دانشگاه اصفهان متن شناسی ادب فارسی 2476-3268 18 3 2026 08 23 A Critical Study of the Correction of Nasihat al-Muluk «نقدی بر تصحیح نصیحة‌الملوک غزالی» 77 101 30244 10.22108/rpll.2026.146758.2503 FA ملیحه گزی مارشک دانشجوی دکتری گروه زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران سلمان ساکت دانشیار گروه زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، مشهد، ایران Journal Article 2025 09 27 Abstract Nasihat al-Muluk is one of the Persian works attributed to Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, which, due to the author’s prominence and the political-ethical nature of the text, has long attracted scholarly attention. Jalal al-Din Homay edited this work twice, and his corrections have served as the main reference for most subsequent literary and textual studies. However, close examination of the available correction reveals several ambiguities and deficiencies, particularly in the identification and evaluation of manuscripts, the editorial methodology, and certain textual readings. The present study adopts an analytical–critical approach to examine the principal issues in Homay’s correction, focusing on manuscript studies, editorial principles, and textual variants. Furthermore, the study seeks to clarify some of these problems by using both the manuscripts available to Homay and newly discovered manuscripts. The findings indicate that the diversity of Nasihat al-Muluk manuscripts in terms of structure, transmission, and lineage, together with the scarcity of early and reliably dated manuscripts, played a major role in the textual problems observed in Homay’s correction. Consequently, although Homay claimed to follow a “base manuscript” approach, in practice, he adopted a heterogeneous and eclectic method. The study concludes that access to newly discovered manuscripts can resolve some textual ambiguities and illuminate the historical development of the text, highlighting the scholarly necessity of producing a new critical correction. Keywords: Nasihat al-Muluk; Critical Correction; Eclectic Editing; Newly Discovered Manuscripts; Jalal al-Din Homay; Abu Hamid al-Ghazali Introduction Jalal al-Din Homay edited Nasihat al-Muluk twice. His first correction was based on a single, incomplete, and corrupted manuscript. After obtaining six additional manuscripts, Homay prepared a second correction, published in 1972/1351 AH. Nevertheless, this second correction also suffers from various textual and methodological issues. The introduction is overly extensive and includes unnecessary discussions; it lacks a coherent critical commentary and instead offers scattered footnotes, while the indices and tables remain incomplete. The editorial method itself also requires careful examination. The main research question of this study is how these deficiencies and textual problems emerged and what strategies can be adopted to address them. To answer this question, the authors analyze Homay’s manuscripts and editorial procedures in detail. It appears that the diversity of Nasihat al-Muluk manuscripts in structure and lineage, together with the absence of reliable early witnesses, were major factors contributing to these problems. This situation compelled Homay to adopt an eclectic approach in practice, despite his claim that he intended to follow a base-manuscript method (Ghazali, 1972, p. 39). To date, no comprehensive and independent study has systematically examined the manuscripts of Nasihat al-Muluk or critically evaluated Homay’s editorial method. Zarrinkoob, in Farar az Madreseh, briefly referred to certain deficiencies in Homay’s manuscripts, but his remarks are scattered and do not constitute a structured analysis. In the field of editing Nasihat al-Muluk, Homay’s work remains the most influential reference, and most subsequent studies continue to rely heavily on his corrections. Materials and Methods This research adopts an analytical–descriptive approach based on library sources. In addition to examining Homay’s editorial method in the second correction (1972/1351 AH), the authors consulted the manuscripts used by Homay, the text of al-Tibr al-Masbuk, and several newly discovered manuscripts. The aim was to trace the origins of specific textual ambiguities and to assess the extent to which the existing correction conforms to accepted principles of critical editing. Selected examples of these analyses are presented in the section on textual issues and ambiguities. Research Findings In his first correction, Homay relied on a single manuscript containing both parts of the text. Later examination of newly discovered manuscripts revealed that some copies of Nasihat al-Muluk contain only the first part, while others include both parts—a situation also reflected in the Arabic versions. Moreover, the manuscripts vary significantly in terms of transmission and genealogical relationships. In the second correction, Homay used seven Persian and three Arabic manuscripts, yet he made several errors in identifying and dating them. For instance, the «صو» manuscript, contrary to Homay’s claim, does not belong to the 7th or 8th centuries but appears to be an independent copy from the 10th or 11th century. The «نو» manuscript is not dated 853 AH, as Homay suggested, and evidence points to a later date. Similarly, palaeographical analysis of the «مص» manuscript indicates a later period than that proposed by the editor. Overall, only two early dated manuscripts—«فا» (709 AH) and «صو» (863 AH)—were available to Homay. This heavy reliance on undated or late manuscripts significantly influenced textual readings and undermined the consistency of the editorial method. Discussion of Results and Conclusions One of the main challenges in editing Nasihat al-Muluk lies in the absence of manuscripts close to the author’s lifetime and the considerable diversity among existing copies in structure and lineage. Although the present authors also lack access to very early manuscripts, the newly discovered materials allow for the revision of certain readings and a clearer reconstruction of the genealogical relationships among the manuscripts. Analysis of textual samples demonstrates that the failure to adhere strictly to a base manuscript, combined with an eclectic approach, occasionally resulted in inconsistencies and ambiguities in the text. Given the shortcomings of the existing correction and the availability of new manuscript evidence, the production of a new critical correction of Nasihat al-Muluk is academically necessary. Such a correction, based on more systematic and methodologically rigorous sources, would contribute both to improving the textual reliability of the work and to a more accurate understanding of its historical development and authenticity. نصیحة‌الملوک یکی از معدود آثار فارسیِ ابوحامد محمد غزالی (متوفی: ۵۰۵ق.) است که موضوعی کم‌نظیر در میان آثار غزالی دارد و در بررسی سیر اندیشۀ سیاسی او همواره مورد توجه بوده است. جلال‌الدین همایی دو بار این اثر را در سال‌های ۷- ۱۳۱۵ و ۱۳۵۱ش. تصحیح کرد؛ بار اوّل از روی تک‌نسخه‌ای نونویس و مغلوط و بار دوم با استفاده از هفت نسخه. همایی خود از چاپ اوّل راضی نبود و ازاین‌رو، دست به تصحیح دوبارۀ اثر زد. با این همه دومین تصحیح نیز از اشکالات در «متن» و «روش تصحیح» برکنار نمانده است. او در مقابلۀ نسخ، روشی التقاطی را برگزید؛ درحالی‌که از گفته‌های او در مقدمه برمی‌آید که روش او «نسخه اساس» است. در این روش، یک‌‌دست عمل نکرده و همین امر باعث بروز ابهاماتی در متن شده است. تنوع دست‌نویس‌‌های کتاب، از دشواری‌های اصلی تصحیح این اثر است؛ ساختار دوبخشی کتاب به تنوع نسخه‌ها از نظر تک‌بخشی و دوبخشی بودن انجامیده و تحریرهای متفاوتی را ایجاد کرده است. در این میان، نسخه‌های کهنِ نزدیک به حیات مؤلف نیز وجود ندارد. این پژوهش، ابتدا به بررسی اشکالات چاپ دوم نصیحة‌الملوک در زمینۀ «معرفی، اعتبارسنجی و به‌کارگیری نسخ»، «روش تصحیح» و «ضبط‌ها» می‌پردازد و در ادامه تلاش می‌کند تا با استفاده از همان نسخه‌های در دسترس همایی و مراجعه به نسخه‌های تازه به‌دست آمده، برخی ابهامات را رفع کند و ضروت تصحیح دوبارۀ اثر را نشان دهد.

https://rpll.ui.ac.ir/article_30244_1a42527f3607ee00289f944ee15f1a20.pdf