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

The present article deals with the re-examination of two words from the second chapter of Vendidad, which considerations of scholars about their meaning and derivation are not satisfactory. One of these two words is the vīuuīse, which according to Bartholomae is an infinitive but the construction of which and its syntactic relationship with other parts of the sentence do not confirm it to be an infinitive. The evidence shows that this word can only be the second singular perfect of vīuuīs- from the root vaēs- “to be ready as”. The other is a word that Bartholomae corrected as astǝm, and in the phrase astǝm iθra fracarǝṇta pasuuasca, he considered it the object of the verb fracarǝṇta. However, in the Geldner's edition, the mentioned word is recorded as two independent words as tǝm, and apparently this reading was the focus of the Pahlavi translators of Vendidad. In addition, there are great linguistic reasons that show fracarǝṇta cannot be a form derived from fra + car- “to establish” and correcting as tǝm as astǝm, and to conceive the late form as the object of the verb fracarṇta is incorrect.

Bahr al-Maʻāni is a collection of mystical letters of the Chishti Order Sufi, Seyyed Muhammad ibn Nasir al-Din Ja’far Makki Hosseini (732-825 AH/ 1332-1422). The Academy of Persian Language and Literature (The Department of the Encyclopaedia of Persian Literature and Language in the Subcontinent) published it in 2018, edited by Dr. Mohammad Sarvar Molaei. After a lithography print in 1889 in Moradabad, this book is the first edition of Bahr al-Maʻāni, but due to the accumulation of incorrect, illegible, and ambiguous words and phrases, incoherence and disorganization can be seen throughout the book. On the one hand, this is related to the editing process, in which the editor should have revised the misreadings of the author or the scribes by comparing various copies of Bahr al-Maʻāni and the sources used by its author. On the other hand, it is related to the fact that a large part of the book is reciting previous mystical works without mentioning the references. By false omissions and additions, the author has impaired the text’s coherence, fluency, and integrity, and consequently, in many cases, he has left the reader with considerable ambiguities. In this paper, we have tried to analyze these issues in the abovementioned edition of Bahr al-Maʻāni with a critical approach.

The Constitutional Revolution was the result of the general changes in the institutions of Iranian society, such as religion, culture, government, politics, and economics. The literature and poetry of this period, unlike other literary periods of the Persian language, which generally differed only in some aspects, is the result of a fundamental transformation. (Shafiei Kadkani, 1390: 37-27) Poetry is one of the important fields of each period to understand society and its politics and the changes that took place in the language and syntax of the poetry of the constitutional period, with different poets - and sometimes contradictory - requires precision that can be seen in the syntax of poems that has not received much attention before; Recent cognitive research has shown that the study of syntax is one of the most important ways to reach the mental world and discourses of literary texts. The poets of the constitutional period have looked at the social and political issues of that period with different approaches, which have sometimes been in conflict with each other. To understand some of the differences between the views of the poets of the constitutional period, we focus on the poetry of Aref Qazvini and Mirzadeh Eshghi; In this research, all the divans of these two poets have been considered.

First, the keywords related to “constitutional” were extracted and then studied by the method of explaining Langaker conceptualization and the chain of action that Stockholm classifies according to Langaker that includes agent, patient, instrument, experimenter, and mover, and finally Foucconier and Turner's conceptual blending. Many studies have been done with cognitive approaches in subjects other than constitutional poetry, for example: two books; how to compose and receive text in contemporary poetry (Nima, Sepehri and Babachahi), and a cognitive approach to the system of grammatical directions in the Gilaki dialect . The articles; "Study of the body of the Compulsory and Optional Complementary Foundation in Persian language based on Langaker's grammar", "Analysis of children's fiction texts with a cognitive poetic approach", and "Reading the poem" Anecdote "by Ahmad Shamloo with a cognitive poetic approach". but apart from theories with cognitive approach, in other researches that have been done on constitutional poetry, several researches can be mentioned; Saba to Nima, Volume 2 (Freedom-Modernity), Periods of Persian poetry from constitutionalism to the fall of the monarchy, and death or modernity, a book on constitutional poetry and literature, political and social concepts in constitutional poetry, Recasting Persian Poetry: Scenarios of Poetic Modernity in Iran, and discourse Iranian political literature on the eve of two revolutions. The purpose of our study is to answer the question of what syntax and grammatical arrangement Aref Qazvini and Mirzadeh Eshghi have used to express their views on the constitutional; What is the thought and attitude of the two poets towards the concept of constitutional and how did they conceptualize it grammatically and conceptually? What are the differences between their conceptual domains and their discourse?

In Mirzadeh's poems, “constitutional” is placed in different grammatical posision, in which sometimes no action is performed conceptually, but in cases where there is an action, "it is sedition." "Constitutional" and "Constitutional" itself and in three cases "I" (pronoun referring to Maryam's father) are agent. Once "we" (Maryam's father and her sons) and once "Shah Muzaffar Din" remain experiencer (not agent). In conceptual blendong, in one case, “constitutional” is law. (Law that does not apply), in other cases, “constitutional” is commandment, God, lover (sweet), child (under guardianship), living being, time, and in three cases, it is ideal and purpose. To conceptualize “constitutional” he has used the conceptual domains of absolute monarchy, history, religion, time, love, Shirin and Farhad’s story, sacrifice for ideals, fruit metaphor for child, court, responsibility, immortality and "backbreaking" metaphor to express grief and Failure. In the compounds and similarities of “constitutional”, the compound "constitutionalist" has been used twice, in which the “constitutional” has the objective role, and once in "more constitutional" it is adjective. There is no action in sentences except for one case in which "constitutionalist people" is agent. Conceptual domains include city, people, party, honesty, religion, livelihood, marriage, politics, overthrow of the king, and aristocracy. In Aref Qazvini's poems, like Mirzadeh Eshghi's poem, the “constitutional” has appeared in various grammatical roles, but in the chain of action, beloved (hidden) is agent three times, "constitutional" itself, and once a pronoun referring to Mohammad Ali Shah. Once the "patriots" are both agent and patient, and twice the "constitutional" is patient . In conceptual blendong, "constitutional" is guilty or accused, living being, work, rule and government, lover, spring or gardener, will and desire, Joseph, and power of love. Aref Qazvini for conceptualizing "constitutional" has used conceptual domains such as tyranny, rope, old vintner, bibulous, nation, whitewashing, disclosure, rosy wind, flower season, tribune, flower parliament, rights, bad circulation of heaven, sacrifice and killing, monarchy. Joseph and love, which is a combination of the elements of nature, love and politics, as well as the belief in destiny and a an operator outside of the human will.

In many cases, there is no action in the poetry of Aref and Eshghi, but in other cases, in Mirzadeh Eshghi’s poems, "that sedition from Constitutional", "Constitutional” itself and in three cases "I" (pronoun referring to Maryam's father) And once the "constitutionalist people" are agents, and once "we" (Maryam's father and his sons) and once "Shah Muzaffar Din" are experiencers (not agent). But in the poetry of Aref Qazvini, in one case, beloved (hidden) and three times "constitutional" are agents, once Mohammad Ali Shah with the pronoun "you", once "patriots" who are both agents and patients, and "constitutional" is patient twice. For the conceptual blending of “constitutional” Mirzadeh Eshghi has used love, law, command, God, lover (sweet), child (under guardianship), living being, time, ideals and purpose. But Aref Qazvini’s conceptual blending for “constitutional” are the domains of the criminal or the accused, the living being, work, rule and government, the beloved, the spring or the gardener, the desire, Yusuf, and the power of love. Aref Qazvini has used a wider range of concepts for conceptualization, which is a combination of concepts in the domains of romantic and socio-political poetry, but Mirzadeh Eshghi has described “constitutional” more realistically than Aref Qazvini, for which at least two reasons can be mentioned; One is that Mirzadeh Eshghi, unlike Aref Qazvini, has written articles criticizing the political and social situation. It has also influenced his poetic atmosphere. Secondly, Mirzadeh Eshghi's poetic mentality is more modern than Aref Qazvini’s, and he has less traditional metaphors and elements than Aref Qazvini,

Gol o Nowruz, the romantic masnavi of Khaju Kermani, the prominent and creative poet of the eighth century AH, has been critically edited for the first time by Kamal Eini and afterward by Saeed Niaz Kermani. These two critical editions have several shortcomings and problems that have been addressed in this study. The key shortcoming of their works lies is the absence of methodology; they have not adopted a specific method for editing the text of the available manuscripts. Moreover, neglecting the stylistic features of the text, the meanings of the words and verses, and the story’s narration has caused misreadings of this valuable text. Although Niaz Kermani has overcome some of the shortcomings of Kamal Eini’s work, his edition has its errors and inadequacies. In the present study, by a descriptive-analytical method, the two critical editions of Gol o Nowruz have been criticized. The flaws of both critical editions show that this valuable text requires a new and scientific critical edition

Athir Akhsikati was a prominent poet of the sixth century AH whose Divan was published firstly in 1958 and afterward in 2019. As well as the mentioned editions' Dr. Abbas Mahyar has edited the Divan for his doctoral thesis. Considering Mahyar’s field of study and the fact that he had dedicated many years of his life to researching and editing this Divan, his edition represents a step forward. But it was as late as 2020 that his edition was published by Homeira Zomorrodi. The present article studies this recent edition of Athir Akhsikati’s Divan and compares it with two other editions. Because of the errors existing in these editions, especially the recent one, the paper concludes that re-editing this Divan seems necessary

With the discovery, introduction, and the publishing of the pictorial edition of 801 AH, belonging to Nour Library of Othmani Istanbul, which is currently the oldest known version of Hafez Divan, it is necessary to have a critical look at the records of this version compared to the existing ones. As a result of the discovery of this version, new issues in the field of the narratives of the copies have emerged. For example, if earlier, in some cases, editors rejected the recording of a copy due to its lateness, now the later recordings, thanks to the 801 AH version, are replaced the former recording. Formerly, the copy of Aya Sofia dated 813 AH and the copy of Khalkhali dated 827 AH were particularly regarded as the top versions among the valid editions of Hafez due to their oldness, significance and archology and the main disagreements of scholars working on Hafez’s divan about the superior recording were based on the narratives of these two versions. As far as we know, 801 AH version has not been edited critically. This paper could be among the first steps in the examination of some of the narratives of this version. The main sources of this study, beside the 801 AH version is the Degarsaniha notebook- extracted from fifty hand-written manuscripts belonging to the 9th century and the valid editions of Hafez Divan.

Saʿid Nafisi’s critical edition of Rashid-al-din Vatvat’s Divan is up-to-date and the only available edition of the poet’s Divan. It is also the only edition presented to academic assemblies. This book was published by Barani library in Tehran in 1960. This edition despite many advantages especially in terms of gathering almost all the poems attributed to Rashid-al-din Vatvat, contains plenty of errors and flaws and some inserted poems from other contemporary or subsequent poets to Rashid-al-din Vatvat. Some scholars have already pointed out some of these errors and deficiencies in their published research papers. These scholars have also stressed the need for a new critical edition of this precious heritage from 12th century AH based on newly-found sources and the poet’s style of poetry. This paper also highlights fourteen important errors in Sa’id Nafisi’s edition of Rashid-al-din Vatvat’s Divan based on eleven old manuscripts and handwritten anthologies from previous centuries. This study not only can collaborate and contribute to enriching studies related to Rashid-al-din Vatvat and Persian literary manuscript analysis, critical edition studies, and textual analysis but also can help scholars and researchers of Persian language and literature to solve other complexities in other Persian literary texts.

Despite the reputation and importance of Zamakhshari's Muqaddimat al-Adab, one of the oldest extant Arabic-Persian Dictionaries and a rich source of Persian equivalents of Arabic terms, it has not received considerable attention from scholars. The reason is probably the lack of a meticulous authentic edition of this book. Therefore, the two existing editions of this dictionary need to be emended to remove errors and defects. This paper aims to provide a critical edition of Muqaddimat al-Adab, and at the same time, focuses on a series of critical notes of the two editions of the book; notable among them are the following: Lack of a detailed introduction of the author and lexicographical method; insufficient description of the manuscripts; no editorial methodology for editing the manuscripts; no reference to the manuscript variants; incorrect recording of entries and their equivalents as a result of misreading the inscription; false etymological explanations; and irregularities within the Arabic and Persian indexes. Finally, with the new discovery of some authoritative and rare ancient manuscripts, a comprehensive critical edition of Muqaddimat al-Adab is essential.

Zad-e Akherat is one of the Persian work of Abu Hamed Mohammad Ghazzali (death: 505 A.H.) and it is the translation of his other book named Bedayat-al Hedayat (which some theological chapters is added to it). This work is the abstract of some parts of Kimiya-ye Saadat and published in India in 1268 H. and 1276 H. in lithographic method. Morad Orang has edited and published Zad-e Akherat based on undated and erroneous manuscript (number 5552) which belongs to library of Islamic Iranian Parliment. This edition is not a critical and scientific edition because of two reasons: "unspecified and vague editing method" and "invalid manuscript". This essay introduces this work and Orang`s edition and its obvious mistakes and deficits. This article also notes that the re-editing of this work is necessary and inevitable due to importance of Zad-e Akherat`s author (Abu Hamed Ghazzali) and finding new and ancient manuscripts of it.

It has been a long time since the first edition of Farokhi Sistani’s Diwan. Though its first edition, considering the limitations in the facilities available at that time as well as the limited number of manuscripts found up to then, was of high importance, there are a large number of stiches in Dabir Siaaghi’s edition which do not yield to an optimal meaning due to his method of edification and also his not having at hand many of the manuscripts now at disposal. We have access to more than 70 manuscripts of which 10 more significant ones were selected and finally 6 manuscripts were singled out as more significant on the basis of which our edition was based. One manuscript was set as the relative basic one. In order to prepare the most optimal edition, we compared all the manuscripts available and finally made a more exact edition. In this article, we are to bring forth some of the mistakes, misreading, mis-selections and also wrong accounts in Farokhi’s Diwan. Accordingly, our proposed accounts are given in a way that pave the way for achieving a better edition.

Maāref of Bahâ-e Walad corrected and published the scientific and critical by Badi''o-zzaman Foruzanfar''s efforts to base on four manuscripts for the first time in 1333 . Editor tried to correct components of three of Maāref into a single narrative¡ But he did not have the opportunity to identify the version of the complete and valid of Maāref For this reason his printed version dose not compare completely with other versions valid which has recently been identified. The current edition of this book have not been edited fully respecting the principles. On the other hand some shortcomings in the process of revision¡ correction and editing the text style that caused an ambiguity in the text. For this reason¡ it is difficult to read and understand this great work. In this research¡ in addition to critique and review of the manuscripts of Maāref¡ the first manuscripts of the applied Foruzanfar are fully introduced¡ then some of the defects of this correction will be expressed by reference to the old version of Ayasophia and the copy of the library of the Konya.

Majalis-Alnfayis is a one of basic and important biographis correlate ninth and early tenth century literary history that Fakhri Heravi translated it into Farsi in 928 year as Latayif-Namh and Ali Asghar Hekmat is published this translation in 1323 year based on the Nakhjivani’s manuscript that is scribe in 992 year. The study and confrontation of Hekmat’s print and four manuscripts of Majalis-Alnfayis and Latayif-Namh that all are Authentic and Oldest of the Nakhjivani’s manuscript, is necessary Critical Edition Latayif-Namh, because, First, the newfound manuscript is Explained biography about thirty-five poets that not mentioned in the Hekmat’s print to them; Second, is recorded in newfound manuscripts information about some poets and their poetry that not mentioned in the Hekmat’s print to them; Third, there is conflicts and errors in the Hekmat’s print toward newfound manuscripts that mostly to these errors related to poets pseudonym or name, or related to their biography and poetry; Four, there is clearances in text some pages of he Hekmat’s print that mostly these clearances related to poets pseudonym or name, too; Five, there is ambiguities in some phrases means in the Hekmat’s print that is disappear by newfound manuscripts; Six, is not separation the exact boundaries between turkish text translation and translator’s exensions in the Hekmat’s print; Seven, there is not harmony and proportion between two Fakhri’s translation and Qazvini’s translation in the Hekmat’s print.

The Mathnawi of Timur-name is one of the valuable historical epics that Abdollah Hatefi Xarjerdi jami, the famous burlesque performer of Timurid era and early Safavid, put into verses imitating Nizami's Eskandarname and Ferdousi's Sahname.Simplicity, innovative imagery and pleasant exaggerations madeit one of the best epical works of that era. Also the existence of Turkish and Mongolian words, rare words and ancient pronunciations has increased its lexical worth. Stylistic and historical values of the work are significant too. Abu Hasem Seyyed Yusha' lithographed this work for the first time in Madras of India in 1958.Also Mohammad Rezâ Qâsemzâde Šândiz critically edited this work as his M.A. thesis. But the negligence in observing the rules of edition and the lack of reliable manuscripts led to many mistakes and distortions. In this essay, a reliable manuscript and the above mentioned editions are compared and many mistakes are corrected. Some of the most significant ones like tir-e mâr, qoul, čuze, čarkas and wândakân that have mistakenly been read in these two editions are corrected to tirbâr, γul, jarre, xirekoš and âyandegân.