چكيده لاتين :
1. Introduction
Ādāb al-Harb w'al-Šajā’a is written by Muhammad-ibn Mansour-ibn
Sa'īd, nicknamed Mobārakšāh and known as Faḵr Modabber, one of
the early 7th century A.H. writers. Fakhr Modabber authored this book
in forty chapters on the subject of governance, hippology, and
militarism and dedicated it to Soltān Iltutmuš, King of India (d. 607-
633). Ādāb al-Harb w'al-Šajā’a was published in 1976 by Ahmad
Sohaylī Ḵānsārī based on six manuscripts. In 1976, Moḥammad
Sarvar Molāʾī in a treatise entitled "Āeīn-e Kešvardârī" published six
new chapters of the text, which were not published by Sohaylī
Khānsārī. He has arranged these six chapters from the manuscripts of
the Indian court having a different name Ādāb al-Molūk wa Kefāyat
al-Mamlūk.
2. Methodology
This research has been carried out as a fundamental-research and has
examined a manuscript of Ādāb al-Harb w'al-Šajā’a, with different
name Ādāb al-Molūk wa Kefāyat al-Mamlūk and tried to explain
several issues: 1. A possible cause of difference between the
manuscript belonging to the Court of India with other manuscripts of
Ādāb al-Harb; 2. Analyzing the value and position of the manuscript
of the court of India among the manuscripts of Ādāb al-Harb; and 3.
The necessity to revise a part of the Indian court manuscript which has
been independently published entitled "Āeīn-e Kešvardârī". 3. Discussion
Among five copies of Ādāb al-Harb w'al-Šajā’a that we have studied,
four copies have recorded the same, that is, "Ādāb al-Harb w'alŠajā’a":
"Muhammad ibn Mansour ibn Sa'id wrote and authored this
useful and fabulous book which was named Ādāb al-Harb w'al-Šajā’a
containing thirty-four chapters." (Fakhr Modabber, 1967: 15-16). The
only manuscript of the Indian court has called it " Ādāb al-Molūk wa
Kefāyat al-Mamlūk ". It is obvious that the titles of Ādāb al-Harb
w'al-Šajā’a and Ādāb al-Molūk wa Kefāyat al-Mamlūk represent two
different subjects. Two possibilities can be considered to explain why
this difference exists:
First, possibly the author wrote the six additional chapters of Ādāb al-
Molūk separately and merged them together and simultaneously, after
merging, revised it and chose Ādāb al-Molūk wa Kefāyat al-Mamlūk.
The reason for this choice could be that much of this book is about
politics and governance, which is the main subject of Ādāb al-Molūk.
In addition, the subject of war and hippology, as a means of war, can
be considered to be a subdivision of governance. Hence, the title of
Ādāb al-Molūk wa Kefāyat al-Mamlūk is more comprehensive than
the title of Ādāb al-Harb w'al-Šajā’a.
Second, the Indian court's manuscript had a different original
manuscript from the other manuscripts, of which only this present
work remains. It is not clear to us why there is no other manuscript of
the Indian court left. Nevertheless, an explanation could be that was
the dominant political and social condition of that time, which did not
tolerate any author addressing the political and governmental issues.
So that, at that time, Sīar al-Molūk, the most important work that was
written on the same subject of politics before Ādāb al-Harb w'alŠajā’a,
was abandoned for the same reason: (Khāwje Nezām-al-Molk
Tūsi, 2010).
Our studies show that the manuscript of the Indian court is the most
complete manuscript of Ādāb al-Harb w'al-Šajā’a, which most
probably has had a different original manuscript compared to that of
other manuscripts, and a section given in “Āeīn-e Kešvardârī” (six
chapters in addition to other manuscripts) is undoubtedly from this
book and its complement. These chapters, after the fifth chapter, are
entitled "On the appointment of a competent, adviser, puritanical,
resourceful and God-fearing minister". It is quite logical and convenient that the author, after addressing the minister as a court
official, should address treasurer, steward, postmaster, lawyer, head
of court ceremonies, and Chief Justice in the following chapters.
By comparison of all manuscripts of Ādāb al-Harb, we can conclude
that the Indian court manuscript is linguistically and lexically very
close to that of the British Museum (the oldest and most accurate
one). Sohaylī Khānsārī, in his correction, has not used the India
Office and the British Museum as the basis of his work. As a result, it
can be said that the Indian court manuscript will be very helpful in
future corrections of the text of Ādāb al-ḥarb, and in addition to
providing a complete text of Ādāb al-Harb, it can help editors to
achieve the most accurate and original text. For example"
[The king] examines and analysis the coins and constantly
warns the shroffs to not decrease the coin carat unless the people's
property will be lost in favor of the shroffs. (Faḵr Modabber, 1976:
117).
The British Museum and Indicant court manuscripts indicated Zarrāb
instead of Sarrāf "shroff": Zarrāb means: A goldsmith who mints a
coin in a mint and can increase or decrease the coinage of coin carat,
and a shroff is someone who evaluates the dirham, dinar, and coin,
and decrease and increase the coin carat. But it is a Zarrāb who
"reduces the carat of the coins (Dirhams and dinars]”. Therefore, it is
correct to use "Zarabān" instead of Sarrāf, and most possibly due to
the difficulty of reading the word it gradually replaced by a newer
manuscript.
Correction of an example of errors and mistakes in the treatise "Āeīne
Kešvârdarī"
[The postmaster] does not hide any incident for a bribe and
does not support and Ḥosn Pūsī (neglect) traitors and criminals
(Fakhr Modabber, 1975: 25).
Ḵas pūsī kardan: disguise deceit and deception. This interpretation
seems to have rooted in the fact that in the past it was considered one
of the military tactics; consequently, the corps retreated and the
enemy follows the crops. They already dug trenches in the enemy's
path and covered them with shavings. The unaware enemy, in pursuit
of them, fell into those trenches.
The editor has given the original word in the footnote (Ḵas Būs [No
dot b in the manuscript]); But since the meaning is not clear to them, he has changed it to Ḥosn Pošī.
Ḥosn Pošī (covering goodness, ignoring goodness) not only has no
meaning here but is also semantically opposite to the fact that it
conveys the content of the phrase. This word is again used in the text
in the same form and meaning:
[Chief justice] is vigilant in listening to the opponent's claim
and listening so that no harm is done and the rights of the Muslims
are not lost so that the oppressed get their rights. and if any of the
lawyers and associates of the court and judges see a trace (Radī) of
fault and neglect (Hosn Pošī) it, then he should be dismissed and
punished. (Faḵr Modabber, 1975: 38)
* In the above phrases, the semantic load of the phrases given in the
advice to Chief justice is also very clear. But here, in addition to
"Ḥosn Pošī", the word "Radī" is also wrong and meaningless. The
word does not appear in any of the dictionaries and texts. Its correct
form is "Rūī" in the Indian court manuscript.
Rūī Dīdan: means to stand on ceremony; advocacy and siding of
someone" that is correctly used here.
4. Conclusion
There are two points to address the cause of the difference of the
Indian court manuscript: 1. The author has written the six additional
chapters separately and after merging them with other chapters, he
has also revised the name and has called the treatise " Ādāb al-Molūk
wa Kefāyat al-Mamlūk”, which is a more comprehensive title for this
text than Ādāb al-Harb w'al-Šajā’a; 2. The Indian court manuscript of
which only one copy is available, had a different original manuscript
from the others. This may be due to dominated political and social
conditions of that time, which did not tolerate any author addressing
the political and governmental issues.
The Indian court manuscript is noteworthy, because (1) It is
comprehensive, and (2) most similar manuscript to that of the British
Museum (the oldest and most accurate one). The editor of Ādāb al-
Harb w'al-Šajā’a neither used the copy of the Indian court nor did his
work based on the British Museum manuscript. Therefore, two
manuscripts may be given priority in future corrections.
By correcting the mistakes of the treatise on statehood, we tried to
emphasize the necessity to correct and integrate it with other chapters of Ādāb al-Harb so that this book would be recognized and presented
as it deserves.
