ضرورت تصحیح دوباره مجالس‌العشاق

مجالس‌العشّاق، منتسب به سلطان حسین بایقرا، تذکره‌ای با محوریّتِ عشقِ مجازی است. تالیف آن در سال 909 هجری قمری به پایان رسیده است. این اثر در سال 1375 به اهتمام غلامرضا طباطبائی‌مجد تصحیح و چاپ و منتشر شد. چاپ طباطبائی‌مجد نخستین چاپ حروفی مجالس‌العشّاق است؛ بنابراین همواره از فضل تقدّم برخوردار است؛ اما نبودِ دسترسی مصحّح به دست‌نویس‌های معتبر و اَقدَمِ اثر و کم‌توجهی به اصولِ علمیِ تصحیحِ انتقادی موجب شده است لغزش‌هایی در آن راه یابد و درنتیجه اعتبار علمی کافی نداشته نباشد. با توجه به نسخه‌های نویافته از مجالس‌العشّاق و نقص‌های تصحیح پیشین، تصحیح دوباره آن ضروری به نظر می‌رسد. نویسندگان این مقاله می‌کوشند این ضرورت را با معرفی اثر و نسخه‌های اقدم آن و نقد چاپ طباطبائی‌مجد به اثبات برسانند. بدین منظور پس از معرفی اثر، جایگاه و ارزش و اهمیت آن در زبان فارسی، معرفی مولف کتاب و نقل و نقد اظهارنظرهای بیان‌شده دربارۀ انتساب اثر به مولف، به معرفی چاپ‌های پیشین اثر پرداخته شد. مجالس‌العشّاق تاکنون چهار مرتبه به‌صورت چاپ سنگی و یک مرتبه به‌صورت حروفی به چاپ رسیده است. بررسیِ تنها چاپ حروفی اثر نشان داد سه ‌نوع خطا در آنها راه یافته است: کاستی‌های ساختاری تصحیح، خطاهای ناشی از کم‌دقتی و سهل‌انگاری در نگارش، خطاهای واردشده در متن مجالس‌العشّاق.

Necessity of recorrection of majalis al ushshaq

1. Abstract Majalis al ushshaq attributed to sultan Hussein Bayqara, is a Tadzkera with focused on carnal love. Its compilation ended in 909 Ah. This work was edited, and published in 1996 (1375 Ah) by Gholamreza Tabatabaei Majd. TabatabaeiMajd’s Printing is the first edition of Majalis al – ushshaq, so he always has accomplishments. But the lack of access to authentic manuscripts and the lack of attention to the scientific principles of critical correction led to slippage in it, and consequently, it does not have sufficient scientific credence. Regarding the Newly discovered manuscripts of Majalis al – ushshaq and the defects of the previous correction, it seems necessary to recorrect it.  The present article tries to prove this necessity by introducing the work and the olden manuscripts of it and the review of TabatabaeiMajd’s printing.  For this purpose, after the introduction of the work, its position and value in Persian language, the author of the book, and the critique of the comments on the assignment of the work to the author, the previous publications of the work were introduced.  The research has shown that Majalis al ushshaq has been published five times, printed four times in lithography and one time in printed form. The review of the only print of the book showed that there were three kinds of errors: correction’s structural defects, errors due to Precision and negligence in writing, errors in the text of the Majalis al ushshaq. 2. Introduction Majlis al_ushshaq have always been a topic of discussion in many ways; From its strange content that elicited a variety of reactions; Until its author, who was hiding behind a veil of ambiguity; And to the many paintings that have been drawn in different historical periods; And numerous and disparate manuscripts of it in major libraries around the world. And what is the main purpose of the author to compilation of such a book in the literary center of Herat is one of the main issues of the work. If We don’t count the numerous stone prints of the Majles, the correction of Gholamreza TabatabaiMajd is the first and only critical print of the work. But, considering the finding of older manuscripts as well as the errors found in its single print edition, it is necessary to recorrect the book. In this article, we disuse about the book’s author and the faults which was found in printed book. In introduction and termination of work the author’s name is given: Sultan Husseyn ibn Sultan Mansur ibn Bayqara ibn UmarShaykh ibn Teymur Kurkan, but Babur attributed it to Kamallodin Husseyn Gazurgahi without any Documentary. Also, other scholars have different ideas about author of the work. Also, Majalis alushshaq have many manuscripts in library and museum around the world. Until now We find 45 manuscript of it, which some of them have miniature painting and welldecoration. This manuscript never seen and used before in previous correction of work, accordingly using nonauthentic and recent manuscripts has led to several mistakes.it is Therefore necessary to review. 3. Material & Methods This research is based on library materials and comparative method. In this article we first address the author’s issues. Who the author is and what comments there are about it? Then we showed how not having a purged and authentic text of the work can increase the ambiguity around the author. Finally, while enumerating the errors and deficiencies found in Majalis alushshaq’s earlier correction and printing, we suggested the necessity of recorrection of it. We have used these manuscripts in the present text to compare with printed version: Manuscript No: 56083 Iran National library. Dated 961 Ah. Manuscript No: 2715 Malek Library and museum. Dated 972 Ah by DUST MOHAMMAD KATEB. Unlisted Manuscript Dated 972 Ah. in Afqanistan National Archive by Mahmud ibn Mirak Dargazini. Manuscript No: 667 Hakim Ughlo library in Turkey. Dated 982 Ah. by Kamal ibn shams udin qahir. Manuscript No: 4211 Nuruosmaniye library in Turkey. Dated 987 Ah. 4. Discussion of Results & Conclusions In this article, we examined TabatabeiMajd’s correction of the Majalis alushshaq in order to prove the necessity of recorrection of it by revealing its errors and deficiencies. For this purpose, after briefly introducing the work, the author’s, earlier editions of the work, and the basiss manuscripts of the TabatabaiMajd’s correction, we introduced our newfound Manuscripts And used them as a tool for measuring and identifying previous printing errors. thus, we have classified the previous published errors into two general sections: errors resulting from not having the original and valid manuscripts; errors resulting from Print and related issues, and a few subdivisions such as: deficiencies, indexing errors, Incorrect headings, slips in recording numbers and dates. As a result, due to the many errors found in the book and the aesthetic and semantic transformation of the work, Revising and recorrection of it, is necessary and inevitable.