Correcting and Explaining Verses from Nezami Ganjavi's Haft Peykar

Despite efforts to explain and correct Nezami Ganjavi's poem Haft Peykar, some verses still require further explanation, review of ancient manuscripts, and additional correction. In this study, we have revised certain verses based on printed texts and the manuscripts consulted by previous editors of Haft Peykar. However, in some cases where the manuscript or manuscripts have been altered or misunderstood by scribes, we have used conjectural correction. Besides correction, we have also explained the difficult verses of the text. In this article, we have examined fourteen cases of incorrect or incomplete explanations or errors and omissions by the correctors and commentators of Haft Peykar. These cases include: Ajortarash (apprentice, apprentice builder), Badpasand (fastidious), Ba To (towards you), Borun-e Dar (cemetery), Biganeh (mourner), Pahlavi (subtle and beautiful words), Khareh (clay), Dowr-e- Haft Hezar (final round), Rast-Khaneh (someone who does not have deceit and trickery at home), Rahdaran (bandits), Zar-e- Ziyadeh (cursed gold and money), Se Payeh-e- Takht Az Nosrat Zadan (placing a pot on three legs to light a fire for cooking a victory feast), Sib-e- Asheghan (lover’s chin), and Gereh-Goshudan (Unraveling the knot). Additionally, we have corrected Ezhdeha Soorat and Babely-Khordan to Ezhdeha Sawlat and Bolboli-Khordan, respectively. (Some names are intentionally spelled in their Persian format due to their fame or necessity of revealing their spelling changes).
Introduction
Several editions and corrections of the Haft Peykar poem by Nezami Ganjavi have been published. Some of these corrections include explanations of the verses, words, and terms of the text. These efforts are valuable, but in some cases, they have not provided an appropriate version of the text or have not made sufficient efforts to explain the verses and words. The time gap between the writing of Nezami’s Khamsa manuscripts and the poet’s time is significant.
During this period, multiple copies of the poet’s manuscript were produced. In each copying, due to misreadings or scribal alterations, some verses of Nezami Ganjavi’s work deviated from the poet’s original form and meaning. The commentators of Haft Peykar, relying on these scribes’ versions or on printed corrected texts, have made errors and omissions in their explanations of certain verses, thereby distancing these verses from their intended meaning.
There are some cases in the Haft Peykar poem that require explanation in accordance with the text and considering the antiquity of the interpretations, but commentators, either due to the prevalence of today's meanings of these words, which differ from their meanings and uses in classical texts, have kept such cases silent either they have neglected the meanings and their application in the text of the poem and have resorted to mentioning new and common meanings in our era, as a result of which Nizami's poetry has become incomprehensible, or the correctors and commentators have made strange and far-fetched comments or comments that contradict the text of Nezami Ganjavi's poetry. Furthermore, they have not addressed the meaning of problematic phrases, as if their only goal is to provide verses that are understandable to ordinary readers, unaware that incorrect explanations or recordings diminish the artistic value of Nezami's poems. In this article, we will try our best to provide a better reading of some words or verses of Haft Peykar or to explain the ambiguous aspects of the verses, in the hope of reducing the consequences of inaccuracy, negligence, or previous justifications and interpretations.
Materials and Methods
The present research employs a descriptive-analytical method. Data were collected through library research and document analysis. In this study, we have corrected certain verses based on printed texts and the manuscripts used by the editors of Haft Peykar. However, in cases where the manuscript or manuscripts were altered or misunderstood by scribes, we applied conjectural emendation. In addition to corrections, we have also explained the more difficult verses of the text. This section addresses only those instances where commentators have not clarified the meaning of a word or phrase, where the explanations in the Haft Peykar commentaries are incorrect, or where a commentator has noted the ambiguity of a verse and offered their interpretations with doubt and caution.
Results and Discussion
In this article, we have examined fourteen cases of incorrect or incomplete explanations or errors and omissions by the correctors and commentators of Haft Peykar. These cases include: Ajorterash (apprentice, apprentice builder), Badpasand (fastidious), Ba To (towards you), Borun-e- Dar (cemetery), Biganeh (mourner), Pahlavi (subtle and beautiful words), Khareh (clay), Dawr-e- Haft Hezar (final round), Rast-Khaneh (someone who does not have deceit and trickery at home), Rahdaran (bandits), Zar-e- Ziadeh (cursed gold and money), Se Payeh-e- Takht Az Nosrat Zadan (placing a pot on three legs to light a fire for cooking a victory feast), Sib-e- Asheghan (lover’s chin), Gereh-Goshudan (Unraveling the knot). Additionally, we have corrected Ezdeha Soorat and Babely-Khordan to Ezdeha Sawlat and Bolboli-Khordan, respectively.
Conclusion
Despite the efforts made to date to correct and interpret Nezami Ganjavi’s Haft Peykar, the text of this poem still requires a thorough review of ancient manuscripts, along with further corrections and explanations.
The research results indicate that the versions used by Vahid Dastgerdi, Bertels, Servatiyan, Zanjani, and Basir Mojdehi should be viewed with skepticism until better and older manuscripts are found, as errors and mistakes in their readings are likely. In correcting and explaining Haft Peykar, it is essential to consider the possibility of scribes’ errors in recording words and expressions or the correctors’ mistakes in reading and interpreting the manuscripts, especially in cases where the manuscript versions lead to ambiguity or inconsistency in the meaning of a verse. The corrector should also pay attention to words that have similar forms. The lack of critical reading by correctors and commentators has led to the introduction of unfounded interpretations in explaining the verses and phrases of Nezami Ganjavi’s Haft Peykar, as well as the creation and fabrication of unsupported meanings for words and phrases, resulting from their errors or misreading of the text.