نشریه جستارهای نوین ادبی
سال پنجاه و سوم شماره 4 (پیاپی 211، زمستان 1399)

One of the less recognized heritages of Sufi order Kubrawiyya Ferdowsiyeh is a work which was published using lithography in Agra in 1321 A.H. including three short epistles named Rāhat Al-Gholoub, Vafāt Nāmeh and Vasiat Nāmeh. Two first epistles are directly related to Sharafoddin-e Manyari (661?-782 A.H.), because Rāhat Al-Gholoub is one of the utterances left by Sharafoddin that his thoughts, Sufi order Kubrawiyya Ferdowsiyeh and the teachings of its spiritual guides can be found in. Vafāt Nāmeh is also a report of the last day of Sheykh-e Manyari’s life, written by one of the particular novice of Sheykh called Zeyn-e Badr-e Arabi (death: After 782 A.H.) and in some aspects is one of the most valuable Persian Sufi texts in the subcontinent. Third epistle is also indirectly related to Sharafoddin-e Manyari, because it is Najiboddin-e Ferdowsi’s (death: 732 A.H.) testament who was the master of Sheykh-e Manyari and it is very important for the scientific study of the opinions and thoughts of Sharafoddin and the identification of his intellectual sources and influences. This research tried to introduce this lithography and three epistle published and show their importance recognizing better Sharafoddin-e Manyari and Sufi order Kubrawiyya Ferdowsiyeh.

Criticisms written over the last fifty years on Sohrab Sepehri’s (1928-1980) poetry, are either criticisms that basically intended to disparage modern poetry, or criticisms that intended to examine and evaluate his poetry. The critiques of the first group ended where modern poetry in Iran was prevalent enough and got acceptability. The second type of critiques is divided into two categories: 1) Theory-based critiques, 2) Non-theory-based critiques. Non-theory-based critiques often discuss lack of commitment in Sepehri’s poetry, poetry of sepehri as crossword puzzle, and lack of coherence in his poetry. On other hand, theory-based critiques are methodological attempts to express the implicit meanings of Sepehri’s poems. The disadvantage of this type of critique is related to the principles and assumptions of the theory on which these critiques are based. As Spehri is one of the leading contemporary poets and various and sometimes contradictory evaluations have been made about his poetry, this study was conducted analytically-descriptively in order to examine these criticisms of Sepehri’s poetry.

In most of the historical texts of the first centuries of the Islamic era, which are based on pre-Islamic narrations and their translations, there are lists of names and annals of Parthian kings that are drastically different from each other. Considering these differences, the list of Parthian kings can be divided into five categories and the origins of their narratives can be studied. However, the difference between the list of Parthian kings in Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and Biruni's narration, as well as Salabi's statement from a book called Shahnameh, raises this question that if Ferdowsi has used Abu Mansouri's Shahnameh as a reference, why his poetic narration is different from Biruni's narration of the same book? This study, using document analysis, tried to show that Ferdowsi and Biruni's list belongs to which of the five stated groups. The study showed the possibility of two different narrations in Abu Mansouri's Shahnameh. The first was not very accurate, but common narration among historians that had been used by Ferdowsi and Salabi refers to some parts of that. On the other hand the second one was a table that did not mention in the historical texts but used by Biruni in his book.

With the discovery, introduction, and the publishing of the pictorial edition of 801 AH, belonging to Nour Library of Othmani Istanbul, which is currently the oldest known version of Hafez Divan, it is necessary to have a critical look at the records of this version compared to the existing ones. As a result of the discovery of this version, new issues in the field of the narratives of the copies have emerged. For example, if earlier, in some cases, editors rejected the recording of a copy due to its lateness, now the later recordings, thanks to the 801 AH version, are replaced the former recording. Formerly, the copy of Aya Sofia dated 813 AH and the copy of Khalkhali dated 827 AH were particularly regarded as the top versions among the valid editions of Hafez due to their oldness, significance and archology and the main disagreements of scholars working on Hafez’s divan about the superior recording were based on the narratives of these two versions. As far as we know, 801 AH version has not been edited critically. This paper could be among the first steps in the examination of some of the narratives of this version. The main sources of this study, beside the 801 AH version is the Degarsaniha notebook- extracted from fifty hand-written manuscripts belonging to the 9th century and the valid editions of Hafez Divan.

Sufism has been one of the most controversial currents of thought in Iran. The epistemological foundations of Sufism and the behavior of Sufis have always been criticized by critics and opponents. The conflict with the Sufis has often had to do with a religious dimension and sometimes a jurisprudential dimension. However, in the constitutional period, a special current of Sufi criticism emerges that differs from all previous periods of Sufi criticism. The critics of this period are not jurists and theologians, and their critique of Sufism is not about the compatibility/incompatibility of Sufism and Islamic law; Rather, these critics are intellectuals who, due to their familiarity with new knowledge, criticize the behaviors and beliefs of Sufis and consider Sufis and their beliefs and behaviors as an obstacle to achieve their goal of modernity in Iran. In this paper, epistemological, economic, and social dimensions of the critiques of Sufism were examined. It was shown that the deep epistemological contradiction of the liberal intellectuals of the constitutional period with the Sufis arose from their liberal worldview, the basic concepts of which are autonomy, division of social labor, production, and so on.

The artistic relation that a poet's poetic heritage establishes with the history of his time is the constructor of constructions and forms that reveal the original shape of his literary face in comparison with other periods and other artistic systems. Atashi’s poems, apart from the its success in the powerful intersection of the indigenous spaces of the south – follower of Nima of the north - have not escaped any setbacks that could have arisen from the absence of a historical view of existence and modern man. Focusing on three passages from the two books Another Song (آهنگ دیگر) and Song of the Soil (آواز خاک), we will pay more attention to how he appeared in Daggers, Kisses and Covenants (خنجرها، بوسه‌ها و پیمان‌ها), Riding the Rose (گلگون‌سوار) and Reappearance (ظهور). Including the three domains of "history", "tragedy" and "majority literature", suffers from such a poverty in attitude that made the author take into account the literary theories of new critics and the classification of critical areas of poetry and explore their status and shortcomings.