attribution

Rowzat al-Nazer and Nozhat al-Khater is a significant and esteemed anthology from the 8th century. Before exploring the main topic, it was essential to clarify an important distinction: there were three texts with similar titles. The first, Rowzat al-Nazer and Nozhat al-Khater by Abd al-Aziz Kashi, was the primary text and the focus of this research. This manuscript was housed in the Istanbul University Library and consisted of a collection of Arabic and Persian poetry (See: Kashi, n.d., No. 766 F).Fenkhā described this text as follows: "It is a substantial book compiled by Abd al-Aziz Kashi in one large volume divided into 3 sections: 1. Praises, wisdom, and etiquette, which is further divided into 2 chapters: the first containing 50 sections and the second containing 15 sections; 2. Various stories organized into 22 chapters, some of which are divided into several sections; 3. Miscellaneous topics presented in 8 chapters. The book includes both Persian and Arabic poetry" (Derayati, 2011/17: 241). However, it seemed that Derayati had erred in his description of the text's chapters as the arrangement differed from what was referenced. Additionally, while Derayati attributed a copying date of 792 to Rowzat al-Nazer, the manuscript itself lacked both a specific copying date and information about the scribe.Seyyed Ali Mirafzali commented on this issue: "The date of this book remains unknown. However, since Abul-Majd Tabrizi mentions him with a prayer phrase in 723 AH while copying Resaleh Qalamiyeh, another work by the author, it can be inferred that the compilation of Rowzat al-Nazer has likely occurred in the first quarter or at most the second quarter of the 8th century." (Mirafzali, 2003: 97)The second text titled Rowzat al-Nazer, Nozhat al-Khater was distinct from Abd al-Aziz Kashi's poetry anthology. This manuscript was housed in the Hagia Sophia Library and was cataloged as No. 4020. It consisted of a collection of stories organized into 15 chapters with poems interspersed throughout the narratives (See: Unknown author, 881, no scribe, No. 4020). Notably, Fenkhā also attributed this text to Abd al-Aziz Kashi (See: Derayati, 2011/17: 242).The third text, also titled Rowzat al-Nazer and Nozhat al-Khater, appeared to be an abridgment of Kashi's original work. This manuscript was located in the Hagia Sophia Library and was cataloged as No. 4019. It summarized the poems found in the Istanbul manuscript but did not attribute the poets' names (Unknown author, n.d., no scribe). In the catalog of Iranian manuscripts, this version was referred to as an excerpt from the Istanbul manuscript and was attributed to Abd al-Aziz Kashi (See: Derayati, 2011/17: 242); however, the original manuscript did not mention the author's name.

This research employed a descriptive-analytical approach. The manuscript of Rowzat al-Nazer and Nozhat al-Khater served as the primary source for the study supplemented by other manuscripts and printed copies to verify or refute the attributions being examined.

The analysis of the anthology Rowzat al-Nazer and Nozhat al-Khater yielded important insights into the accuracy of attributions made within this 8th-century collection of Persian and Arabic poetry. The findings from our investigation into several dubious attributions are summarized below:Incorrect Attribution to SaadiThe anthology contained a three-line poem that had been attributed to the renowned poet Saadi. Our investigation definitively established that this attribution was incorrect, suggesting that either the poem belonged to another poet or was a piece of lesser-known origin.

Valid Attribution to Vatvat:

A ghazal attributed to Vatvat in the anthology appeared in the printed Diwan of Rashid, corroborating its authenticity. Conversely, the attribution of this same ghazal to Saadi, as noted in the appendix of Saadi's ghazals in Foroughi's edition, was incorrect. This discrepancy highlighted the need for careful scrutiny of attributions in poetic collections.

Plausible Attribution to Sanai:

Several lines from a qasida had been attributed to Sanai and this attribution appeared plausible based on stylistic and thematic elements. However, a competing claim by Modarres Razavi suggested that these lines might actually belong to Abd al-Vasea Jabali, indicating the complexity of authorship in poetic traditions and the necessity for further comparative analysis.

Mixed Attributions to Ez al-Din Mahmoud Kashi:

The anthology featured two quatrains attributed to Ez al-Din Mahmoud Kashi. Our findings confirmed that one of these attributions was accurate, while the other was not. This highlighted the challenges of verifying authorship, particularly when multiple works were ascribed to a single poet.

Accurate Attribution to Athir Akhsikati:

The attribution of a quatrain to Athir Akhsikati had been verified as accurate. This finding reinforced the significance of this poet in the anthology and contributed to a better understanding of the literary landscape of the time.

Attribution in the Dispute between Rudaki and Kamal:

In a notable dispute between Rudaki and Kamal regarding a quatrain, our analysis suggested that it was more logical to attribute this work to Kamal. This finding illustrated the intricate interrelations among poets of the era and the interpretive challenges in attributing works correctly.

Questionable Attribution to Saadi:

Finally, three lines critical of women, which were presented in the form of a Masnavi, had been attributed to Saadi. However, our investigation raised significant doubts about this attribution, suggesting that it might not accurately reflect Saadi's body of work or thematic concerns.

The anthology Rowzat al-Nazer and Nozhat al-Khater was a significant contribution to our literary history from the 8th century AH, particularly in its role in attributing poems to poets active before this period. However, it is important to acknowledge that some erroneous attributions existed within the anthology. This research examined several dubious attributions, yielding the following

The attribution of a three-line poem to Saadi was definitively incorrect. A ghazal attributed to Vatvat in this anthology appeared in the printed Diwan of Rashid, suggesting that this attribution was accurate. Conversely, the attribution of this ghazal to Saadi, as noted in the appendix of Saadi's ghazals in Foroughi's edition, was incorrect. Several lines from a qasida had been attributed to Sanai and this attribution appeared plausible. However, Modarres Razavi, in his discussion of this qasida in Sanai's Diwan, suggested it might actually be by Abd al-Vasea Jabali. Two quatrains had been attributed to Ez al-Din Mahmoud Kashi; one attribution was correct while the other was not. The attribution of a quatrain to Athir Akhsikati was accurate. In a dispute between Rudaki and Kamal regarding a quatrain, it seemed more logical to attribute the work to Kamal. Three lines, presented in the form of a Masnavi and critical of women, had been attributed to Saadi; however, this attribution was highly questionable.

layered stylistics is a sub-branch of stylistics. In layered stylistics, considering the situational context as a macro-layer, researchers break down the text into strata and study the style by examining the text strata and identifying prominent or frequent features. This type of stylistics can be considered as the most complete and accurate methods in stylisitcs. Due to the large number of manuscripts obtained from Hossein Kharazmi’s Divan, the authors use layered stylistic to prove the accuracy of their attribution to this poet. In this research, in an analytical-descriptive approach developed by Mahmoud Fotouhi in his book, the lexical and ideological layers of Kharazmi’s Divan are analyzed. The words and combinations of verses as a unit of style analysis are also examined. It is suggested that the lexical layer is effective in discovering the ideology of the text and explaining the hidden power relations.

In the lexical layer, regarding the semiology of words, vocabularies are divided into structural and process codes, and indicators, vocabulary marking, and repetitive words are introduced as stylistic components. From a stylistic point of view (lexical and ideological), all the copies obtained from the court are consistent and prove their attribution to Hossein Kharazmi. Also, the table of indicators including announcements, titles, histories, material, dates, places, etc., further reinforce this argument. Other elements such as typography, personal stylistics, and period and external music, confirm this issue. The research finds that that among codes, religion has a high frequency. The codes of a process originate from the harmonious connection and function of religion and government on the one hand, and on the other hand, the domination and influence of religion and culture over government and documenting power over religion. These codes are very much in line with Kharazmi's thought. Also, the words related to the institution of love and mysticism have the highest frequency and repetition.

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.