‌‌‌بررسى‌ صور خیال در باب «بازجست کار دمنه» در سه ترجمۀ نصرالله منشی، ابن مقفع و محمد بخاری

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد دهاقان، دهاقان، ایران

2 دکترای زبان و ادبیات فارسی، عضو باشگاه پژوهشگران جوان و استعدادهای درخشان واحد دهاقان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد دهاقان، ایران

10.22103/jcl.2022.16272.3129

چکیده

کلیله و دمنه یکی از مهم‌ترین و برجسته‎ترین متون ادبی و تعلیمی است که توجه بسیاری از پژوهشگران را به خود جلب نموده است و ترجمه‎های گوناگونی از آن در دست است. هدف این پژوهش بررسی صور خیال (تشبیه، استعاره، کنایه و مجاز) در باب «بازجست کار دمنه» در دو ترجمۀ فارسی نصرالله منشی و داستان‎های بیدپای محمد بن عبدالله بخاری و ترجمۀ عربی عبدالله بن مقفع از مشهورترین ترجمه های کلیله و دمنه است. در این پژوهش که به شیوۀ توصیفی- تحلیلی صورت گرفته است، نگارندگان پس از بررسی صورخیال در سه اثر و ترسیم جدول و نمودار بسامدی به این نتیجه دست یافتند که صور خیال به کار رفته در دو ترجمه، جهت روشنگری خواننده و از ابهام و پیچیدگی به دور است و بسامد عناصر خیال در ترجمۀ فارسی نصرالله منشی بسیار بالاست و مترجم فارسی با پدید آوردن تشبیهات، استعارات و کنایات و مجازها به زیباتر شدن و خیال‎انگیزی بیشتر اثر خود پرداخته و در این زمینه بر دو مترجم دیگر برتری یافته است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Study of Imagery Techniques on the Analysis of Demneh in threeTranslations by Nasrallah Munshi, Ibn Muqaffa and Mohammad Bukhari

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ahmadreza Yalameha 1
  • Haleh Ajdarnejad 2
1 Associated Professor of Persian Language and Literature Department of Persian Language and Literature of Dehaghan University, Dehaghan, Iran
2 Doctor of Persian Language and Literature, Member of the Young Researchers and Talents Club of Dehaghan Branch of Islamic Azad University, Dehaghan Branch, Iran
چکیده [English]

 

Introduction

1.1. Description and problem statement
Kelileh and Demneh is one of the significant and valuable literary works. This book was written from Sanskrit into Pahlavi during the Sassanid era and Abdullah ibn Muqaffa translated it from Pahlavi into Arabic. In the era of Nasr ibn Ahmad Samani, Abolfazl Mohammad Balami translated it into Persian prose. Rudaki, the famous poet, wrote it in poetry and the book we have today has been gathered by Abu al-Ma'ali Nasrullah ibn Muhammad Abdul Hamid, who translated it from Ibn Muqaffa’s Kelileh in the middle of the sixth century AH, during the reign of Bahram Shah of Ghaznavi.
Nasrullah Munshi’s translation is a dynamic translation to which the translator has added many additions such as Quranic verses, hadiths, Arabic and Persian verses, proverbs and he has made every effort to translate and rewrite the effect of the original text on the translated text. Instead of being faithful to Ibn Muqaffa's original text, the Munshi's concern is more focused on the reader's reaction while reading the text of his translation and conveying the general message of the original text. Bukhari's translation is very close to Ibn Muqaffa's Arabic original and faithful to the source text and the translator does not use omissions and additions as much as possible, unless the constraints of language and differences between the origin and destination culture compel her to do so, because his king has ordered him to translate the original text and be faithful to it.
Kelileh and Demneh is one of the important books that has been considered from long ago and various translations of it are available. Also because of the importance of this book in both Arabic and Persian languages and the existence of common and different points in the three works; In this research, we intend to consider one of the common chapters of these three translations; That is, we examine the chapter of "interrogation of Demneh's work" from the perspective of imaginary images and answer these questions:
How much is the frequency of each of the imaginary images in these three translations? And in this regard, what is the tangible difference between the three works?
1.2. Research Background
No independent work has been done on the study and comparison of imaginary images in chapter of "interrogation of Demneh’s work" in Kelileh and Demneh by Nasrullah Munshi with the Arabic translation of Ibn Muqaffa; However, in comparative comparison of these two translations, articles have been written, including:

“Investigation of some differences between Nasrullah Munshi’s Kelileh and Demneh with Ibn Muqaffa’s Arabic translation and Bidpay stories Panjakian”, Ali Heidari, Journal of Human Sciences, Al-Zahra University, Winter and spring 2007 and 2008, No. 68 and 69, pp. 61-45.
“Comparative Study of Expressive Tricks about Lion and Cow in Arabic and Persian versions of Kelileh and Demneh”, KeyRokh Ahmadi et al, Journal of Comparative Literature Studies, Summer 2012, No. 22, pp. 64-47.
“Study of the Elements of the Story in Persian and Arabic versions of Kelileh and Demneh (chapter: Lion and Cow), written by Farnaz Taghizadeh and Tayebeh Amirian, Journal of Literary Criticism and Stylistics Research, Spring 2011, Volume 1, No. 3, pp. 131-103.
Discussion

2.1 Comparative Literature
Comparative literature is a field in a wider range than the national literature of a country; It is a critique measuring the quality of a literary work on a scale higher than one climate; It is a step forward, towards a higher step, towards the perfection of the unity of human thoughts. The necessity of this young knowledge in the field of general literature and the relationship between the literature of different countries requires that literary researchers in this field compare them according to the importance of topics and the position of writers and poets and according to the similarities or differences between two texts from two languages or two characters from two literatures.
2.2. Imaginary Images
Kelileh and Demneh are prominent examples of Persian technical prose. The use of verbal and spiritual industries and fantasy forms such as simile, metaphor, irony and trope are the stylistic features of this book. In the meantime, simile as the most effective tool of imagination has a major role in the imageries of this book.
Simile is one of the most important categories of rhetoric and one of the main elements of imagery and "the participation of two things in the description of attributes by special words." (Rajaei, 244:1372). There are different types of similes in the three translations of Kelileh and Demneh. In Nasrullah Munshi's translation, 188 similes were found, of which, singular to singular simile has the highest frequency (19.3%). Only 23 types of similes were found in Ibn Muqaffa's Kelileh and Demneh and allegorical simile has the highest frequency (26.08%) and in Mohammad Bukhari's Bidpay stories, the singular to singular simile has the highest frequency (26.08%).
Metaphor is one of the rhetorical tools and in the word it is the source of use; it means to borrow, and in literary terms it means to borrow one word instead of another; because the poet in metaphor uses a word because of similarity instead of another word (Shamisa, 1991: 153). Metaphor and its variants can be seen in all three translations, but its frequency has been much more in Munshi's translation. In Nasrullah Munshi's translation, 87 types of metaphors have been used. The latent metaphor has the highest frequency (32.2%). In the Arabic translation of Kelileh and Demneh, 14 metaphors were found, of which the absolute explicit metaphor has the highest frequency (57.1%). Bukhari has also used absolute explicit metaphor (42.1%) among the types of metaphors in Bidpay stories. An irony is a word that has two meanings that are near and far and these two meanings are necessary and obligatory for each other; "So the speaker combines and uses the sentence in such a way that the listener's mind is transferred from the near to the far meaning." (Homayi, 1354: 255). Of the types of irony used in translations, 147 are found in the Munshi's translation. The irony to verb has the highest frequency (55.7%). The same thing can be seen in Ibn Muqaffa's translation; that is, the irony to verb has the highest frequency (50%). But in Bukhari’s translation, the noun irony is higher (24.4%).
2.3. Trope
The priority of using different types of trope in the translation of Nasrullah Munshi is trope to interest of detail and proximity (each 19.1%) and in the translation of ibn Muqaffa is trope to interest of capacity (33.3%), and in Bidpay stories, the variety of trope, like its Arabic translation, is 6 types and, its frequency is more.

Conclusion

The result of examining imaginary images in chapter of "interrogation of Demneh's work" in two Persian translations of Nasrullah Munshi and Mohammad Bukhari and the Arabic translation of Ibn Muqaffa is as follows:
In all three translations, imaginary images such as simile, metaphor, irony and trope are seen. The imaginary images used in the three translations are for the enlightenment of the reader and are far from ambiguity and complexity. All three translators have used all the imaginary images (simile, metaphor, irony, and trope) to express moral and educational issues. They are well aware that it is not enjoyable to iterate meanings in an ordinary language, therefore, with the help of imaginary images, they have made their word beautiful and charming and its effect for the reader will be more.
Of the 660 items found in the chapter of "Interrogation of Demneh’s work", 431 were found in Nasrullah Munshi’s translation, 91 in the Arabic translation of Ibn Muqaffa, and 138 items were found in the Mohammad Bukhari’s Bidpay stories. The frequency of using imaginary elements in Nasrullah Munshi’s Kelileh and Demneh is as follows: simile (31.6%), irony (21.2%), metaphor (16.6%) and trope (13.02%) and this order in Ibn Muqaffa’s Kelileh and Demneh as follows: Irony (6.8%), simile (4.4%), trope (3.4%) and metaphor (2.6%). This order in Mohammad Bukhari’s Bidpay stories is as follows: irony (32.6%), metaphor (27.5%) and trope (23.2%) and simile (16.6%); Therefore, the variety of using different types of imaginary elements in Nasrullah Munshi's translation is higher than other translations.
Less simple sentences can be found in the structure of Nasrullah Munshi's sentences. He has adorned most of the sentences with various imaginary images. Unlike him, Ibn Muqaffa and Muhammad Bukhari have used more simple and clear sentences and have been less inclined to adorn sentences. In his translation, Nasrullah Munshi has made more efforts to make the anecdotes better and more beautiful and to make them more readable.
Muqaffa, Abdullah Bukhari, Bidpay Stories
 
 
.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • : Kelileh and Demneh
  • Imagery Techniques
  • Chapter on the analysis of Demneh
  • Nasrullah Munshi
  • Ibn
کتابنامه
-آیت‎الله‎زاده شیرازی، مرتضی. (1362). «ادبیات تطبیقی تعریف و موضوع». مجله مقالات و بررسیها، شماره 38، صص 85-104 .
- ابن مـقفع، عبد‌اللّه. (بی‌‌تا). کلیله و دمنه. چاپ اول، بیروت: انتشارات دار‌ القلم.
- احمدی، کی­رخ و همکاران. (تابستان1391). «بررسی تطبیقی شگردهای بیانی در باب شیر و گاو کلیله و دمنه عربی و پارسی» مجلۀ مطالعات ادبیات تطبیقی. دورة 6، شماره22، صص47-64.
- انوشه، حسن. (1376). فرهنگنامة ادب فارسی. ج2، تهران: وزارت فرهنگ و ارشاد اسلامی.
-بخاری، محمدبن عبدالله. (1369). کلیله و دمنه داستان‏های بیدپای. چاپ دوم، تصحیح پرویز ناتل خانلری و محمد روشن. تهران: انتشارات خوارزمی.
-تجلیل، جلیل. (1362). معانی و بیان. تهران: مرکز نشر دانشگاهی.
- تقی­زاده، فرناز و امیریان، طیبه. (بهار1390). «بررسی عناصر داستان در  کلیله و دمنه فارسی و عربی (باب شیر و گاو)». مجلۀ پژوهش‌های نقد ادبی و سبک‎شناسی. دورۀ 1، شمارۀ3، صص103-131
- جرجانی، عبدالقاهر. (1361). اسرارالبلاغه. ترجمۀ جلیل تجلیل. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
- حسینی، شکوه السادات. (1393). «تحلیل انتقادی تطبیقی با تکیه بر مقارنة ملک­الشعرای بهار و امیرالشعراء شوقی» پژوهشنامة انتقادی متون و برنامه های علوم انسانی. پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی، سال چهاردهم، شمارة چهارم.
- حیدری، علی. (زمستان و بهار1386و87). «بررسی بعضی اختلاف‎های کلیله و دمنه نصرالله منشی با ترجمه عربی ابن مقفع و داستان‎های بیدپای و پنجاکیانه»، مجلۀ علوم انسانی دانشگاه الزهرا. شماره 68 و 69، صص45-61.
-داد، سیما. (1375). فرهنگ اصطلاحات ادبی. چاپ دوم، تهران: مروارید.
-دهخدا، علی اکبر. (1373). لغتنامه. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
-رجایی، محمّدخلیل. (1372). معالم البلاغه. شیراز: دانشگاه شیراز.
-زرّین‌کوب، عبدالحسین. (1381). شعر بی‌نقاب. چاپ نهم، تهران: علمی.
-زهره­وند، سعید و جبارپور، حسین. (پاییز و زمستان 1397). «استعاره­های مفهومی زنانه در شعر فروغ فرخزاد و غاده­السمان» نشریة ادبیات تطبیقی دانشکدة ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان. سال6، شمارة، 11، صص133-113.
-شفیعى کدکنى، محمدرضا. (1350). صورخیال در‌ شعر فارسى. چاپ هشتم، تهران: آگاه.
-شمیسا، سیروس. (1370). بیان. تهران: میترا.
-علوى مقدم، محمد و اشرف‌زاده، رضا. (1388). معانى و بیان. تهران: سمت.
-غنیمی هلال، محمد. (1990). الادب المقارن. بیروت: دارالعودة.
-فاضلی، محمود. (1376). دراسه‌ و نقد فی مسائل بلاغیه هامه. مشهد:‌ انتشارات دانشگاه مشهد.
-قزلباش، علی کمیل. (2006م). ارزش مطالعة تطبیقی در ادبیات. اسلام آباد: سروش.
-کزازی، میر جلاالدین. (1375). زیبایی‌شناسی سخن پارسی(1)؛ بیان. تهران: نشر مرکز.
-محمدی افشار، هوشنگ. (پاییز و زمستان 1394). «مقایسة دو واقعه از تاریخ هردوت با دو داستان از کلیله­و­دمنه و مرزبان­نامه». نشریة ادبیات تطبیقی دانشکدة ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه شهید باهنر کرمان. سال 7، شمارة 13، صص284-253.
-ندا، طه. (1380). ادبیات تطبیقی. چاپ اول، تهران: فرزان.
-نصرالله منشی، ابوالمعالی. (1381). کلیله و دمنه. تصحیح مجتبی مینوی. تهران: امیر کبیر. 
-وطواط، رشیدالدین محمدبن محمد. (1362). حدائق السحر. تصحیح عباس اقبال. تهران: سنایی.
-الهاشمی، احمد. (1388). جواهرالبلاغه. قم: نشر بلاغت.
-همایی، جلال‎الدین. (1376). فنون بلاغت و صناعات ادبی. قم: نشر هما.
- همایی، جلال‎الدین. (1354). معانی بیان. چاپ اول، تهران: نشر هما.