Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī的Čingiz-nāmä的编辑和日期

IF 0.2 Q2 HISTORY
Csaba Göncöl
{"title":"Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī的Čingiz-nāmä的编辑和日期","authors":"Csaba Göncöl","doi":"10.22378/2313-6197.2023-11-3.582-591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to scrutinise the relationship between the texts of the 16-th century chronicle, the so called Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī, preserved in two manuscripts, as well as to determine the date(s) of the compilation of the work. Materials: The Tashkent and Istanbul manuscripts of the Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī, Central Asian chronicles in Turkic and Persian, relevant scholarly literature. Results and novelty of the research: Analysing the relationship of the two texts, the author has come to the conclusion that the Tashkent and Istanbul manuscripts of the above-mentioned chronicle contain different redactions of the Čingiz-nāmä written by the same chronicler. Furthermore, the author argues that the text preserved in the Tashkent manuscript is the initial redaction compiled before the year 1539, while the text of the Istanbul manuscript contains the second redaction – an extended one – written around middle of the 1540s.","PeriodicalId":41481,"journal":{"name":"Zolotoordynskoe Obozrenie-Golden Horde Review","volume":"143 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Redactions and dates of the compilation of the Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī\",\"authors\":\"Csaba Göncöl\",\"doi\":\"10.22378/2313-6197.2023-11-3.582-591\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article aims to scrutinise the relationship between the texts of the 16-th century chronicle, the so called Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī, preserved in two manuscripts, as well as to determine the date(s) of the compilation of the work. Materials: The Tashkent and Istanbul manuscripts of the Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī, Central Asian chronicles in Turkic and Persian, relevant scholarly literature. Results and novelty of the research: Analysing the relationship of the two texts, the author has come to the conclusion that the Tashkent and Istanbul manuscripts of the above-mentioned chronicle contain different redactions of the Čingiz-nāmä written by the same chronicler. Furthermore, the author argues that the text preserved in the Tashkent manuscript is the initial redaction compiled before the year 1539, while the text of the Istanbul manuscript contains the second redaction – an extended one – written around middle of the 1540s.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41481,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zolotoordynskoe Obozrenie-Golden Horde Review\",\"volume\":\"143 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zolotoordynskoe Obozrenie-Golden Horde Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22378/2313-6197.2023-11-3.582-591\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zolotoordynskoe Obozrenie-Golden Horde Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22378/2313-6197.2023-11-3.582-591","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文旨在仔细研究保存在两份手稿中的16世纪编年史(Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī)文本之间的关系,并确定该作品的编纂日期。资料:Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī的Čingiz-nāmä塔什干和伊斯坦布尔手稿,中亚突厥语和波斯语编年史,相关学术文献。研究成果与新颖性:通过分析两种文本的关系,作者得出结论,上述编年史的塔什干和伊斯坦布尔手稿包含同一编年史作者对Čingiz-nāmä的不同修订。此外,作者认为保存在塔什干手稿中的文本是在1539年之前编辑的最初版本,而伊斯坦布尔手稿的文本包含了第二个版本-一个扩展版本-写于1540年代中期。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Redactions and dates of the compilation of the Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī
This article aims to scrutinise the relationship between the texts of the 16-th century chronicle, the so called Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī, preserved in two manuscripts, as well as to determine the date(s) of the compilation of the work. Materials: The Tashkent and Istanbul manuscripts of the Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī, Central Asian chronicles in Turkic and Persian, relevant scholarly literature. Results and novelty of the research: Analysing the relationship of the two texts, the author has come to the conclusion that the Tashkent and Istanbul manuscripts of the above-mentioned chronicle contain different redactions of the Čingiz-nāmä written by the same chronicler. Furthermore, the author argues that the text preserved in the Tashkent manuscript is the initial redaction compiled before the year 1539, while the text of the Istanbul manuscript contains the second redaction – an extended one – written around middle of the 1540s.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信