چالشی دیگر در پیوند با اثبات سرایندۀ‎ عشّاق‌نامه

Introduction

The tradition of composing dah-names, or ten section works, holds an ancient history in Persian literature, particularly in mystical, didactic, and philosophical genres. In these works, various theological, ethical, epistemological, philosophical, and similar topics are often explored, primarily in the form of mathnawī (rhyming couplets) with a consistent meter and length.
The ʿUshshāq-nāmeh (The Book of Lovers) is a mathnawī consisting of 1,064 couplets on philosophy and mysticism. While it may not excel in poetic elements, it is characterized by simplicity, free from pretension or artificiality, and is successful in expressing poetic emotions.
However, the attribution of this work is entangled between Fakhr al-Dīn ʿIrāqī and ʿAtāʾī Tabrīzī. Although reclaiming the work from ʿIrāqī has gained some attraction over the past fifty years, the number of supporters remains limited, leaving room for further scrutiny. This article aims to definitively determine the author of ʿUshshāq-nāmeh through rational and textual evidence, employing an analytical and argumentative research methodology. Alternatively, it seeks to inspire researchers to reconsider this attribution with greater care.

Literature Review

For years, and indeed centuries, the work known as ʿUshshāq-nāmeh has been attributed to Fakhr al-Dīn ʿIrāqī. It is said that “Julian Baldick was the first to question this attribution after examining the content of the work, demonstrating the inaccuracy of its association with ʿIrāqī. This hypothesis was later confirmed with the discovery of the manuscript collection Safīnah-yi Tabrīz, which contains the oldest manuscript of ʿUshshāq-nāmeh” (Pourjavadi, 2001: 28). Moreover, as indicated by the virtual library of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (accessed on 24 May 2024) and the Encyclopedia of Persian Language and Literature, Volume 4, under the entry for ʿIrāqī, “the first doubts regarding the attribution of this work arose when Blochet encountered an incomplete manuscript dated 709. On the final page of this manuscript, the scribe stated that the work belonged to a poet named ʿAtāʾī. Blochet notes that the manuscript is incomplete. On its last page, there is a note claiming that someone had heard the work was authored by a poet named ʿAtāʾī, who was a cloth merchant in the Tokat bazaar. Since his business did not thrive, he sought refuge in a mosque and composed one thousand low-quality verses, attributing them to Fakhr al-Dīn ʿIrāqī. ʿIrāqī, out of friendship with ʿAtāʾī, allowed the work to be included in his divan.” Eventually, with the discovery of Safīnah-yi Tabrīz, which explicitly mentions the name ʿIzz al-Dīn Tabrīzī, this doubt was resolved.
The entirety of the claim attributing this collection to ʿAtāʾī originates from this account, which, according to the footnotes of Pakistani scholar Muhammad Akhtar Cheema, dates back to 1973. He writes, “In late 1973, Julian Baldick published an article in Studia Iranica, Vol. 2, pp. 67–78, in English, based on Blochet’s notes in the catalog of Persian manuscripts in Paris regarding Sheikh ʿIrāqī’s ʿUshshāq-nāmeh. In the article, he attributed the work to ʿAtāʾī” (Cheema, 1993: 77).
An examination of the brief and unreliable references by proponents of ʿAtāʾī reveals that their claims are based on conjecture and unverified reports. How could an incomplete manuscript possess a “final page”? Moreover, the claim relies on hearsay, suggesting the possibility that ʿIrāqī’s name was misheard as ʿAtāʾī, or that the individual in question—or the scribe—forgot the actual author’s name, which could indeed be ʿIrāqī.
Additionally, Safīnah-yi Tabrīz is not the oldest manuscript containing ʿUshshāq-nāmeh. As noted in Professor Saʿīd Nafīsī’s introduction to the Collected Works of ʿIrāqī, there exist manuscripts
contemporaneous with Safīnah-yi Tabrīz (dated 721 AH) and even earlier, such as those dated 713 and 709, which attribute ʿUshshāq-nāmeh to Fakhr al-Dīn ʿIrāqī.
Beyond what has been presented in this section, no additional claims exist supporting the attribution of ʿUshshāq-nāmeh to ʿAtāʾī. In the main discussion, we provide rational and textual evidence to determine the true author of this work.

Methodology

This article is based on direct source research and employs a critical-analytical approach. In this study, we have examined the analytical works related to the ʿUshshāq-nāmeh and its attributed author. Perspectives from both sides of the debate have been scrutinized, and through rational and textual arguments, we have either refuted or validated each presented claim.
Ultimately, we have articulated our own conclusion, which is grounded in near-certainty. The significance of this article lies in its attempt to redirect attribution of the ʿUshshāq-nāmeh back to ʿIrāqī after the prior near-consensus that accepted ʿAtāʾī as its author.

4. Discussion

Now, following the presentation of previous arguments and evidence, we aim to clarify the true attribution of the ʿUshshāq-nāmeh by addressing additional challenges grounded in rational and textual reasoning. At the very least, our objective is to prompt scholars to revisit the matter with deeper consideration.
4.1. ʿAtāʾī Tabrīzī
Is it truly possible for someone to be called “the king of poets and scholars” (Abu al-Majd Tabrizi, 1388: 509), yet neither contemporaries and companions, nor historians after him ever mention his name? If ʿAtāʾī himself were indeed indifferent to fame and of a mystic nature, the courtiers, associates, and close companions would have reflected this, and it would have been clarified that the Book of Lovers was authored by him.
4.2. Similarity Between the Book of Lovers and Lama'at
Each of the ten chapters of the Book of Lovers is directly reflected in the prose work Lama'at ʿIrāqī. Perhaps one of the main reasons for attributing the Book of Lovers to ʿIrāqī is this very fact. Additionally, the mood and atmosphere of both works are very similar.
4.3. Silence of Contemporaries
When someone like Owhadi Maraghi (670–738), who could have experienced the life of ʿIrāqī, refers to his name in his Dehnama, the claim of those who rely on the Safinat al-Tabriz, written in 721, becomes less significant as the most important version. Furthermore, these mentioned poets, more than anyone else, were aware of the poet of the Book of Lovers, which is why they referenced his work and mentioned their own following of ʿIrāqī. It is surprising that none of them make any reference to the name of ʿAtāʾī!
4.4. Inclusion of Ghazals in the Book of Lovers
If ʿAtāʾī is the poet of the Book of Lovers, why has he not incorporated his own ghazals into the body of his poem? If he were not a poet of ghazal composition, why has he used only the ghazals of ʿIrāqī? Undoubtedly, two contemporary poets, in that era, would have been less familiar with each other’s works than with the works of their predecessors. This means that ʿAtāʾī, hypothetically, had more awareness of the ghazals of mystic poets such as Attar, Sanai, and others, than of the ghazals of his contemporary poet, Fakhr al-Dīn ʿIrāqī.
 
 

Conclusion

This article aimed to navigate the dual challenges of the topic and tilt the balance in favor of one, namely Sheikh Fakhr al-Dīn ʿIrāqī. However, even if this has not been fully achieved, it has at least encouraged researchers and those who reflect to reconsider the matter more thoughtfully. Now, the reasons and objections we present, after careful consideration of the arguments from both sides, can more effectively guide the way forward. Therefore, based on the ideas gathered in this article, the Book of Lovers belongs to Sheikh Fakhr al-Dīn ʿIrāqī. Those who oppose this attribution cannot provide any justification for the work’s connection to ʿIzz al-Dīn Tabrizi. The first flaw in the argument lies in ʿAtāʾī himself, who, with such obscurity, could not have produced a work praised by all those with refined taste and judgment.