Abstract:
AbstractIf we consider the fame and popularity of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh as the first and most important reason for the anonymity of Toussi’s Grashasbnamah, the second reason for this oblivion must have something to do with the only existing edition of this literary work. Garshasbnameh was first completely edited and published by Habib Yaghmai in 1938. This edition has some problems. By comparing manuscripts that Yaghmai used in the process of editing as well as the newly-found ones, we seek to analyze and criticize the methodology and result of Yaghmai's edition and provide some suggestions. The findings of this research shows that the editor deviated many times from his declared method. Sometimes he did not mention textual variants, and in some cases textual variants were given partly. Also, shifting of the copy-text and other textual variants from text to margin is sometimes unjustified. In addition, the edition lacks comprehensive, useful, enlightening and guiding commentaries.
Machine summary:
The following verse is an example of such cases: You said that they are lions in battle, they will all take a demon, each in number (National Library: 9) In other manuscripts, instead of "each in number," the phrase "each with a snake" (Sepahsalar: 118, London Museum: 21, Astaneh Razavi: 19, Majlis: 103) is recorded, which is incorrect; because if we accept the reading "each with a snake," the phrase "taking a demon with a snake" must have a precedent and background in Iranian culture and Persian literature, which it does not; whereas with the reading "number," the hemistich becomes completely meaningful, eloquent, and far from dusty and imposed expressions.
Deviation from the analogical method Sometimes the corrector introduces words into the text for which he neither provides a variant manuscript nor explicitly states that an analogical correction has been performed, and these words are not recorded in any of the manuscripts he used; the word "chenan" in the second hemistich of the following verse is of this type: Chenanim ma pishshan ruz-e kin, chenan cheshmeh dar pish daryay-e chin (Asadi, 1389: 104) In two of Yaghmaei's original manuscripts, Sepahsalar (127) and the London Museum (23), as well as the Majlis manuscript (11), the word "koja" appears instead of "chenan", and in Astaneh Razavi (20), it is recorded as "cho".
(
, 
, 
)
