تصحیح ابیاتی از دیوان رشیدالدین وطواط

دیوان رشیدالدین وطواط تصحیح سعید نفیسی تنها چاپ دیوان شاعر است. کتابخانۀ بارانی در تهران این کتاب را در سال 1339 منتشر کرد و از آن تاریخ تا امروز هیچ تصحیح دیگری از دیوان اشعار رشید وطواط صورت نگرفته است. تصحیح سعید نفیسی با وجود محاسن بسیار، به‌ویژه ازنظر جامعیت و گردآوری اغلب اشعارِ منسوب به رشید وطواط، از ورطۀ لغزش و خطا مصون نمانده است. اشتباهات، تحریف‌ها و تصحیف‌های فراوانی در تصحیح نفیسی راه یافته و اشعار بسیاری از شاعران دیگر در دیوان وطواط وارد شده است. محققان و پژوهندگان پیشتر در مقالات پژوهشی خود به برخی خطاهای دیوان وطواط، تصحیح سعید نفیسی توجه کرده و به لزوم تحصیح دوباره این میراث گرانبها از قرن ششم هجری تاکید داشته‌اند. در این پژوهش نیز برپایۀ یازده نسخۀ خطی گردآوری‌شده، چهارده مورد از مهم‌ترین خطاهای سعید نفیسی در تصحیح دیوان وطواط ذیل چهار عنوان کلی بررسی می‌شود. حاصل این پژوهش گامی برای غنای مطالعات مربوط به اشعار رشیدالدین وطواط و دیوان اوست و پژوهندگان را در حل و فصل پاره‌ای از دشواری‌ها و تعقیدهای متون ادب فارسی یاری می‌دهد.

Editing Some Verses of Rashid-al-din Vatvat’s Divan

Abstract Saʿid Nafisi’s critical edition of Rashidaldin Vatvat’s Divan is uptodate 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 Rashidaldin Vatvat, contains plenty of errors and flaws and some inserted poems from other contemporary or subsequent poets to Rashidaldin 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 newlyfound sources and the poet’s style of poetry. This paper also highlights fourteen important errors in Sa’id Nafisi’s edition of Rashidaldin 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 Rashidaldin 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.   Introduction Rashid aldin Mohammad bin Mohammad bin Abd alJalil alUmari, known as Vatvat, was a poet, secretary, and prolific author in Arabic and Persian. He was born in Balkh and later went to study in the Nizamiyyah school of this city and soon became one of the most eminent figures of his time. Vatvat was chief secretary under the Khwarazm Shah Atsiz and served the Khwarazmian court for nearly thirty years. It is clear from the old biographers’ account and anthologies that his fame and reputation in his lifetime went beyond Khwarazm and spread all over ancient Persia. The biographers of his time and after recorded an extensive account of his life and considered him as one of the best panegyric poets of the 12th century. Vatvat’s Persian divan, containing more than 8500 verses in Nafisi’s edition (1960), consists largely of poems eulogizing Atsiz. This edition despite many advantages especially in terms of gathering almost all the poems attributed to Rashidaldin Vatvat, contains plenty of errors and flaws and some inserted poems from poets other than Vatvat. One major defect in Nafisi’s edition is that almost all the manuscripts of Vatvat’s poems he used were transcribed in recent centuries and nearly none of them were written before the 17th century. Since today’s scholars of Persian language and literature have found and identified new manuscripts and anthologies that contain Vatvat’s poetry, a new edition of his Divan based on these new sources seems to be highly necessary. Due to this fact, the present study highlights fourteen important errors in Nafisi’s edition based on some of these new sources (eleven old manuscripts and handwritten anthologies) and stresses the need for a new critical edition of this valuable heritage from the 12th century.   Material Methods In this paper, based on library resources and the comparative method, eleven manuscripts that contain Rashidaldin Vatvat’s poetry have been compared with Said Nafisi’s edition of his Divan. Then, the differences and the preferred records have been noted down and the most important ones with considering the poet’s style of poetry have been chosen for presenting in this research. The manuscripts that have been studied in this paper are: Manuscript No: 103 in Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, dated late seventh century AH (699). Manuscript No: 120 in Feyziyeh Library in Qom, dated probably around the eleventh century AH. Manuscript No: 4841/2 in Library and Document Center of Iran Parliament, dated tenth century AH (996). Manuscript No: ps/2485 in British Museum, dated eleventh century AH (1002). Manuscript No: 13601 in Library and Document Center of Iran Parliament, dated eleventh century Ah (1018). Manuscript No: p.51429 in British Museum, dated probably around the eleventh century AH. Manuscript No: 1984 in Iran’s National Library, dated probably around the eleventh century AH. Manuscript No: 4716/1 in Malek National Library and Museum, dated probably around the beginning of the eleventh century AH. Manuscript No: 4549 in Library and Document Center of Iran Parliament, dated probably around the thirteenth century AH. Manuscript No: 2517/2 in Iran’s National Library, dated thirteenth century AH (1264). Manuscript No: s.p.799 in Paris National Library, dated probably around the beginning of the eleventh century AH.   Discussion of Results Conclusions In Said Nafisi’s edition of Rashidaldin Vatvat’s Divan, many deficiencies and errors can be identified which at times have altered or twisted the meaning of some verses. Several scholars have pointed out some of these errors and flaws in their research papers and have stressed the need for a new critical edition based on newlyfound sources. This paper investigated fourteen important errors in Nafisi’s edition according to some of these sources and based on other references with considering the poet’s style of poetry. The findings of this paper showed that there were three misreadings of verses, eight distortions in editing verses, and three wrong records of words in Nafisi’s edition. This data not only can contribute to 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.