable heritage of Persian literature. Apparently, in Rudaki's poems, there have not been many changes in terms of the number of verses and the preservation of words. In the present article, based on stylistic criteria as well as various evidences of Persian literature and occasionally Arabic, an attempt has been made to correct the following verse: “My heart was a treasury full of treasure and a treasure of speech, the seal was our sign of the Letter and the title of our poem”. The correctors and commentators of Rudaki's Collection of Poems have made diacritic placement and interpreted "Seal" (Mohr) as "Affection" (Mehr) in the second hemistich, while according to the other components of the verse, "letter" and "title", it can be understood that it should be considered as "seal"(Mohr). Of course, the reason for this mistake of the commentators was the attempt to make the second hemistich meaningful, unaware that the patrolling and correction of "Saha-Nameh" (Seal of the Letter) to "Neshan-Nameh" (Sign of the Letter) are the main forms that occurred in the verse.