The Divan of Abū'l-Faraj Rūni, edited by Maryam Mahmoudi (2019), represents the fourth attempt to produce a complete and refined edition of this fifth-century poet’s works, following the lithographic edition published in India and critical editions done by Prof. Chaikin and Dr. Mahdavi Damghani. However, the new critical edition, due to the editor’s overreliance on the base manuscript (the copy-text) and insufficient attention to linguistic, literary, and historical nuances, contains numerous errors. Many verses exhibit structural flaws or semantic ambiguities as a result.
In this article, the author aims to revise the erroneous verses in Rūni's recent edition. To do so, the author makes arguments grounded in Persian prosody, rhyme, rhetoric, stylistics, and grammar by referring to other manuscripts and existing editions of Abū'l-Faraj’s collected poems, as well as providing supporting evidence from other classical Persian texts.

Keywords: Abū'l-Faraj Rūni, Maryam Mahmoudi, Mahmoud Mahdavi Damghani, Chaikin, Text Editon, Textual Criticism

Introduction :

There are four distinct printed versions of collected poems of Abū’l-Faraj Rūni—the renowned 5th-century poet of the Ghaznavid cour. The Divan was first published in 1320 AH (1902 CE) in India, printed in the margins of the litographed "Divan" of Unsuri. The second edition appeared in 1304 SH (1925 CE) as an appendix to the sixth annual volume of "Armaghan" magazine, prepared by the Russian orientalist Chaykin and revised by Mohammad Ali Nāsih. The third critical edition was edited by Mahmoud Mahdavi Damghani and published in 1347 SH (1968 CE) by Bastan Bookstore in Mashhad. The fourth and most recent edition—which is the focus of critical examination in this study—was prepared by Maryam Mahmoudi and published in 1398 SH (2019 CE) by Sokhan Publication in collaboration with the Manuscript Studies Center of the University of Isfahan.

In the preface to her edition (pp. 45–57), Mahmoudi offers a critical overview of previous printed editions. She considers the first (Indian) and second (Chaykin) editions to be, respectively, incomplete and marred by significant errors. She further criticizes Mahdavi Damghani’s edition, noting deficiencies such as the lack of a clearly defined editorial methodology, inadequate or inaccurate reporting of variant manuscript readings, insufficient commentary, and the inclusion of typographical errors. To highlight the necessity of a revised edition, she cites examples of textual inaccuracies in earlier editions.

However, despite Mahmoudi’s considerable efforts and valuable contributions toward preparing a more refined text, this paper shows that some of her editorial choices remain open to question. Throughout this paper, selected verses from her edition will be critically evaluated, and alternative readings and revisions will be proposed where necessary.

Materials & Methods:

Mahmoudi’s edition of Abūl-Faraj Rūni's Divan is based on four early manuscripts:

1. Majmūʿa-ye Dawāwīn, Manuscript No. 103, Chester Beatty Library, Ireland (base manuscript);
2. Majmūʿa-ye Dawāwīn, Manuscript No. 3713, British Museum Library (abbreviated as کم);
3. Majmūʿa-ye Dawāwīn, Manuscript No. 669, Hakim Oghlu Library, Turkey (abbreviated as کت);
4. Majmūʿa-ye Dawāwīn, Manuscript No. 1/4841, Majlis Library, Iran (abbreviated as مج).

Due to the editor’s excessive reliance on the base manuscript, occasional misreadings of the handwritten sources, and her disregard for certain linguistic, literary, and historical subtleties, a number of errors have entered her edition. Consequently, several verses in the printed Divan exhibit structural and semantic inconsistencies.

This study aims to demonstrate the inaccuracies in the reading of certain verses through evidence drawn from linguistic and literary sciences—such as prosody and rhyme, rhetoric, stylistics, and grammar—alongside comparisons with other classical Persian texts. By mentioning more authentic alternatives recorded in other manuscripts (variants) used by the editor (as cited in the footnotes of her edition), as well as those from other manuscripts not consulted in her work, this study suggests corrected and more authentic versions of the problematic verses. In some cases, the suggested emendations here align with the editorial choices made in previous editions of the Divan edited by Chaykin and Mahdavi Damghani.

Discussion & Results:

While Mahmoudi’s edition marks progress in refining Rūni’s divan, it falls short in fully resolving textual ambiguities. This article systematically addresses 27 problematic verses in Mahmoudi’s edition, offering corrections based on:

1. Manuscript Evidence: Comparisons with four key manuscripts (Chester Beatty 103, British Museum 3713, Hakim oghlu 669, and Majles 1/4841) reveal discrepancies in Mahmoudi’s transcriptions. For example:
- Verse 1 (p. 8): The metrically flawed second hemistich is corrected by adopting "بگشاد" (opened) (from "کت" and "مج" MSS) instead of "بگشاید" (would/will open)
- Verse 3 (p. 20): "گریزگه" (refuge) is emended to "کریزگه" (a falconry term), supported by lexicographical sources and poetic parallels (e.g., Rudaki).

2. Prosody and Rhetoric:
- Verse 2 (p. 13): A missing preposition "ز" disrupts the meter (بحر خفیف); its restoration aligns with "کت" and "مج" MSS.
- Verse 5 (p. 23): The repeated "عزیمت" (departure) is replaced with "هزیمت" (defeat) (from "کت"/"مج" MSS), better suiting the context of mercury’s volatility.

3. Lexical and Stylistic Issues:
- Verse 6 (p. 29): The obscure "ادود" is corrected to "ادرد" (toothless), attested in Dehkhoda's Loghat Name and Rūni's earlier editions.
- Verse 11 (p. 62): "روز بازار" (market boom) is revised to "روی بازار" (a common idiom meaning "the best"), paralleling its usage in other texts such as Kallila wa Dimna.

4. Manuscript Oversights:
- Mahmoudi’s overreliance on the "Chester Beatty" manuscript (as the base text) leads to errors, such as in Verse 4 (p. 22), where "حلم" (forbearance) should be "حکم" (command), as in all other MSS.

To provide a more authentic critical edition of Rūni's collected works, the following factors should be considered:
- Cross-Referencing: Greater attention to variant readings in MSS like “Majles” and “Hakim oghlu”, as well as prior editions (Chaykin, Mahdavi Damghani).
- Lexical Rigor: Addressing obscure words (e.g., "کدّاح" → "کرّاح", p. 37) through deeper engagement with lexicons and intertextual evidence.
- Metrical Consistency: Ensuring corrections adhere to Persian prosody (e.g., Verse 20, p. 86, where the meter is disrupted.)
A revised edition incorporating these critiques would significantly advance the accuracy of Rūni’s divan, better preserving the poet’s intricate style and historical resonance.

Conclusion:
Although Mahmoudi in her edition has corrected a number of errors from previous editions of Abūl-Faraj Rūni’s Divan, she has yet to produce a more polished and reliable version of many of his verses. Unfortunately, due to a lack of precision, she has distorted the correct and well-established forms of several verses as presented in the edited texts by Chaykin and Mahdavi Damghani. To improve future editions, she should pay closer attention to other manuscripts—especially the manuscripts preserved in Majlis and Hakim oghlu Libraries—and conduct a more careful comparison of her edited text with the readings of previous editors of the Divan. This would enable her to prepare a new edition of her research and bring the unfinished task of editing Abūl-Faraj Rūni’s poems a step closer to completion.