Document Type : علمی- پژوهشی
Authors
Assistant Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, University of Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Abstract
Among the well-known heroic long poems, there are two called Faramarznameh, the first one the big Faramarznameh and the second one the small Faramarznameh. The editors of both texts have dated them as belonging to the fifth and the sixth centuries A.H., respectively. But in both works there are signs that are not compatible with these claimed dates. These signs have not yet been fully studied, but have attracted the attention of some researchers to some extent. In this article, after mentioning the opinions of researchers about the antiquity of the two works and evaluating the related arguments and documents, focusing on the language of these two poems, it is shown that neither of these two works can be regarded from pre-Mongol texts. In both works, the use of some words and grammatical constructions, especially phonetic features, along with some other linguistic and literary characteristics, leads the researcher to believe that the dating of both should be reconsidered and as a result, both of them should attributed to the eighth century A.H. or even afterwards.
Highlights
Among the well-known heroic long poems, there are two called Faramarznameh, the first one the big Faramarznameh and the second one the small Faramarznameh. The editors of both texts have dated them as belonging to the fifth and the sixth centuries A.H., respectively. But in both works there are signs that are not compatible with these claimed dates. These signs have not yet been fully studied, but have attracted the attention of some researchers to some extent. In this article, after mentioning the opinions of researchers about the antiquity of the two works and evaluating the related arguments and documents, focusing on the language of these two poems, it is shown that neither of these two works can be regarded from pre-Mongol texts. In both works, the use of some words and grammatical constructions, especially phonetic features, along with some other linguistic and literary characteristics, leads the researcher to believe that the dating of both should be reconsidered and as a result, both of them should attributed to the eighth century A.H. or even afterwards.
The issue of attribution is one of the most important issues in the history of Persian literature. There are not few works that have been attributed to certain poets or literary periods, but it has gradually been identified that they are the compositions of another poet or belong to another era. One of the most famous of these false attributions is the attribution of some late Sufi poems to Attar Neishabouri, which was revealed to be invalid by the researches of scholars such as Saeed Nafisi. Yusuf and Zulikhai Taghanshahi was considered one of Moslem Ferdowsi's works for decades and centuries. There are many unfounded attributions among Pahlavi poems. Shahyarnameh, which was written in the Safavid era, was one of the works of Ghaznavid era poet Osman Mokhtari, and it has not been removed from Osman Mokhtari's divan. Jules Mol considered Jahangirnameh as one of the works of the 5th century, but later serious doubts were raised in this opinion. It seems that there has been a mistake in determining the date of writing of the big and the small extra calendar.
Faramaraznama Bozor or Faramaraznama Kalan is one of the two epics dedicated to describing the adventures and bravery of son Rostam. Old and new researchers, from Jhol Mol to Jalal Khaleghi, the absolute creator, have considered this poem as one of the ancient works of Persian poetry. Jules Mol has considered it to be related to the fifth century and Khalikhi Absolute to the sixth century. In the opinion of some researchers, the date of writing of the Great Paramedic is before the Small Paramedic. The interesting point is that none of the dates about the two systems in question are based on documents and are only based on speculation. There are several signs that indicate that the extra-monthly calendar dates back to the late period. One is that the text in question has used many words that were not common in the texts of the fifth century until two centuries after that.
Also, in Far-Marznameh, unknown ya is rhymed with known ya, and this feature is related to the texts of the second half of the 8th century and after. Also, it is seen in the extra border that some letters are removed from the end of the words, which was not common in the texts of the 5th century. Once again, since the correctors of the Great Transcendental Chronicle have not provided any acceptable scientific documents and reasons for the antiquity of the text, and also there are signs of lateness in the text, the claim of the antiquity of this Chronicle is not acceptable. According to the authors, the poem in question is from the works of the late 8th or 9th century. Paying attention to the fact that the rhyming of unknown and well-known ya is not seen in most of the works of the 8th century and is mostly related to the texts of the 9th century and even after that, makes the authors more confident in their guess. The date of writing of the small Farmarznameh should be estimated around the 8th century. It is not for nothing that the editors of the text had to refer to later texts to explain one of its words (yalmah). Some other uses also indicate the lateness of the text, including the use of the word Adam in the meaning of human.
The lateness of the text of the small metagram can also be shown with phonetic arguments. If we consider these arguments together, we will not reach any conclusion other than that the text is late. In this text, some words are used as abbreviations without the final consonant "y" and this, along with some other phonetic features of the text, is a sign that the text is not old.
The reason is that there are no valid and reliable reasons and documents for the antiquity of Far-Marznameh system, and according to the set of reasons and clues presented in this article, we come to the conclusion that Far-Marznameh cannot be a poem of the fifth century and it should be based on the researches related to the first periods of poetry. Farsi should be left out. The small Faramznamah is not one of the poems of the 6th century, and its language is consistent with the texts of later periods. Considering the high frequency of late usages in the great meta-grammar, the date of the composition of this work seems to be from the 8th century. It can be assumed that the small metagram was written in the middle or the last decades of the 8th century.
References
Abdul Razzaq Samarqandi, 1372, informed by Saadin and the Bahrain Assembly, by Abdul Hossein Navaei, Tehran, Research Institute of Human Sciences.
Attar, Farid al-Din, 1341: Divan, edited by Mohammad Taghi Tafzali, Tehran, Scientific and Cultural Publishing House.
Attar, Fariduddin, 1375: Divan, edited by Saeed Nafisi, Tehran, Sanai Library Publications.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)