イブン・アルアスィール著『アターベク王朝モスルの諸王の歴史』写本（仏国立図書館蔵ARABE1898旧番号ARAB.818）再考

機関リポジトリ Web Site オープンアクセス

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • Re-examination of the Manuscript of Tarikh al-dawla al-Atabakiya muluk al-Mawsil li-Ibn al-Athir (Ms. ARABE 1898. Bibliotheque National de France, Paris, Previous Holding Number ARAB. 818)
  • イブン ・ アルアスィール チョ 『 アターベク オウチョウ モスル ノ ショオウ ノ レキシ 』 シャホン(フツ コクリツ トショカンゾウ ARABE1898 キュウ バンゴウ ARAB.818)サイコウ

この論文をさがす

抄録

Tārīkh al-dawla al-Atābakīya mulūk al-Mawṣil li-Ibn al-Athīr (Ms. ARABE 1898, Paris) is the only extant manuscript recognized as Ibn al-Athīr’s dynastic history titled al-Tārīkh al-bāhir fi al-dawla al-Atābakīya. Based on this manuscript De Slane published a revised edition in 1876, and then in 1963 Ṭulaymāt published a newly revised edition. Currently the latter is mainly utilized for research as an improved version of De Slane’s edition. In his work, Ṭulaymāt improved the technical inadequacy of De Slane’s edition and refuted (or ignored) De Slane’s claim of the existence of additions to the manuscript in later eras. Focusing on this point, the author of this article examined the descriptions of the manuscript and compared the two editions based on the same manuscript to make clear its contents and the later additions. For verification, since no other manuscript of al-Bāhir has been found, the author utilized as comparative materials two historical texts, Abū Shāma’s Kitāb al-Rawḍatayn and Ibn Qādī Shuhba’s al-Kawākib al-Durrīya, which include many quotations from al-Bāhir. As a result of the close examination, the author selected for detailed textual criticism two chapters, Chap. 97 and Chap. 133, which were suspected of being added to the original text in a later era. Chap. 97 is the chapter which De Slane had considered it as an addition, while Ṭulaymāt did not. The author examined the description and confirmed the authenticity of De Slane’s argument. As for Chap. 133, to which both editors paid no particular attention, the author pointed that its description was possibly not from Ibn al-Athīr’s text, but added from Abū Shāma’s text, by comparing the texts and checking the word “qultu” (= I said) in the texts, which indicated the description was not a quotation. As a result of the examination, the author concluded that the manuscript was supposed to contain some complements from the descriptions which were left in the form of citations by other historical materials which have gone missing.

収録刊行物

  • 東洋学報

    東洋学報 99 (1), 01-017, 2017-06

    東洋文庫

関連プロジェクト

もっと見る

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ