نقد رد العجز علی (الی) الصدر در کتاب های بلاغی (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
در زمینه علوم بلاغی و به ویژه علم بدیع که یکی از سه شاخه این دانش است، کتاب های گوناگون و بسیاری نگارش شده است. یکی از بحث انگیزترین جستارها و مبحث ها در حوزه علم بدیع، موضوع رد العجز علی الصدر است. در تعریف این صنعت و مصداق های آن، اختلاف نظر بسیار است؛ به گونه ای که گاه حدود تعریف این صنعت در کتاب های بلاغی با صنایعی دیگر مانند جناس، اشتقاق، شبه اشتقاق و... درهم آمیخته و تقسیم بندی های گوناگون و مختلف و نیز شواهد مشترکی از این صنعت را درپی داشته است؛ حتی بعضی از بلاغیون آن را تسهیم، تردید، تشابه الأطراف، ذوقافیتین و یا ذیل توشیح و یا یکی از اقسام جناس بررسی کرده اند؛ اما با تأمل و دقت نظر بیشتر می توان تعریف های دقیق تر و روشن تری برای آن ارائه و مرز بین آنها را تفکیک کرد. در این مقاله که با محوریّت کتاب های بلاغی فارسی با نیم نگاهی به کتاب های عربی سامان یافته، کوشش بر آن بوده است که ضمن بررسی و بازبینی تاریخی اندیشه های بلاغی در این زمینه و مقایسه تعریف های ارائه شده در کتاب های بلاغی درباره رد العجز علی الصدر، مصداق های تشابه و افتراق بازبینی شود؛ نیز با ارائه تعریفی مناسب، به روشی توصیفی تحلیلی، مرز بین این صنعت با دیگر صنایع درهم آمیخته با آن تفکیک می شود و از دسته بندی های متعدد رهایی می یابد.A Critical Analysis of Anadiplosis in Rhetorical Books
Many books have been written in the field of rhetoric and especially Badi’’ science, which is one of the three branches of this knowledge. One of the most controversial topics in the field of Badi’’ science is anadiplosis. There is a lot of disagreement in the definition of this figure of speech and its examples, so sometimes the definition of this figure of speech in rhetorical books is mixed with other figures of speech such as puns, polyptoton, pseudo-derivation, etc. This makes various divisions and common evidence of this figure of speech. Some rhetoricians have even examined its quota, doubt, acrostic, or one of the types of puns. But with more reflection and careful consideration, more precise and clear definitions can be offered for it, and the border between them can be distinguished. In this study, which is organized with a focus on Persian rhetorical books with a partial view of Arabic books, an effort has been made to study and review the historical rhetorical ideas in this field and compare the definitions provided in rhetorical books about the anadiplosis, similarities, and differences. By providing a suitable definition in a descriptive-analytical way, the border between this figure of speech and other figures of speech that are intertwined with it has been separated. Keywords: Rhetoric, Badi’, Red Al-ajoz ala Al-Sadr (Anadiplosis), Tasdir, Figures of Speech, Review.IntroductionOne of the most controversial rhetorical topics is the art of anadiplosis, which can be found in rhetorical books with the titles of Al-Matabaqa, Rad Al-Sadr ala Al-Khafz, Red Al-ajoz ala Al-Sadr, motabaq and Musadar, Mutasader, Tasdir, Bonsari. Co-beginning and ending (Radal Al-Sadr ala Al-ajoz) has also come to the scene and is sometimes called "Rad Al- Sadr to Al-Ujoz" by some scholars. By examining rhetorical books, it can be clearly understood that for many categories and essays about rhetoric, a comprehensive definition cannot be given, even though many definitions appear to be symmetrical and close to each other, in order to clarify the examples better, we could say that there are a lot of confusion and differences, and this issue is more evident in the case of rhetorical figures of speech, which is one of the main branches of rhetoric. Our goal in this research is to examine and provide a precise definition and determine the border of this figure of speech with other figures of speech that overlap with it so that it can be freed from different categories and dispersion of content. Materials and MethodsThe present study has been done in a descriptive-analytical way using old and new rhetorical sources. Research FindingsA number of Persian rhetorical books have provided a definition of the studied figure of speech. These books have only dealt with this figure of speech in terms of the verse and have categorized it into several parts. For the functioning of this figure of speech, some other books have paid attention to both the aspects of verse and its prose, and have provided an independent definition for each of them. They have also pointed to the aspects of differences or similarities in the meaning of two words, as well as derivation or pseudo-derivation, the result of which is comprehensible with a slight difference, as follows:“This figure of speech in prose, with all Arab and ajam poets, should be such that they mention a word at the beginning of a paragraph and then mention the same word with the same meaning at the end of the same paragraph” (Hosseini Neishabouri, as cited in Mosalmanian QoBadiani, 2005, p. 111).This definition is according to the definition of the books that have only paid attention to the verse aspects of this figure of speech. However, regarding the verse, the following has been mentioned: “… and the return of ajoz to sadr at the beginning of a verse is when one of the two words are repeated or congruent, also those which are joined to the congruent at the end of the verse and the other word is at the beginning of the first hemistich or in the middle or at the end or at the beginning of the second stanza. (Agh Oli, 2002, p. 217). As it is known and mentioned above, this definition is based on the definitions of Arabic rhetorical books, in which ajoz returns to sadr.The author of al-Sanāateyn also said this about this figure of speech: “The first thing that deserves to be known is that whenever you come up with words that require an answer, bring those words in such a way that they are accompanied by the answer, and from those words to other words that are not supposed to be transferred” (Abuhlal Askari, as cited in Nasiri, 1993, p. 501). It seems that in this definition, Abuhlal paid attention to the effect and values of repeating the word and did not consider it valid and worthy to mention its synonym. Therefore, in the distinction between anadiplosis and pun, it can be said that anadiplosis is a word that is repeated with the same meaning, while puns are words that are the same but have different meanings. By providing such a distinctive feature, examples of this figure of speech will not overlap with other figures of speech. Discussion of Results and ConclusionsAccording to the background of the discussion, the comparison and evaluation of rhetorical books inform us of the development and slight changes in rhetoric, considering that the books compiled in this technique are often copied and taken from each other. This is a sign of stagnation and an evident delay in the progress of rhetoric. A number of literary figures of speech are symmetrical as if they are intertwined or do not have a distinct and clear border. The commentators of rhetorical books have not addressed all aspects of rhetorical secrets, but have added a few more examples to the definitions and to previous examples. Therefore, the shortcomings and inadequacies in the classification of rhetorical materials call for accuracy and new attention to this issue.It is obvious that for research and exploration in this study, we must pay attention to several questions: First, what is generally stated in the definition of anadiplosis as comprehensive and hindering or general and vague? Second, is it possible to find a boundary-creating difference between anadiplosis, pun, derivation, pseudo-derivation, etc.? Third, how do these different categories have an effect on the aesthetics of poetry and prose? As mentioned above, there are many differences of opinion in the definition of this figure of speech and its examples in such a way that sometimes the definition of this figure of speech in rhetorical books has overlap with other figures of speech. Even some rhetoricians called it tashim, tardid, and/or Toshih. This study has led to various and different divisions as well as common evidence of this figure of speech and rehash.According to this study, it should be said that anadiplosis consists of repeating a word with a "single meaning" at the end and beginning of the verse. With this definition, there is no need to divide hashv, aruz, and ebtedā. Now, if a researcher examines the categories of hashv, aruz, and ebtedā, there is no contradiction with the presented definition. However, as stated earlier, Sahib al-Umah believes that “The tasdir is close to doubt. The difference between the two is that the ending is a feature of the rhymes that are returned to the beginning of the verse; But the doubt occurs in other parts of the verse (hashv, aruz, and ebtedā)” (1954, p. 3)Another point that can be deduced from the presented definition is related to the performance of this figure of speech in prose, which the rhetoricians have considered worthy of research in prose as well. The artistic function of this figure of speech and divisions such as Sadr, ajoz, etc. are more related to verse than prose. On the other hand, in prose, it is an example of the repetition of a word with a single meaning. Its beauty is due to puns and other elements; therefore, it is more appropriate to consider this figure of speech specific to verse. AcknowledgmentsThis work is based on research funded by Iran National Science Foundation under project No 99001923.
تبلیغات
