نقدی بر تصحیح «مقالات» شمس تبریزی و ضرورت تصحیح مجدد آن (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
بیان مسئله : شیوه بیان و روش تعلیمی مشایخ بزرگ عرفان که در محافل عرفانی غالباً به صورت وعظ و تذکیر بود، تحت عنوان «مجلس گویی» یاد شده است. شمس تبریزی نیز در بیان تقریرات عرفانی خود به این سنت عرفانی توجه داشته و بیشتر تعالیم و مقولات مهم عرفانی را با این شیوه به مخاطبان و شاگردان خود انتقال داده است. نسخه های متعدد و متنوع بازمانده از تقریرات شمس تبریزی به نوعی مانع از ارائه متنی منقّح و صحیح از مقالات شمس شده است؛ ازاین روی در تصحیح علمی انتقادی این اثر که موحّد انجام داده است، کاستی هایی در متنِ مصَحَّح آن دیده می شود که گاهی موجب ابهام هایی در متن شده و فهم آن را برای خوانندگان مشکل کرده است. روش: در این نوشته ضمن نقد تصحیح یادشده، براساس نسخه های موجود در موزه قونیه به شیوه تحلیلی و براساس اصول نسخه پژوهی به بررسی اهمیت و اعتبار نسخه های کهن مقالات پرداخته شده است و ضرورت تصحیح مجدد آن تبیین می شود. یافته ها و نتایج: از میان نسخه های کهن «مقالات» شمس، نسخه سوم موزه قونیه به شماره 2155 به دلیل قدمت و اعتبار تاریخی، جامعیّت و یکدست بودن متن و توالی منطقی سخنان شمس اهمیت خاصی دارد. عاری بودن نسبی این نسخه از الحاقات و تصحیف کاتبان نیز یکی دیگر از یافته های این تحقیق است. با اساس قراردادن این نسخه می توان تصحیحی مجدد و متنی یکدست از مقالات ارائه داد؛ دیگر نسخه های کهن نیز برای نسخه بدل برحسب ارجحیت و اولویت بندی آنها برای رفع نقایص و مشکلاتِ نسخه اساس استفاده می شود.A Critique on the Correction of Shams Tabrizi's Discourses and the Necessity of Its Re-correction
The mode of expression and teaching method of great masters in pedagogical circles is often called ‘Majlis-Gooyi’. Shams Tabrizi has also paid attention to this mystical tradition in his mystical narrations and has conveyed most of the important mystical teachings and categories to his audience and students through this method. The numerous and diverse surviving versions of Shams Tabrizi's writings have somehow prevented the presentation of a revised and correct text of Shams's Discourses . Therefore, in the scientific-critical correction of this work, which was done by Movahed, there are some shortcomings in the corrected text, which sometimes caused ambiguities in the text and made it difficult for the readers to understand. In the present study, while criticizing the mentioned correction based on the versions available in the Konya Museum, the importance and validity of the old versions of the discourses have been investigated in an analytical manner and the necessity of re-correction has been explained. Among the old editions of Shams's Discourses , the third edition of Konya Museum, No. 2155, is of particular importance due to its antiquity and historical validity, the comprehensiveness and consistency of the text, and the logical sequence of Shams's words. The relative absence of additions and scribes' corrections in this version is another finding of this research. By considering this version as the basis, it is possible to provide a re-correction and uniform text of the discourses, and other old versions can be used as replacement versions according to their preference and prioritization to fix the defects and problems of the base version.
Introduction
Shams's speeches are full of stories, similes, and individual sentences that are separated from their origin and disturb the integrity of the text in which they are located, making it difficult for the reader to understand the structure of this type of literature. The actual order of the contents of the discourses, as it is today, is somewhat ambiguous. The disciples of Shams and Rumi wrote some of his words regularly in written form, and transmitted other works orally to others and the next generation through lessons and sermons. This method of written and oral transmission of his words, which of course was accompanied by the intervention of scribes and preachers, can be one of the reasons for the confusion and disorganization of the Discourses . In reconstructing the original text, it is necessary to distinguish between the oral and written transmission of Shams' words. The known versions of the Discourses (six original and old versions, three selected versions, and seven almost new versions that were written from the original version) and their textual changes and differences show how much attention these texts have received during the eight centuries that have passed since Shams' death. This study aims to criticize the correction of Shams Tabrizi's Discourses done by Movahed (1990).
Review of the Literature
The current edition of the Discourses cannot be the final version of Shams's lectures. As mentioned, the original versions of the articles are very similar to each other in terms of writing history. In the meantime, Wali al-ddin's version seems a little old compared to all of them. In the scientific correction of ancient texts, the use of the existing copies, which are small and incomplete, is a scientific and original rule. Wali al-ddin's version only includes the first part of the Discourses , and not all of Shams's interpretations are included in it. Due to the existence of the third version of the Konya Museum, the characteristics of which were mentioned earlier, we can present an almost unified narrative of Shams's narrations. Because the third edition of the Konya Museum correctly and completely preserves the first part of Shams's narrations, which is included in the old version of Wali al-Din.
In reviewing the Discourses based on the third edition of the Konya Museum in terms of authenticity and comprehensiveness, it is possible to use the editions of Wali al-Din, Dar al-Mathnavi, and Fatih in terms of age and inclusion of other parts of the Discourses as alternative versions. In comparative correction, due to the involvement of the corrector’s taste, the probability of error in recording suspicious cases is high. Errors are minimized in the correction based on the base copy and referring to the alternative version.
Methodology
One of the difficult and undesirable obstacles in correcting the text of articles is the existence of multiple versions with different narratives of the works, which makes it difficult for the proofreader to recognize the authenticity and historical identity of these versions. In this study, while criticizing Movahd’s correction based on the versions available in the Konya Museum, the importance and validity of the old versions of the articles have been investigated analytically and based on the principles of manuscript research. Then, the necessity of re-correction has been explained.
Results
The results of the study showed that the additions or discrete parts are more in the first version of the Konya Museum than in Wali al-Din’s version. In the last part, the correction can be inserted separately under the title of additions. We think that maybe with this method it is possible to present at least three different parts of the Discourses based on the basic version and without using analogical or eclectic correction. The method of analogical correction is mostly used for works that are unique to one copy and erroneous. However, there are six original versions of the Discourses with unique features that can play a very useful and scientific role in providing an almost revised text with corrections based on the original version.
تبلیغات
