{"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。
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.