Al-Risālah al-Sharafiyyah fī Taqāsīm al-ʿUlūm al-Yaqīniyyah by Abu Ali Salmasi is a work by a scribe and writer of the sixth and seventh Islamic centuries, composed around the first quarter of the seventh century AH. The author included this treatise within a collection transcribed between 614 and 624 AH. The work was critically edited and published in 1383 SH (2004 CE) on the basis of an autograph manuscript written in the author’s own hand.
Although the editors made considerable efforts to produce a reliable text, various problems are observable in their edition. In the authors’ view, the most significant issue concerns the edited text itself: due to inaccuracy and misreading, numerous passages of the manuscript have been read incorrectly. Some of these errors may not stem solely from misreading but could result from deliberate editorial intervention or, in certain cases, typographical mistakes. The present article identifies and examines these issues and reproduces selected images of the manuscript of al-Risālah al-Sharafiyyah to enable readers to judge for themselves.
Introduction
Abu Ali al-Hasan ibn Ibrahim Salmasi was a scribe and writer of the sixth and seventh Islamic centuries. Several treatises authored by him, along with a number of works by others copied in his hand, have survived. One of his treatises is a fourteen-folio work entitled al-Risālah al-Sharafiyyah fī Taqāsīm ʿUlūm al-Yaqīniyyah, devoted to ethics, self-discipline, and the division of knowledge into beneficial and harmful categories, with explanations of each.
The prose of the treatise, like many Sufi/mystical works, is simple and interwoven with Qurʾanic verses, hadiths, transmitted sayings, and Persian and Arabic poetry. Salmasi transcribed this treatise along with five other works—Qabusnama by Unsur al-Ma'ali Kaykavus, a translation of Taqwīm al-Ṣiḥḥah, a translation of al-Risālah al-Dhahabiyyah, Risālah fī al-Siyāsah al-Khāṣṣah wa al-ʿĀmmah, and Mukhtaṣar fī al-Amthāl wa al-Ashʿār (in Arabic)—between 614 and 624 AH. These were compiled in a codex whose original is preserved under no. 5297 in the Fatih Library; a microfilm copy (no. 57) is held at the University of Tehran (Salmasi 1383: 83–85).
The treatise was edited on the basis of this autograph manuscript and published with an introduction, footnotes to the edited text, and several indices. Despite the editors’ efforts to present a text faithful to the scribe/author’s words, shortcomings remain. The most frequent and significant of these, based on internal textual evidence and direct consultation of the manuscript, are misreadings of the original copy.
Materials and Methods
This study adopts a descriptive, analytical, and critical approach within the framework of textual criticism and codicology. First, the printed text was collated line by line against the manuscript images, and all discrepancies were extracted. The differences were then analyzed and evaluated according to principles of textual criticism, relying on internal evidence (syntactic and semantic structure, contextual coherence, orthographic features).
Next, the identified cases were categorized by type of error, including: misreading; omission and addition; alteration or intervention in readings; neglect of scribal/authorial errors; orthographic issues; inadequate documentation; and typographical errors. In each instance, the manuscript reading and the printed version were reported, followed by the authors’ proposed emendation with explanation. For more precise evaluation, images of the relevant sections of the manuscript were also reproduced.
This study does not aim to produce a new critical edition of the treatise; rather, it seeks to offer a critical assessment of the existing edition and to clarify the types of errors it contains.
Discussion and result
In general, the principal issues observed in the editors’ work may be summarized as follows:
1.       Orthography: No discussion is provided of the manuscript’s orthographic features.
2.       Lack of documentation: In many cases, the sources and authors of Persian poems are not identified.
3.       Absence of translation and vocalization: Arabic verses are neither translated nor properly documented, and their vocalization is incomplete or inaccurate.
4.       Incorrect referencing: Certain hadiths are referenced to Shiʿi sources, whereas, given the author’s Sunni affiliation, references should have been made to Sunni sources.
5.       Typographical errors: A number of printing mistakes appear in the edition.
6.       Textual-critical problems: The most significant issue concerns discrepancies between the manuscript readings and the printed text. Not all such cases necessarily result from inaccuracy or misreading; some may be typographical. In certain instances, the scribe himself erred, yet the editors introduced preferred readings without noting the scribal mistake. Conversely, some scribal/authorial errors were reproduced without correction or comment. Cases of omission and addition between manuscript and printed text are also evident. Occasionally, due to difficulty in deciphering particular words, the editors adopted conjectural readings that, in our view, are not preferable. In such cases, we have proposed alternative readings. In all instances, images from the Fatih Library manuscript are provided to facilitate readers’ judgment. The discrepancies between the manuscript and the edited text may be classified as follows:
6.1. Misreading: The majority of the editors’ errors stem from misreading certain manuscript words.
6.2. Omission/Additions: Another category involves unjustified omission or addition of words.
6.3. Correction of scribal/authorial errors: In some sections the scribe/author made mistakes, yet the editors either failed to address them or inappropriately altered the manuscript readings.
6.4. Unindicated alterations: At times the editors changed certain words without noting the modification.
Conclusion
Although the editors of al-Risālah al-Sharafiyyah sought to present a clean and reliable text, numerous errors have entered their edition due to insufficient precision. The most significant problems concern the textual editing itself, where internal evidence and consultation of the manuscript readily reveal mistakes and deficiencies. Given the brevity of the treatise and the clarity and legibility of the manuscript, the extent of these errors is difficult to justify.
While not all discrepancies can be attributed to inaccuracy or misreading—some may be typographical—in certain cases the scribe wrote incorrectly and the editors failed to note it. In other cases, due to difficulties in reading particular words, the editors adopted conjectural readings that, in our judgment, are not preferable; accordingly, we have proposed alternative readings.