نوع مقاله : مقالۀ پژوهشی
نویسندگان
دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
1. Introduction
Several different manuscripts are preserved in various libraries in the world, whose identification and close introduction for the researchers in the field of codicology and text edition is both a delightful and an essential
practice. The job of identifying and introducing manuscripts becomes more essential especially if gaining access to a manuscript is difficult, or if the notes or lists that are allocated to introducing a manuscript /manuscripts are incomplete or erroneous. Among other prominent centers that preserve manuscripts, Leiden University Library started work in 1575, almost immediately after Leiden University was founded in the Netherlands and now after a couple of centuries owns one of the largest collections of Oriental manuscripts in Europe. There are more than 26000 manuscripts in 27 Oriental languages preserved in Leiden University, 6000 of which is in Persian, Arabic and Turkish. Warner (D. 1665) is the donor of a large collection of Oriental manuscripts. He was not an academic, but a young merchant who traveled to the Orient for business purposes and could collect about a thousand manuscripts. Two days before his death, Warner donated all his manuscripts to Leiden University, and the cataloguing of this collection became, in practice, a basis for the following various manuscripts of this library. This collection is among the largest donated collections to Leiden University Library. Some of the manuscripts in this collection are of paramount importance but because they are not accessible, researchers have not yet had the chance to study or identify them. Manuscript number 600 of the donated collection of Warner in Leiden is among the less easily accessible ones, as we still do not have it scanned or digitized. Also, the existing reports suffer from incompletions and errors. Therefore, providing a complete and accurate report of this manuscript is necessary. When seeking the manuscript for the correction of Zaad-e Akherat by Abu Hamed Mohammad Ghazzali, we also decided to find the scanned copies of this manuscript, which later helped us verify the errors in the previously published reports, for instance in cases such as the date of creation of the copy, the range of works and their arrangements. Other than Zaad-e Akherat, two works by Mir Seyed Ali Hamedani (D. 1384), namely Risaleh Zikryeh and Zakhirat-ul Moluk are also copied.
2. Methodology
This research is based on close observation, measurement and analysis of manuscript number 600 from Warner Collection in the Leiden University Library on the one hand and the library study of the existing reports about this manuscript and specifically the section on Zaad-e Akherat. First, the manuscript is closely studied for its structural features and content. Then the existing errors and imperfections of the previous reports, including the book of Moalefat Al-Ghazali by Abd-Ul Rahman Badawi and the introductions by Mohammad Taqi Daneshpajuh and Jan Just Witkam about this manuscript are mentioned and corrected.
3. Discussion
Two introductions about the manuscript number 600 exist in Leiden University Library: one is the report by Mohammad Taghi Daneshpajuh, published in 1979 in the 10th volume of the Journal of Manuscripts of the Central Library of Tehran University, and the other is the report by Jan Just Witkam in the list of Leiden University Library published in 2007. In the published introductions from this manuscript, the number of sheets are mentioned as 46, which is erroneous, with the reason being not having counted the first page of the manuscript. Moreover, there are errors in recognizing the range of works copied and their arrangement in this manuscript, as Daneshpajuh counted sheets 7 to 28 as Zaad-e Akherat, while Zaad-e Akherat is given up as incomplete on the back of sheet 12, with the text from sheet 13 to the end of sheet 28 being two sections from Zakhirat-Ul Moluk by Mir Seyed Ali Hamedani. Even so, in this research we have demonstrated the important and different records of Zaad Akherat in comparison with the published text and the Paris copy (dated 1345) in tables. Also, in the reports previously published about this manuscript, nothing is mentioned about the content or notes in the starting or ending sheets, while there exist poems in Persian and in Arabic from Rumi's sonnets, a quartet from Fahlavi and two Persian quartets, all of which are studied and compared to other sources.
4. Conclusion
This research demonstrates that regardless of several reports about this manuscript, there are imperfections and occasional errors or wrong pieces of information. The findings in this study could be summarized as follows:
a. The date of writing this manuscript is 1409, which is close to the time of Mir Seyed Ali Hamedani (1315-1384). Hence, Risaleh Zikryeh is of significance in the correction of this work, though has not yet been used in any of the corrections or versions of this work.
b. Although often deemed important in correcting Zaad-e Akherat, the Leiden manuscript is too incomplete to be important.
c. The section that follows Zaad-e Akherat, which is understood as the continuation of Zaad-e Akherat by all catalogers, is originally two sections of Zakhirat-Ul Moluk by Mir Seyed Ali Hamedai.
d. On the back of sheet 39 of this manuscript, a new structure of a quartet by Fahlavi is written, which deserves attention of the researchers in the field of historical linguistics, regarding its structural differences from the previous quartets in Mersaad-Ul Ebaad and two other manuscripts.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله