TEXTUAL criticism, as defined by Britannica, is “the technique of restoring texts as nearly as possible to their original form”.
Textual criticism deals with the authenticity, correct attribution, interpretation, and literary and historical evaluation of texts by analyzing technical, linguistic, aesthetic, historical, and/or literary aspects, says Britannica.
In Urdu, textual criticism is often called advent (literally: editing) or taste-o-tavern-e-man (literally: correction and editing of text). Some critics stress three (literally: research) while naming it. As an equivalent of ‘textual criticism’, Dr Khalil Anja. Used the term many tangled, almost a verbatim translation. His book titled ‘Mani tan geed. It was a groundbreaking work on this topic in Urdu and soon became a textbook for the students doing M Phil or Ph.D in Urdu literature.
For the students of literature, knowing the history as well as principles of textual criticism is a must, especially if they intend to carry out research on old texts and/or want to edit literary works. A new book, just published by Lahore’s Kigali Dun ya, would come in handy for such students. Titled Urdu Bain tadveen-e-man: fan our, rivet, it was first published from India and now a Pakistani edition has made it easier for Pakistani readers to grab a copy since the arrival of books and magazines from India had virtually stopped.
Author Dr Adeel Ahmed, an Aligarh Muslim University alumnus and young researcher from Bihar, India, first defines what textual criticism is and then goes on to describe its principles. In the second chapter, he narrates a brief history of Urdu’s textual criticism and the next eight chapters analyze the edited critical works of some of Urdu’s eminent researchers.
In his intro, the author defines textual criticism as: “textual criticism is a branch of research. As a term, it means to edit a text according to authorial intention and to purge the text of any changes, distortions, interpolations or any unauthorized additional portions”.
Adeel Ahmed says it was Ghibli Neumann who pioneered the textual criticism in Urdu by editing and publishing Mirzam. Ali Lutz’s Gulshan-e-Hind in 1906. Before Ghibli, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had edited some works, but they were Persian texts, not Urdu. After Ghibli, Multi. Abdul Has, edited and published "many" of Making. Urdu manuscripts that were mostly in debilitating and decaying state and could have been lost forever.
Next to come was Hafiz Mahmood Sherman, a scholar who edited Qudratullah Qasim’s Maj moo’a-e-night. Sherman, was not only able to read the damaged manuscript found in Muhammad Hussain Azad’s library and to edit it meticulously while comparing it with another manuscript housed at London’s India Office Library, but he also proved that the manuscript is the basic source of Muhammad Hussain Azad’s evergreen book Aab-e-Hayat, says Adeel Ahmed.
Dr Mohiuddin Padi Nor, edited several texts but the most famous among them is Kulliyaat-e-Qulli Quiet. Shah, albeit Rasheed Hasan Khan, criticized it and pointed out several lapses in its editing. But the author gives credit to Dr Nor, for bringing forth a rare text. Imtiaz Ali Khan Arshi is a scholar known for his edited version of Galibi’s Urdu divan, Galibi’s letters, and Dastoor-ul-fast.
Other textual critics taken into account in the book under review are Malik Ram, Prof Nazeer Ahmed, Masood Hussain Khan, Rasheed Hasan Khan, Mukhtaruddin Ahmed, Jamel. Galibi, and Handed. Nazi.
One feels that this list is incomplete and many other researchers who did some remarkable works in the field of textual criticism have been left out. Adeel Ahmed in his foreword has shown his inability to incorporate all the scholars for want of space and says that only those critics have been included who can be called “representatives” of textual criticism and who have left their mark.
Constraints of space and time must have been there, but at least in the forword or the concluding chapter, which is missing altogether, by the way, names of some bigwigs, for example, Wanted. Qureshi, Syed Abdullah, Ibadan Bare lvi Imam. Ali TAJ. Khalil-ur-Rahman Heywood, Kalb-e-Ali Khan Fair, Ftima Hasan, Noor-ul-Hasan Navy, Afar Siding. Nazi. Abdul Heywood, Ahmed. Hasan Adeeb,
Indeed, the history of Urdu criticism is too long to be captured in a 600-page volume, but what the author could have done was to be selective based on some criterion. For example, prominent scholars belonging to India whose works had appeared in the pre-Independence era could have been included. Or he might have chosen scholars from Pakistan and India in the post-independent era, delimiting the scope of research. In the present form, the book does justification neither to Indian nor Pakistani scholars. However, it is work much needed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.