بررسی و تحلیل اثر پذیری شرح سروری از جواهرالاسرار و زواهر الانوار خوارزمی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
مثنوی معنوی اثر جلال الدین محمد بلخی(رومی) از مهمترین آثار عرفانی ادبیات فارسی است که در مناطق مختلف، مخاطبان بسیاری داشته است. نیاز خوانندگان موجب شده است شرح های متعددی به زبان های گوناگون بر این اثر نوشته شود. معرفی و بررسی روش و محتوای شرح های مثنوی از موضوعات مهم تحقیق در حوزه مولوی پژوهی به شمار می رود و بررسی اثرپذیری شرح ها از یکدیگر اهمیت و جایگاه این آثار را در جریان شرح نویسی نشان می دهد. شرح مصطفی بن شعبان سروری بر مثنوی، یکی از قدیمی ترین و مفصل ترین شرح های منثوری است که در آسیای صغیر به زبان فارسی نوشته شده است. با توجه به قدمت و زبان شرح سروری، ضرورت دارد میزان اثرپذیری و اثرگذاری آن در جریان شرح نویسی بر مثنوی معلوم شود. در این پژوهش، کوشش می شود ازطریق مقایسه شرح سروری با شرح جواهرالاسرار و زواهرالانوار اثر خوارزمی، میزان وام گیری آن از کهن ترین شرح فارسی بر مثنوی معلوم شود. نتایج بررسی و مقایسه دو شرح سروری و خوارزمی نشان می دهد شرح سروری در ساختار و محتوا از جواهرالاسرار اثر پذیرفته و بخش مهمی از شرح خوارزمی بدون اشاره به نام وی در شرح سروری درج شده است، درحالی که سروری در دیباچه شرح خود مدعی است این اثر را از راه کشف از روح مولوی دریافته است.Analysis of the Affectivity of Soruri's Description from Javaherolasrar and Zavaherolanvar written by Kharazmi
Background : Masnavi Manavi written by Jalaleddin Mohammad Balkhi (Rumi) is one of the most prominent mystical works in Persian literature. This book has been and is influential; consequently, the readers' needs have been and are subject to many descriptions in different languages. Purpose : Assessing and analyzing the method and the content of descriptions of Masnavi are considered the most important study subjects in searching the works of MowlaviAnalyzing the affectivity of the available descriptions would demonstrate the significance and stance of such works in the field of writing description. The description of Mostafa Ibn Shaban Soruri on the subject here is considered one the most complete and the oldest in Asia Minor in Persian. Regarding the antiquity and the description language of Soruri, it is essential to specify the rate of its affectivity in the process of writing a description. The objective here is to find the extent of the oldest Persian descriptions of Masnavi by comparing Soruri's description with Javaherolasrar and Zavaherolanvar by Kharazmi. Results : The results of this comprehension indicate that the description of Soruri has been affected by Javaherolasrar in terms of structure and content. An important part of Kharazmi's description is included in Soruri's description without any reference, while Soruri, in his foreword claimed that he perceived this work by discovering the spirit of Mowlavi. Keywords: Soruri's Description, Kharazmi, Javaherolasrar and Zavaherolanvar , Method, Content Introduction The remarkable interest of Masnavi readers in comprehending it and the necessity to clarify its complexities initiated literary works like description, glossary, modification, translation, etc. in different contexts. The high volume of explanations of Masnavi from the past to the present indicates the level of interest in this book, and the necessity of proving the deficiency and weakness of its explanations. One of the significant research issues in the field of Masnavi studies is to recognize and analyze the procedure of writing descriptions. The comparison of Masnavi 's descriptions in terms of method and content reveals the span of their overlap; next to assessments of advances, and shortcomings. The description of Masnavi by Moslehoddin Mostafa Ebn Shaban Soruri (1561) is identified as the oldest Persian description including both the Masnavi books. The two core questions here are: 1) Are all of these descriptions Soruri’s brainchild or they refer to other descriptions? and 2) If Soruri has resorted to others, how effective was it? Answering these questions necessitates considering analyzing and comparing the description of Soruri with others The objective here is to scrutinize and explain the method and content of Soruri's description by comparing it with the Javaherolasrar description (the oldest Masnavi description). Method and Materials The method adopted here is analytic and descriptive based on library data. The focus here is on presenting a pattern to assess the different aspects of the descriptions of Soruri and Javaherolasrar Kharazmi. In the first section, the similarities and differences are compared and explained to clarify the verses; in the second section, the opinion of each commentator is analyzed in terms of compliance with the views of Mowlavi based on the model of the mystical tradition and in the third section, by assessing the preface of each book of Soruri's description, the acquired evidence indicate the outperformance of this description vs. Javaherolasrar . Discussion of Results and Conclusion Comparing the method in Soruri's description and Kharazmi's description indicates that primarily, many of the phrases and deductions of Kharazmi exactly resemble that of Soruri's description. Similar proses and verses are detected in both descriptions and that Soruri has taken advantage of Kharazmi’s descriptions is evident. Soruri applied the language of Kharazmi (books one to three) which is intricate. In other sections (book four and on), descriptions are written in simple prose. Soruri has summarized and simply described the verses not mentioned in the descriptions of Javaherolasrar . The content of the description of Kharazmi and Soruri is compared based on the mystical pattern of Mowlavi. Kharazmi has sometimes pointed out the viewpoints of Ibn Arabi in describing Masnavi . In some other cases, Soruri has made a connection between the first and second mystical traditions . Unlike Kharazmi, Soruri has mainly considered the lexical and rhetorical layers. To describe the mystical concepts, defined the outlooks of the second tradition of Kharazmi and sometimes described the first tradition. The foreword indicates that the commentator has consciously benefited from Javaherolasrar . The results of this study indicate that Soruri was affected by Kharazmi's description. There exist doubts about the independence of Soruri's opinion in Masnavi 's clarification, thus, it cannot be considered an effective explanation. Direct affectivity from Kharazmi's description and not pointing out his name raises this notion that the rest of the materials not derived from Javaherolasrar may belong to others except Soruri.
تبلیغات
