آسیب‌شناسی تصحیح در دو چاپ پیشین دیوان عماد فقیه کرمانی

Introduction

In the critical editing of classical texts alongside the use of reliable manuscripts, the application of scientific methods, familiarity with editorial criteria, and a critical approach are essential. Despite two existing editions of Emad Faqih Kermani’s Divan (poetry collection), due to the lack of methodological rigor in their editing, certain errors in the recording of verses remain. This study aims to identify the shared issues in both editions while offering accurate readings of the manuscripts they relied upon, as well as newly discovered manuscripts, to reconstruct the correct versions of the verses
 

Literature Review

Khwaja Emad al-Din Ali Faqih Kermani was an 8th-century poet and mystic. His works include a Divan and several long masnavis collectively titled Panj Ganj (The Five Treasures). The first critical edition of his complete works was prepared by Rokn al-Din Homayoun-Farrokh (1969), followed by a second edition of the Divan by Yahya Talebian and Mahmoud Modabberi (2001). Homayoun-Farrokh’s edition—the most renowned—was printed only once, nearly 50 years ago. The second edition, published in 2001, saw limited distribution during a commemoration ceremony in Kerman.
Prior to these editions, Ahmad Nazerzadeh Kermani defended his doctoral dissertation, An Analysis of the Divan and Biography of Emad al-Din Faqih Kermani (1953), under the supervision of Badiozzaman Forouzanfar, examining Emad’s poetry using extant manuscripts. In 1998, Dariush Kazemi and Mohammad Hossein Gholati published 100 ghazals from the Divan. Additionally, Samaneh Abedini, Nasrin Faqih Malek Marzban, and Mehdi Nik-Manesh critiqued both editions in their article, “The Necessity of a New Critical Edition of Emad Faqih Kermani’s Divan”. 
 

Methodology

Homayoun-Farrokh relied on three manuscripts (No. 1030 from the Islamic Consultative Assembly Library, Manuscript “A” dated 795 AH, and No. 13512 from the same library), while Talebian and Modabberi relied on three others (the Topkapi Palace Library manuscript dated 841 AH, the Soviet Academy of Sciences manuscript based on microfilm No. 44-175 from the University of Tehran, and the Leningrad Academy of Sciences manuscript). For this study, all manuscripts referenced in both editions—except Manuscript “A” from Homayoun-Farrokh’s personal collection—were re-examined, along with nine additional manuscripts (Nos. 181 and 182 from the Sepahsalar Library, and manuscripts from the Nurosmaniye, Fatih, Rashid Efendi, Leningrad, Minovi, Manguisa, and Tajikistan libraries).

Discussion

Editing classical texts requires not only access to reliable manuscripts but also the use of scientific methods, editorial standards, and a critical perspective. The existing editions of Faqih Kermani’s Divan suffer from inconsistencies due to the neglect of early manuscripts, misreadings, and a lack of systematic editing. Neither edition specifies a base manuscript, nor do their editors clarify their editorial methodology.
A comparison of the manuscripts with both editions revealed that despite the availability of authoritative early copies, neither edition consistently followed a single base manuscript. Instead, both appear to combine readings from multiple sources, leading to textual instability. For instance, Talebian and Modabberi frequently relegated the more accurate readings of the Topkapi (“b”) and Soviet Academy (“a”) manuscripts to footnotes, or relied on Homayoun-Farrokh’s printed variants (marked “ch” and “nc”) rather than consulting the original manuscripts directly.
Shared errors in both editions stem from misreadings or typographical mistakes in Homayoun-Farrokh’s edition, which were uncritically carried over into Talebian and Modabberi’s work. The latter either reproduced these errors without noting variants or retained incorrect readings in the main text while placing the correct versions in footnotes. 
In this study, a newly identified manuscript was selected as the base text. However, since it does not contain all of Faqih’s poems, the Nurosmaniye manuscript was used to supplement missing verses. 
 

Conclusion

This research critiques the manuscript selection and methodological shortcomings of both editions. By collating their source manuscripts with newly discovered, more authoritative copies, it rectifies shared errors and establishes a more reliable text.