1. Introduction
The critical editing of classical Persian literary masterpieces has long been confronted with a fundamental challenge: the reconstruction of a text that represents the “final authorized version” or the “original authorial intent.” Among the works of Sa’di, the Bustan (Sa’di-nameh) holds a preeminent position in the canon of ethical and didactic literature. This status, while cementing its importance, has made it a primary object of interest for countless generations of scribes, calligraphers, and commentators, resulting in a vast, complex, and often contradictory manuscript tradition. Within this landscape, the opening couplet of the Bustan serves as an essential gateway into the poet’s intellectual and theological world; consequently, any variation therein demands a high degree of textual sensitivity. This research focuses on the codicological diversity of this specific couplet to provide a fundamental critique of the editorial framework established by Gholamhossein Yousefi in his well-known critical edition. By moving beyond the limitations of single-manuscript reliance, this study proposes a new hypothesis based on the existence of “multiple authorial redactions,” arguing that the current editorial paradigm must be fundamentally reconsidered to accommodate the dynamic nature of Sa’di’s creative process.

2. Literature Review
Gholamhossein Yousefi’s influential edition of the Bustan rests heavily upon a single 14th-century manuscript dated to 720 AH (coded “G”). By prioritizing this specific witness, Yousefi presents the version beginning with “Banam khodayi ke jan afarid / sokhan goftan andar zaban afarid” as the sole authentic reading, effectively silencing the legitimate variations found elsewhere in the tradition. It is critical to note that despite the immense breadth of Sa’di studies in the last century, the phenomenon of multiple authorial redactions at the beginning of the Bustan has remained entirely unexplored. To date, no scholar has systematically examined these variations through the lens of redactional criticism, nor has anyone challenged the deep-seated “single-text” assumption by synthesizing these diverse manuscript accounts. Contrary to the established paradigm, our extensive codicological survey demonstrates that the reading selected by Yousefi is not an isolated or unique form. Rather, it represents only one segment of a broader, more vibrant tradition observed in eleven other reputable manuscripts spanning different historical eras. These include the 9th-century manuscript housed at the University of Tehran Library (No. 8518) and a significant manuscript in the Bursa Library, which displays characteristics suggesting it may be a copy derived from Sa’di’s own handwriting. Therefore, the historical dominance of Yousefi’s selected reading is a result of a constrained manuscript scope rather than an established philological fact.

3. Methodology
In this study, all available manuscripts and historical accounts of the opening couplet were classified into four general groups, reflecting distinct lineage patterns. “Group 2,” characterized by the reading “Banam jahandar jan-afarin / hakim-e sokhan dar/bar zaban afarid,” emerges as a primary contender to Yousefi’s choice. The significance of this group is further underscored when analyzing the manuscript from the National Library of Iran (No. 39290, dated 770 AH), which carries a colophon claiming it was transcribed directly from Sa’di’s own autograph. Furthermore, numerous citations from other reliable manuscripts indicate that this narrative was a pervasive current in the production of the Bustan. The research employs a rigorous comparative lineage analysis to bridge these findings, incorporating the historical report by the 12th-century AH commentator, Hansavi, who acts as a crucial “missing witness.” By analyzing his report, we bridge the gap between early 8th-century manuscript practices and later commentary traditions, proving that scribes and commentators were acutely aware of the narrative plurality that modern editors have frequently overlooked.

4. Discussion
The findings of this study fundamentally challenge the paradigm of the Bustan as a “single-version” text. We contend that the variations in the opening couplet are neither the result of accidental scribal errors nor purely aesthetic, conscious emendations by later, self-appointed “literary refiners.” Instead, these variants reflect the process of “deliberate authorial interventions” by Sa’di himself throughout his long literary life. Sa’di, as a poet who demonstrated particular sensitivity toward the refinement of his craft, likely revisited and revised the opening couplet—and perhaps other foundational sections—at different intervals. The antiquity of our cited sources and their wide geographic distribution prove the phenomenon of “relative recurrence” (tavator-e nesbi), a factor that effectively invalidates the hypothesis of “scribal error.” Furthermore, the evolution of this couplet in works such as the 10th-century Lazzat-nameh by Ashraf-ad-Din Ali Shirazi illustrates how these redactions were not merely anomalies but influenced subsequent literary currents. Methodologically, this research demonstrates that Yousefi’s reliance on the “primacy of the base-text” is insufficient. Contemporary philology demands a shift toward “Redactional Criticism” and a “Reasoned Eclectic Critical Edition,” rejecting the inaccurate hypothesis of “courtly revisions” (post-Timurid) as the source of such changes. The antiquity of our manuscripts places these variations in an era much closer to the poet’s lifetime.

6. Conclusion
It must be emphasized that this claim represents a vital initial lead. Although the assertion of proven multiple redactions of the Bustan might appear ambitious if based solely on the variations of a single couplet, these findings provide a necessary turning point for textual scholars to pursue the investigation of Sa’di’s redactions in a systematic and comprehensive manner. With the aid of digital humanities and global access to manuscript repositories, the path is now cleared for compiling a more critical, multi-layered edition of Sa’di’s works. This research is not an end, but a beginning—a return to the deeper, layered reality of Sa’di’s creative process, where the poet did not create his masterpiece once, but repeatedly reflected upon and recreated his legacy. This redactional approach opens a new window into the intellectual and artistic evolution of Sa’di and underscores the urgent necessity of re-evaluating the manuscript tradition of classical Persian literature in its entirety.