User talk:Khodabandeh14/test

One of the alleged claims has to do with the chapter "The Reason for Composing the Book" of Nezami's Layla and Majnun which has been translated in full by Lornejad and Doostzadeh, and published in 2012 in English for the first time Siavash Lornejad, Ali Doostzadeh "On the Modern Politicization of the Persian Poet Nezami Ganjavi", Edited by Victoria Arakelova, YEREVAN SERIES FOR ORIENTAL STUDIES (Editor of the Series Garnik Asatrian), Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies, Yerevan, 2012. Copyright released to the public. Available at: (note work is not copy righted). pg 70: "For example, Mehmet Kalpakli and Water Andrews commenting on LMZA:30-31, make the unsound statement that: “Sometime in the last fifteen years of the twelfth century, the Sharvānshāh Akhsitān made a request of the poet Nezami. At the same time the ruler also made it quite clear what the language of this recollection should be: dar zivar-e pársi o tázi / in táza `arús rá terázi - In jewels of Persian and Arabic / Adorn this bride so fresh and new” . With regards to this inaccurate interpretation, we note that the poem is in Persian and not “Persian and Arabic”. Consequently, the verse has nothing to do with the language issue, since the poem is not in two different languages. The metaphor “in jewels of Persian and Arabic”, which can be interpreted as “in reflection of the two cultures (cultural realities of Iran and the Arabian world)” (see below), has, of course, nothing to do with the Sharvānshāh’s order of poetry in terms of its language. If it did, then the poem would in fact be in “Arabic and Persian”, rather than in Persian only. The authors (Mehmet Kalpakli and Water Andrews) themselves correctly translated “Persian and Arabic”, yet they reference a particular language in the singular rather than the plural and mention erroneously that “the language of this recollection”. We also note in the Azeri translation of Samad Vurgun, it is given as: “bu təzə gəlinə, çəkəndə zəhmət / fars, ərəb diliylə vur ona zinət”. This is a mistranslation, since instead of putting a conjunction “and”, the author put the word “fars” and then a comma, and then the word “arab”. This creates an ambiguity since the conjunction “and” was turned into “or”. He added the word “diliylə” (language), whereas the correct translation is “In Persian and Arabic ornaments, beautify and dress this new bride afresh”. Thus there is no mention of a language since the poetic interpretation of the words that Nezami ascribes to the Sharvānshāh are “Persian and Arabic ornaments” while the poem itself is in Persian. " .... What makes sense after a closer examination is that "Persian and Arabic ornaments" is due to the fact that the story is a mixture of the two different cultures and the epic poem derives elements from both cultures . Incidentally, even authors like Jan Rypka admit that the story is “closer to the Persian conception of Arabia” . Nezami himself alluded to his sources in many of the chapters of Layli o Majnun (see Part IV) and the story is a unification of various Arabic and Persian sources and anecdotes (“ornaments”). In a reference to himself, when composing one of the chapters of Layli o Majnun, he mentions the Arabic writings..From the Arabic elements of the Layli o Majnun, besides the Bedouin setting of the story in the deserts of Arabia, Nezami uses: “many of the Arabic anecdotes and considered several key elements of the Udri genre’’ . Naturally, due to the story’s Arabic origin, the motif, theme and many of the imagery of the poem relate to Arabic culture. At the same time, the story of Layli o Majnun had already been familiar to Iranians at least since the time of Rudaki, and other Persians had absorbed and embellished it before him. Nezami also mentions that the story is well known (LMZA:53). Some of the episodes are not found in any of the known Arabic versions of the story and probably are derived from local Persian cultural elements. Thus, Nezami adapts disconnected stories and turns them into the Persian epic romance by using a Persian genre (epic poetry), whose correspondence did not exist in Arabic literature of the time. Persian elements in the story include Persian sources, Persian anecdotes, the obvious epic poetry (which was a Persian genre not attested in Arabic) and such a detail that Nawfal is a prince in the Iranian style rather than Arabic. Other Persian elements are noted by Rudolph Gelpke: “Nezami preserves the Bedouin atmosphere, the nomads’ tents in the desert and the tribal customs of the inhabitants, while at the same time transposing the story into the far more civilized Iranian world... Majnun talks to the planets in the symbolic language of a twelfth century Persian sage, the encounters of small Arabic raiding parties become gigantic battles of royal Persian armies and most of the Bedouins talk like heroes, courtiers, and savants of the refined Iranian Civilization”. And according to Seyed-Gohrab: “Other Persian motifs added to the story are the childless king, who desires an heir; nature poetry, especially about gardens in spring and autumn, and sunset and sunrise; the story of an ascetic living in a cave; the account of the king of Marv and his dogs; the Zeyd and Zeynab episode; Majnun’s supplication to the heavenly bodies and God; his kingship over animals, and his didactic conversations with several characters”. Consequently, the section on “the reason for composing the book” which was the last part to be written, is a poetic interpretation, commentary upon and extrapolation of the letter of the Sharvānshāh. The poetic interpretation and extrapolation ascribed to the Sharvānshāh’s letter, attests to the fact that Nezami himself consciously mixed elements of the Persian and Arabic anecdotes/sources. The final product is a Persian epic that is very sharp break from the Arabic versions of the story. In this final product, Nezami consciously synthesized the Persian and Arabic versions of the story and incorporated aphorism, anecdotes, imagery and themes from both Persian and Arabic cultures. The final result is a Persian epic (or as Nezami states a “necklace”) which is a mixture of “Persian and Arabic ornaments”. More misinterpretations and mistranslations (based on politicized writings) of this section has occurred. With regards to LMZA:34-35, Kalpakli and Andrews erroneously claim that: “But he also goes on to say what language he does not want the poet to use – apparently alluding to Mahmud of Ghazna’s legendary cheapness in the matter of Ferdawsi: torki sefat vafā-ye mā nist / torkāna sokhan sazā-ye mā nist --Not in the Turkish way do we keep a promise so writing in the Turkish manner doesn’t suit us. This couplet seems to indicate that the Sharvānshāh could have asked Nezami to write in Turkish and that the poet could have done this. But – either alas or fortunately, depending on your point of view – the ruler preferred Persian. So, a vastly influential tale was born, and the first complete Turkish version of the story had to wait for almost three hundred years.” The Azeri translation of Samad Vurgun adds further mistranslations of these lines: “Türk dili yaramaz şah nəslimizə, Əskiklik gətirər türk dili bizə. Yüksək olmalıdır bizim dilimiz, Yüksək yaranmışdır bizim nəslimiz”. Thus both Kalpakli and Vurgun have mistakenly taken the term “torkāneh-sokhan” to mean “Turkish language”, but it literally means “Turkish-like rhetoric” and “rhetoric associated with Turks” while in the context of the poem, it has the double meaning of unmannered speech and rhetoric associated with or deserved by Turks. Here rhetoric (sokhan) does not mean language. For example, fārsāneh sokhan or arabāneh sokhan does not mean the Persian or Arabic language, and no one in Persian literature has used such a word formation to refer to a language. Also it should be noted that in the translation of Kalpakli, there is the verb “writing in the Turkish manner” whereas Nezami uses the word “rhetoric” (sokhan), not “writing” (neveshtan) here and thus, this is a mistranslation. The word “writing” could have been inserted in their translation due to the fact that the authors were influenced by the Soviet viewpoint. Before the politicized interpretation of these verses in the USSR, Vahid Dastgerdi had already provided a sound commentary on these lines: The meaning of these verses is that our fidelity is not like the Turks and our faithfulness is not like that of Sultan Mahmud the Turk. Our fidelity and commitment will not be broken, so rhetoric that are befitting for Turkish kings is not befitting for us. Reiterating why the arguments of politicized authors and those who have quoted them ignorantly are incorrect, we should once more emphasize that neither the Sharvānshāhs were Turks to request a story in Turkish, nor there existed a Turkish literary tradition in the Caucasus at that time, nor is there any proof that Nezami ever knew Turkish, nor is there a single verse in Turkish from that region in that period, nor is “Persian and Arabic” a particular language, nor did the Arabic language have an epic genre like Persian, nor does the term torkāneh-sokhan mean “Turkish language” but rather it literally means “Turkish-like rhetoric” and in the context of the language of the time, it simply means “vulgar and unmannered speech”. . Stalin had mentioned in 1939 that Nezami: "Should not be given to the Iranian literature, just because he wrote most of his works in the Iranian language. Nezami, in his poems himself asserts that he was compelled to resort to the Iranian language, because he is not allowed to address his own people in his native tongue.". Lornejad et al. dismiss this claim as politically contrived and note that Nezami's works are all in Persian, and Nezami only mentions Persian poetry in his work, and no one from the Caucasus during his time has had any work in Turkish because a Turkish literary tradition did not exist in the Caucasus. They also point to fact that in one anthology from Nezami's era, 115 Persian poets and writers are mentioned, 24 of them from Ganja while there is not a single Turkish verse from any author during the 12th century Kalpakli and Andrews who state that Nezami is a famous Persian poet (2006), in a separate work discussing the author Fizuli((2003 - Kalpakli first author, Andrews second author), claim that the same section of Layli o Majnoon of Nezami "seems indicate that Sharvanshah could have asked Nezami to write Turkish, and the poet could have done this" . The Russian scholar Ivan Mikhailovich Steblin-Kamensky, a major Iranologist states that Nezami Ganjavi knew no Azeri Turkish .  The famous commentator, scholar and authority on Nezami, Vahid Dastgerdi simply interprets the verse as:"The meaning of these verses is that our fidelity is not like the Turks and our faithfulness is not like that of Sultan Mahmud the Turk. Our fidelity and commitment will not be broken, so rhetoric that are befitting for Turkish kings is not befitting for us" .  Dastgerdi had passed away before the full Soviet celebration, but the Iranian scholar of Persian literature and history, Abbas Zaryab Khoi, after coming in contact with the Soviet viewpoint wrote a two page commentary analyzing and then dismissing the Soviet viewpoint. This two page commentary was recently translated and included in the book of Lornejad et al (2012). With regards to the word "torkāneh-sokhan", Abbas Zaryab writes: Thus as we see, he has compared “torkāneh-sokhan” to mannered discourse/rhetoric and thus “torkāneh-sokhan” means unmannered and vulgar rhetoric, and the interpretation of “torkāneh-sokhan” never means to speak/write in the Turkish language..

Lornejad and Doostzadeh devote about 35 page translating two full chapters alongside the original Persian analyzing the chapters. Lornejad and Doostzadeh first mention that the meter of the poem was chosen by Nezami and the verses are a poetic interpretation and extrapolation of the letter of the Sharvanshah. They mention that the Persian term "Arabic and Persian ornaments" (zivar-e Parsi o Tazi) is not a reference to a particular language or else the poem would have been in Persian and Arabic while the poem is in Persian. They criticize the translations of Samad Vurgun (who put Persian or Arabic instead of Persian and Arabic), as well as the translation of Kalpakli et al. With regards to the Kakpalki et al. translations, they mention: The authors themselves correctly translated “Persian and Arabic”, yet they reference a particular language in the singular rather than the plural and mention erroneously that “the language of this recollection”. Lornejad and Doostzadeh mention that that "Persian and Arabic ornaments" is not a reference to a language, since the language is in "Persian" not "Persian and Arabic". According to them, Arabic poetry did not have an epic tradition and further mention that: ''Taking into consideration the legacy of Nezami before this poem, i.e. Persian epic poetry (Khusraw o Shirin) and Persian didactic poetry (Makhzan al-Asrār), as well as the fact that Persian is the only language that Nezami proclaims he was skilled in composing poetry; the poem could only be in Persian. Epic poetry itself was not even an Arabic genre, whereas it had a long history in Persian literature before Nezami (e.g. Gurgāni, Asadi Tusi, and Ferdowsi).''. According to them: What makes sense after a closer examination is that “Persian and Arabic ornaments” is due to the fact that the story is a mixture of the two different cultures and the epic poem derives elements from both cultures. Lornejad et al. quoting studies of the poem by scholars (Gelpke 1997, de Bruijn 1986, Gohrab 2003) which mention how the original Arabic story was Persianized. They add: Nezami consciously synthesized the Persian and Arabic versions of the story and incorporated aphorism, anecdotes, imagery and themes from both Persian and Arabic cultures..

Lornejad et al. also criticize another verse translated by authors such as Samad Vargun and Kalpakli et al. from the same section. The Persian original is: : torki sefat vafā-ye mā nist / torkāneh sokhan sazā-ye mā nist. Kalpakli et al. translate the line as Not in the Turkish way do we keep a promise so writing in the Turkish manner doesn't suit us while Lornejad et al. translate it as: "Our fidelity is not like that of Turkish characteristics - Torkāneh-Sokhan (literally Turkish mannered rhetoric and in the context of the poem meaning vulgarity/lampoon) is not what we deserve- (Vahid Dastgerdi interpretation: (thus) Rhetoric associated for Turks (Turkish Kings) is not what we deserve)". Lornejad et al. criticize the translation of Kalpakli et al. and mention: Here rhetoric (sokhan'') does not mean language. For example, fārsāneh sokhan or arabāneh sokhan does not mean the Persian or Arabic language, and no one in Persian literature has used such a word formation to refer to a language''. They mention that in the translation of Kalpakli, there is the verb writing in the Turkish manner whereas Nezami uses the word rhetoric (sokhan), not writing (neveshtan), and conclude that this is a mistranslation. Lornejad et al. also claim that: The word “writing” could have been inserted in their (Kalpakli et al.) translation due to the fact that the authors were influenced by the Soviet viewpoint.. Lornejad et al. further mention:''As per torkāneh-sokhan, as already mentioned, it does not mean Turkish language; also neither fārsāneh-sokhan means the Persian language, nor tāziyāneh-sokhan and arabāneh-sokhan have the meaning of the Arabic language. No such a term for referencing a particular language has ever been used in Persian literature. In other words, the inflectional suffix “-āneh” here, means something resembling the stem it is added to (not the stem itself), and can have a completely different meaning and usage in a context from the actual stem. .. As noted by Zaryāb, torkāneh-sokhan in the context of the poem is a reference to the lampoon, and means “vulgarity” or “unmannered discourse''. Lornejad et al. cross-reference with a verse of Khaqani (contemporary of Nezami) to understand the usage of this term better in the Persian of the time and note that Khaqani uses the term torkaneh Xordan (eating in the Turkish manner) as an antonym of eating with adab (Persian for politeness and with manners). They then mention: ''That is torkāneh-xordan (“eating the Turkish-way”) is used by Khāqāni as an opposite to bā adab nān xordan (“eating with manners”). Similarly, torkāneh-sokhan is contrasted with high rhetoric sokhan-e boland meaning “high praise”, “mannered rhetoric”. The opposite of sokhan-e boland as noted by Zaryāb is sokhan-e past (“vulgarity”). This is the way Nezami Ganjavi uses torkāneh-sokhan (“Turkish-manner/Turkish-like rhetoric”) in the section as opposed to sokhan-e boland (“high praises/lofty rhetoric”).''.

Lornejad et al. mention that: ''Reviewing this section of the epic, after praising this story as the king of stories, the verses of Nezami through the mouth of the Sharvānshāhs ask Nezami to utilize these jewels (stories) and ornaments (stories and anecdotes of Arab origin with Persian anecdotes, sources and cultural symbols/imagery/romantic epic) by bringing out a new version of the story through the magic of his rhetoric. At the same time, the LMZA (this particular section of Leyli and Majnun) states that he should not imitate other poets, since the King is praised as literary expert by Nezami, expecting his magical discourse. Instead, Nezami should show his magic discourse and he will be rewarded for his endeavor, unlike Ferdowsi who was not rewarded for the monumental Shāhnāma, according to the widely popular legend. Ferdowsi thus bestowed Mahmud the versified lampoon (unmannered speech) in which he satirized Mahmud for breaking his covenant. Thus, torkāneh-sokhan means unmannered and vulgar speech, but in the context of this section, it also ties to the versified lampoon of Ferdowsi which satirizes Mahmud of Ghazna. That is, Nezami is stating that the Sharvānshāhs did not deserve vulgar and unmannered speech of the lampoon (containing many insults - examples of unmannered speech) because they did not break their vow. Probably, the reason this section of the Layli o Majnun was written last was to remind the Sharvānshāh about the reward Nezami deserved.''. Lornejad et al. summarize:we should once more emphasize that neither the Sharvānshāhs were Turks to request a story in Turkish, nor there existed a Turkish literary tradition in the Caucasus at that time, nor is there any proof that Nezami ever knew Turkish, nor is there a single verse in Turkish from that region in that period, nor is “Persian and Arabic” a particular language, nor did the Arabic language have an epic genre like Persian, nor does the term torkāneh-sokhan mean "Turkish language" but rather it literally means “Turkish-like rhetoric” and in the context of the language of the time, it simply means "vulgar and unmannered speech". .

With regards to the last section of the poem in terms of page number, Lornejad et al. note that the two Turkish authors Manaf-Oglu and Javad Heyat claim that Nezami insults the Shirvanshahs at the end of the poem and was upset at the letter of the Sharvanshah. Lornejad et al. dismiss this claim. They also note that Nezami was only hesitant about the nature of the poem: ''As it can be seen, Nezami's only hesitation was about the nature of the story itself and LMZA shows that he did not want to approach the story at first. This is clear from the rest of the section LMZA:45-65. This has been recognized also by mainstream scholars. As noted by the 19th century British scholar Robinson: “But the subject appears to Nezami too dry to be manufactured into a great poem. The desolate Arabian wilderness for his theatre, two simple children of the desert as his heroes, nothing but an unhappy passion — this might well daunt the poet of Khosru and Shirin, which, in everything, place, persons, and treatment, presented the greatest variety and grandeur”. And as also noted by the Encyclopaedia of Islam: “Nezami states in the introduction to his poem that he accepted the assignment with some hesitation. At first, he doubted whether this tale of madness and wanderings through the wilderness would be suitable for a royal court”". As per the insulting of the Shirvanshah in the last chapter of the poem, Lornejad et al. fully translate the last section of the poem  and criticize the misreading of the term bidartarak as bidar tork by Manaf-Oglu and Heydat as a distortion of the poem that contradicts the meter of the poem''.

They note that Nezami praises the letter of the Sharvanshah, the son of the Sharvanshah and the Sharvanshah Axsitan in both the Leyli and Majnun as well as some of his Ghazals. They conclude that the whole section actually shows Nezami was not a Turk and furthermore assert that: ''Had the ethno-nationalist interpretation mentioned by Stalin been correct, Nezami (assuming that he ever knew a Turkish dialect) would have composed Turkish literature for a Turkish king (not the Sharvānshāh) or written Turkish at his own will. However, Turkish literary tradition did not exist at all in the Caucasus in that period, and Nezami explicitly mentioned only his skill in composing Persian poetry''.