Document Type : Scientific-research
Author
Assistant Professor, Persian Language and Literature Department, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Mystical memoirs are among the most valuable treasures that contain pure essences of great Sufis’ lives. Among these works, Attar's Tazkirat al-Awliya holds a special place since it is one of the leading works written in Persian on the subject, and its author is considered one of the most prominent poets and writers of the sixth and seventh centuries (AH). Besides the mystical content of Tazkerit al-Awliya, the book’s prose form has attracted the attention of researchers. In the last century, two important corrections of the book have been carried out; the first of which was published by Reynold Allen Nicholson in 1332 (AH), and the next one by Mohammad Reza Shafiee-Kadkani, which was published in 1398 (AH) after forty years of efforts. Shafiee's correction of Tazkirat al-Awliya, due to the eminent position of the corrector in the field of contemporary mystical studies, laid the ground for further research. The method employed by Shafiee Kadkani is correction based on the base manuscript.
In the correction of the first part, since no sole manuscript could be the basis of critical correction, five highly original and ancient manuscripts (Nafiz Pasha, Qastamuni, Kiliç Ali Pasha, Hazrat Khalid, and the Konya Museum) were used as "base manuscripts". In correcting the second part of the book, the manuscript “Ayasofya" has been considered as the base and Berlin 581 and Shahid Ali Pasha manuscripts as the variant manuscripts.
The corrector acknowledges that in the correction, the criterion of "the most frequent" has been considered, and a manuscript has been used as the base manuscript, which is given "overlapping" priority; even if in some cases there is omitting or misreading by the scribe. Accordingly, there are defects in the manuscript considered as the base plus misreading and inaccurate reporting by the corrector which have intensified the shortcomings.
One of the biggest problems in correcting Tazkirat al-Awliya is that there exist two separate writings; the first one was written by Attar describing the lives of 72 great figures of Sufism and mysticism. The ancient handwritten manuscripts of Tazkirat al-Awliya include the same 72 chapters. In the other written version, chapters have been added with the title “Remembering the late Sufi elders”, which contain the states and sayings of 25 mystics of the fourth and fifth centuries.
Some scholars do not consider Attar as the author of the second version, and believe that this part was added to the memoir after the tenth century; others believe that Attar came to this conclusion after a while that there were other figures missing in the book. So, he wrote about their manners afterwards. This has led to the existence of different versions of Tazkirat al-Awliya with different inscriptions; which makes the correction incoherent.
Deploying a descriptive-analytical method, the present library-based study aims to provide suggestions on how some certain words and phrases of this correction could be recorded. In view of that, Shafiee-Kadkani’s correction was compared with Nicholson's and other existing editions and the texts’ ambiguities were juxtaposed with old and authentic manuscripts of Tazkerat al-Awliya, which had been used in Shafiee-Kadkani’s correction. Then, suggestions with regard to recording of some words and phrases of Tazkirat al-Awliya and their meanings were offered via providing exemplary evidence from Persian literary texts.
It seems that the following cases are among the most important issues that have caused problems in accurate recording and reporting of the text of Tazkirat al-Awliya:
Lack of fidelity to the base manuscripts and, consequently, omitting and adding letters and words to convey the desired meaning of the text;
Carelessness of the scribes in writing the manuscripts as well as their poor literacy;
Inattention to adjusting parts of Tazkirat al-Awliya to other mystical texts;
Lack of attention to the corrections made to the manuscripts by the scribe or someone else;
Ignoring the variant manuscripts that could occasionally be found in the margins of the manuscripts;
Editors' lack of accuracy and care in recording of the words’ spelling and the general meaning of phrases;
Orthographic similarity of some Persian letters of alphabet as well as their form of writing by the scribes;
Passage of time and the damages done to the manuscripts.
Keywords
)