بررسی و نقد تصحیحِ تذکره‌الاولیاء عطار به‏اهتمام محمدرضا شفیعی کدکنی

تذکره‌الاولیاء از مهم‏ترین منابع عرفانی فارسی در شرح احوال و سخنان مشایخ صوفیه است. عطار نیشابوری این اثر را با توجه به آثار تالیف‏شدۀ پیش از خود مانند طبقات‏الصوفیه، حلیه‌‏‏الاولیاء، رسالۀ قشیریه و کشف‏‏المحجوب هجویری نگاشته است. رینولد الن نیکلسون در بین سال‏های 1322 ق. (1905 م.) تا 1325 ق. (1907 م.) معتبرترین تصحیح انجام‏گرفته از این کتاب را انجام داده بود. پس از آن، شفیعی‏کدکنی در سال 1398 با انجام‏ تصحیح دیگری از تذکره‌الاولیاء، گرهِ مفهومی بسیاری از واژگان، ترکیبات و عبارات آن را گشود و مجال پژوهش‏های بعدی را درباره‌ این کتاب فراهم آورد. با وجود این، به نظر می‏رسد در متن ارائه‏شده، کاستی‏هایی راه یافته است که البته در مقایسه با متن کتاب و دشواری‏های مفهومی آن، خطاهای آشکاری نیست. در این پژوهش، کوشش شده است با روش توصیفی تحلیلی، کاستی‏ها و نابسامانی‏های موجود در تصحیح تذکره‌الاولیاء در هفت قالب کلیِ «کاستی‏های نسخۀ اساس»، «عدول از نسخۀ اساس»، «تصحیف»، «گزارش نادرست»، «بدخوانی»، «تعلیقات نارسا» و «سایر کاستی‏ها» مشخص شود. برای بررسی دقیق‏تر، از منابع کتابخانه‏ای مانندِ نسخه‏های خطی به‏کاررفته در تصحیح و گاهی نسخه‏های دیگر استفاده شده است. یافته‏های پژوهش نشان می‏دهد کیفیّت تصحیح در بخش اول تذکره‌الاولیاء، درخور مقایسه با بخش دوم نیست؛ البته اصلی‏ترین عامل این دوگانگی، تحریر دوگانۀ کتاب و تفاوت کتابت آن در نسخه‏های خطی است که گاهی با خطاهای مصحّح همراه شده و اشتباهاتی را به وجود آورده است.

Critique of the Correction of Tazkerat al-Awliya by Mohammad Reza Shafiei Kadkani

AbstractTazkerat alAwliya is one of the most important Persian mystical sources in describing the states and sayings of the great Sufis, which Attar Neyshabouri wrote using the sources written before him such as Tabaqat alSufiyya, Haliya alAwliya, Resaleye Qosheiriyyeh, and Kashf alMahjoub. The most authoritative correction of this book was made by Reynold Allen Nicholson between 1322 AH/ 1905 to 1325 AH/ 1907. After that, in 2019, Shafiei Kadkani made another correction of Tazkerat alAwliya which untied the conceptual knot of many of its words, combinations, and expressions. It also provided an opportunity for further research on this book. Nevertheless, there are errors in the corrected text.­­ In this research, the descriptiveanalytical method was used to highlight the shortcomings and irregularities in the correction of Tazkerat alAwliya which can be divided into 7 general formats: 1) shortcomings in the original version, 2) deviations from the original versions, 3) distortions, 4) incorrect reporting, 5) misreading, 6) incorrect comments, and 7) other shortcomings. Library resources such as the original manuscripts and other manuscripts have also been used. The results of the research showed that the quality of correction in the first part of Tazkerat alAwliya is not comparable to the second part due to the visible duality. The main reason for the duality of the book is the difference in its manuscripts, which is sometimes accompanied by the corrector’s errors. IntroductionIn 2019, Sokhan Publication published Shafi’i Kadkani’s correction of Tazkira alAwliya in two volumes, which included three general sections including a) introduction, b) compared text, and c) annotations, descriptions and profiles.The main introduction of the book is 157 pages, which begins with some information about Attar and Neishabour, Attar’s biography and his books. It then introduces Tazkerat alAwliya and provides comprehensive explanations about it. Thus, this section can be considered as one of the main parts in understanding Tazkira alAwliya.The main text of the book is arranged in two parts. The first part is the text of the Tazkira corrector in 647 pages, mentioning 72 mystics. It starts with Imam Ja’far alSadiq (AS) name and ends with Mansur Hallaj. The second part of the correction, from page 652 to 930, mentions 25 others from Ibrahim Khavvas to Imam Muhammad Baqir (AS). The second volume consist of five separate sections:  1) Other Manuscripts 1134939, 2) Annotations 15061135, 3) Dictionary 17241507, 4) Dictionary of Other Manuscripts 1740 – 1725, and 5) List of References 1780 – 1741.In general, the correction is structurally desirable, and  ignoring some shortcomings, it can be considered a suitable model for text correction. Materials and MethodsBy using library resources and descriptiveanalytical methods in this study, the correction of Tazkerat alAwliya has been studied and criticized. Also, the author adapted some of the items to the manuscripts of Tazkira alAwlia. The necessity of this research is studying ancient mystical books and reviewing and criticizing the published works regarding this subject.The great contribution of Attar in mysticism and literature, the significance of Tazkerat alAwliya as one of the first works written in the field of mysticism in Persian, and the correction of this book by one of the greatest scholars of contemporary Persian literature could be considered as some features of  the importance of this research. Discussion of Results and ConclusionsThe issues addressed in this study include the following: 1. Trusting the basic manuscript and neglecting its shortcomings 1.1. The omissions in the basic manuscript 1.2. The existence of duplicate expressions in the basic manuscript2. Ignoring the written form of the basic manuscript21. Incorrect reporting of other manuscripts22. Suggesting using another version instead of the written form of the original manuscript23. Adding redundant words from other manuscripts3. Miswriting31. Miswriting resulting from the misreading of the basic manuscript32. Miswriting resulting from the writing of the basic manuscript33. Miswriting resulting from the writing of the basic manuscript and its misreading4. Incorrect reporting5. MisreadingThe most important reasons for finding shortcomings in this correction can be listed as follows:1. The main reason is that it has been written at two different time intervals creatingproblems in the writing of its manuscripts to the extent that it is not possible to correct two parts of the book based on a single version of the manuscript.2. None of the existing manuscripts of Tazkerat alAwliya have the criteria of a basic manuscript, and the corrector had to use basic manuscripts in the correction by emphasizing the manuscript.3. The manuscript, which has relative bases, has some omissions and repetitions that have made their way into the text. At the same time, as basic manuscripts have validity, sometimes deviating from them and referring to other versions created problems in the correction.4 Miswritings that have entered the text are sometimes the result of the scribe’s miswriting and the corrector’s misreads. Sometimes both the scribe and the corrector are involved in these miswritings.5. Incorrect reporting, misreading, and inappropriate annotations are also seen in the correction.