پديد آورندگان :
ابراهيمي، مختار دانشگاه شهيد چمران اهواز - گروه زبان و ادبيات فارسي، اهواز، ايران , امامي، نصرالله دانشگاه شهيد چمران اهواز - گروه زبان و ادبيات فارسي، اهواز، ايران , قاسمي پور، قدرت دانشگاه شهيد چمران اهواز - گروه زبان و ادبيات فارسي، اهواز، ايران , كردي، رسول دانشگاه شهيد چمران اهواز - گروه زبان و ادبيات فارسي، اهواز، ايران
كليدواژه :
ظهيري سمرقندي , اغراض‌السّياسه , سندبادنامه , غرة‌الالفاظ , نسخة نويافته , تصحيف , تحريف , تصحيح
چكيده فارسي :
واژه‌ها در متون ادب فارسي به دلايل متفاوتي مانند نسخه‌نويسي‌هاي فراوان، رسم‌الخط‌هاي گوناگونِ نسخه‌ها، نسخه‌هاي ناخوانا از يك اثر و دخل و تصرف كاتبان به تصحيف و تحريف دچار مي‌شود. آثار يك نويسنده يا شاعر و ويژگي‌هاي سبكي او، ديوان‌هاي ديگر شاعران، علاوه‌بر نسخه‌هاي خطي يك اثر، مي‌تواند در تصحيح آن اثر نقش مؤثري داشته باشد. اغراض‌السّياسه في اعراض‌الرّياسه تأليف ظهيري سمرقندي نيز از متوني است كه در گذر زمان دچار تصحيفات و تحريفات فراواني شده است. جعفر شعار با در اختيار داشتن يك نسخة خطي و سه نسخة عكسي از اغراض‌السّياسه، ولي بدون بهره‌گيري از همة نسخه‌ها، به تصحيح اين اثر اقدام كرد و آن را در سال 1349 براي نخستين‌بار به چاپ رساند. استفاده‌نكردن از نسخة خطي مشكوة در تصحيح و مسامحه در امانت‌داري نسبت‌به آثار عكسي اغراض‌السّياسه، شتاب‌زدگي در تصحيح و ضعف حروف‌چيني متن نيز سبب ايجاد لغزش‌هايي در متن اين كتاب شده است. نگارندگان در اين مقاله مي‌كوشند تا با بررسي شماري از ضبط‌هاي اغراض‌السّياسه به‌ويژه نسخة خطي نويافتة موجود در كتابخانة خانقاه احمدي شيراز و با مراجعه به آثار ديگر ظهيري سمرقندي (سندبادنامه و غرة‌الالفاظ) و ديوان‌هاي برخي از شاعران، چند لغزش در متن چاپ‌شدة اغراض‌السّياسه را بررسي و تصحيح كنند.
چكيده لاتين :
The words in the Persian literary texts have been distorted because of various reasons such as multiple duplications, different orthographies, and illegible manuscripts. The works of a writer or a poet and his/her stylistic attributes, Divans (collections) of other poets, in addition to different manuscripts of a work can have effective roles in their corrections. Aghraz Al-Seyasah Fi A'araz Al-Reyasah written by Zahiri Samarghandi is also among books which have been distorted over time. Jaafar Sheảr by using four manuscripts (one in written, and three in pictorial formats) of Aghraz Al-Seyasah, without taking advantage of all of them, has corrected and published the printed version of the book for the first time in 1349 (AH). Negligence in using the written version in the correction and trusteeship towards pictorial versions of Aghraz Al-Seyasah, hastiness in correction and weaknesses in typesetting have yielded some errors in the book. In the present paper, the authors, by studying the available manuscripts of Aghraz Al-Seyasah Fi A'araz Al-Reyasah, particularly the newly-discovered manuscript in the library of Khangah-e Ahmadi (Shiraz) and referring to other works written by Zahiri Samarghandi (including Sandbad nameh and Ghorrat–al-Alfaz) and Divans of the other poets, have tried to analyze and correct some distortions and falsification errors in the published text of Aghraz Al-Seyasah.
Introduction
Aghraz Al-Seyasah fi A'araz Al-Reyasah written by Zahiri Samarghandi is one of the technical prose texts of the sixth century AH full of rich political, social, legal, educational, and ethical teachings. It has a great deal of Persian and Arabic poetic evidence on various occasions. The methods of governing and other teachings mentioned in this book have made this work particularly attractive among classical Persian prose texts, and have attracted many readers, especially government officials in the past. As a result, it has been repeatedly rewritten by scribes and has undergone many falsifications and distortions. An acquaintance with Zahiri’s style, and in particular, the relatively unknown work of Ghorrat al-Alfaz va Nozhat al-alhahaz,a book on the teaching of writing, vocabulary and rhetoric which has been recently published, can help correct some of the errors in Aghraz Al-Seyasah.
Material & Methods
Considering Zahiriʼs style of writing in his works, and comparing the written manuscripts of Aghraz Al-Seyasah with its printed text, some of the errors in this book have been identified. This article has been written to correct some of these errors. This research is a descriptive-analytic one and with a common method of studies on correction of texts based on manuscripts (especially with an emphasis on the newly-discovered manuscript available at Khanghah-e Ahmadi of Shiraz) and other works of the author.
Discussion of Results & Conclusions
The stylistics and critical correction of the text are mutually interconnected; the more edited the text is, the more detailed examination of the stylistic properties of the work will be performed. On the other hand, familiarity with the stylistic features of a work also contributes to the scientific and critical correction of the work, which has been used in this study.
Also, in this section of the paper, the errors discussed in Aghraz Al-Seyasah are first identified based on the Persian transcript and their English (italic) equivalent within the arc and are arranged in page order. Then, their correct form is suggested based on manuscripts and other documents:
Zinat (ornament) (7) Rotbat (rank). Bakhieh (stitch) (10) Takhteh (board). Rowzani (a small hole) (13) Ruze man (my day). Moayiad (assisted) (44) Moabbad (eternal). Benảyeh mahabbat (building of love) (54) Be pảyeh mehnat (due to misery). Be chashm (by eye) (57) Tajassom (embodiment). St (st) (112) Beniat (basis). Marảier (ropes) (123) Sarảier (secrets). Chon mảr (like snake) (163) Khoon bảr (shedding blood). Baghi (remainder) (267) Ta Bi (two perpositios “until” and “without”). Khod (oneself) (311) Chon (because). Margov (expecting) (312) Mazjur (forbidden). Seiảhat (exploration) (317) Masảhat (extent). Tahfif (wear something by clothes) (334) tajfif (make dry). Ghabz (take) (351) Ghanas (hunt). Atmảr (dates) (368) Athmảr (products). Sanảiea (industries) (368) Manabea (sources). Aineh (Mirror) (377) Abneieh (Buildings). Gar (if) (414) Gu (tell).
The book of Aghraz Al-Seyasah needs to be re-corrected for the following reasons; numerous manuscripts of this work, inaccuracies and distortions made by scribes, the lack of proofreading of all manuscripts in correction and comparison processes, negligence of the respected editor in lending to the basic version, hastiness and weaknesses in typesetting in the printed text of the book, and the existence of the question mark (meaning that the word is not precisely edited) on pages of the book. In this regard, the authors of this paper have corrected some of the errors in this book and have emphasized the critical correction of this work.
