بررسی تذکرة‏الاولیا و مثنوی‏های عطار براساس نظریه بیش‏متنیت ژنت

بیان مسئله: تذکرة‏الاولیا مهم‏ترین اثر منثور عطار و از بزرگ‏ترین متون منثور عرفانی است. تذکرة‏الاولیا این امکان را دارد که مناسبات بینامتنی موجود در آن با آثار عارفان دیگر و حتی با مثنوی‏های خود عطار بررسی شود.روش: هدف این پژوهش نشان‏دادن ارتباط متنی پنجاه و یک حکایت مشترک تذکرةالاولیا و مثنوی‏های عطار با رویکرد بیش‏متنیت یکی از ارکان پنجگانۀ نظریۀ ترامتنیت «ژرار ژنت» است که با روش توصیفی تطبیقی به انجام رسید.یافته‌ها و نتایج: یافته‏های پژوهش بیانگر ارتباط گستردۀ تذکرةالاولیا و مثنوی‏های عطار است. هر دو نوع بیش‏متنیت (همانگونگی و تراگونگی) در این آثار مشاهده می‏شود. این ارتباط بیشتر از نوع تراگونگی است. از میان مثنوی‏های عطار، بیشترین درصد حکایت‌های مشترک با تذکرة‏الاولیا به‏ترتیب در منطق‏الطیر، الهی‏نامه، مصیبت‏نامه و اسرارنامه مشاهده شد.

A Study of Attar's Tazkereh al-Awliya and Mathnawisbased on Genet's Hypertext Theory

AbstractTazkereh alAwliya, which is the most important work of Attar’s prose and one of the greatest texts of mystical prose, has great potential for intertextual comparisons with other mystical works as well as Attar’s Masnavis. This descriptivecomparative study aims to show the textual relationship of 51 joint anecdotes of TazkerehalAwliya and Attar’s Masnavis with the hypertext approach, one of the five pillars of Gérard Genette’s theory of transtextuality. The results of the research show a broad relationship between Tazkereh AlAwliya and Attar’s Masnavis. Both types of hypertext (i.e. homogeneity and tragedy) are observed in these works. This connection is more than the type of tragedy, and among Attar’s Masnavis, AlTair, Elahinameh, Misibatnameh, and Asrarnameh, respectively, have the highest percentage of common anecdotes with Tazkereh alAwliya.  IntroductionThe term intertextuality was first coined in the 1960s by Julia Kristeva, a BulgarianFrench poststructuralist theorist. The concept was further discussed and developed by other famous literary critics including Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, Claude LeviStrauss, Philippe Sollers, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, and Julien Greimas. Finally, Gérard Genette proposed the term transtextuality to refer to all the relationships between two texts. Concerning this term, he writes in his Palimpsests: Literature in the Second Degree: “Today, I would like to say that, in general, it is the issue of transtextuality or textual transcendence that I have previously defined generally as the fact that any hidden or obvious thing can put the text in a relationship with other texts” (Namvar Motlagh, 2007, p. 86).  Genette divides transtextuality into five subtypes: intertextuality, paratextuality, metatextuality, architextuality, and hypertextuality.“Attare Neishaboori is a wellknown mystical figure who made extensive use of stories and anecdotes in his works. He would combine all his mystical or moral issues with anecdotes to leave a greater impression on the audience’s mind. This is why the analysis of the components of his anecdotes is important” (Ashrafzadeh, 1994, p. 31).  Tazkirat alAwliya is one of the most outstanding works of Persian mystical literature that has great potential for intertextual comparisons with other mystical works as well as Attar’s Masnavis. Attar sometimes repeats one of the anecdotes of Tazkirat alAwliya in his Masnavis only thematically without mentioning proper names. Conversely, he sometimes takes a very brief and ambiguous anecdote from Tazkirat alAwliya and expands it in his Masnavis. “Like intertextuality, hypertextuality also refers to the relationship between two literary or artistic texts; but the hypertextual relationship, in contrast, is based on adaptation rather than copresence. In other words, hypertextuality deals with the effect of one text on the other instead of its presence. Of course, it can be easily imagined that there is an effect in every presence and a presence in every effect. In hypertextuality, however, a broader and deeper effect is emphasized. More clearly, intertextuality focuses on giving presence whereas hypertextuality focuses on the general impression and inspiration” (Namvar Motlagh, 2007, p. 9495).  Materials and MethodsBy looking at Tazkirat alAwliya as a hypertext and Attar’s Masnavis as hypotexts, this study attempts to investigate the relationship between these works through the framework of hypertextuality and a descriptivecomparative method. Finally, the differences, similarities, and changes in the anecdotes that are in common between Tazkirat alAwliya and the Masnavis are explained. 3. Results 1. Similar Anecdotes of Attar’s Tazkirat alAwliya and MasnavisName of MasnaviNumber of anecdotesNumber of anecdotes in common with Tazkirat alAwliyaPercentage of similar anecdotesMosibatnameh356185%Elahinameh251178.6%Mantiq alTayr185137%Asrarnameh9733% 3.1.1. HypertextualityGenette defines hypertextuality as, “any relationship uniting a text to an earlier text upon which it is grafted in a manner that is not that of commentary” (Genette, 1977, p. 5). In other words, hypertextuality refers to any relationship that unites text B with text A. Therefore, “hypertext is a text that has been derived from an earlier text through a transformative process” (Namva Motlagh, 2007, p. 95). Genette divides hypertextuality into two general types: homogeneity (imitation), and transformation (change).The highest percentage of character homogeneity was 83.3% and the highest percentage of place homogeneity was 33.3%, both belonging to the similar anecdotes of Tazkirat alAwliya and Mosibatnameh. After Mosibatnameh, the anecdotes of Elahinameh have the highest frequency in terms of homogeneity with the anecdotes of Tazkirat alAwliya, although the anecdotes of Mantiq alTayr have the highest place homogeneity with Tazkirat alAwliya. It seems that place is not of importance in mystical anecdotes due to its abstract nature. The third work with the highest homogeneity with Tazkirat alAwliya is Mantiq alTayr and the fourth one is Asrarnameh. It should be noted that place is mentioned in none of the similar anecdotes of Tazkirat alAwliya and Asrarnameh, and this indicates the low importance of the notion of place. 3.1.1.1. Transformation (Change)Changes to a hypertext can be small or extensive. “Transformation can be of different types. In fact, changing a text to create another text can result in different types. This transformation can be viewed through different lenses and with different criteria in mind, based on which the different types of transformation can be distinguished” (Namvar Motlagh, 2007, p. 97).  Transformation has been classified from quantitative and contentrelated perspectives. The former refers to reduction and addition, and the latter refers to substitution. 3.1.1.2. SubstitutionThe intertextual relationships between Attar’s Tazkirat alAwliya and his Masnavis have been well maintained in terms of events and thematic content. The most prominent substitution in this process is the conversion from poetry to prose or vice versa. The substitutions occurring between Tazkirat alAwliya and the Masnavis can be analyzed in terms of characters, places, wordings, and sentence types. 3.1.1.3. ReductionFrom among 51 similar anecdotes, 42 anecdotes show a reduction in the Masnavis in comparison with Tazkirat alAwliya. In 12 anecdotes (anecdotes 2, 3, 4, 14, and 15 from Elahinameh, anecdote 5 from Mantiq alTayr, and anecdotes 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 15 from Mosibatnameh), only the versions in Tazkirat alAwliya begin with the phrase “it has been said that”, but the anecdotes in the Masnavis repeat the content without this phrase. 3.1.1.4. AdditionGiven the nature of poetry, many of the anecdotes in Attar’s Masnavis include additions in comparison with Tazkirat alAwliya.  Discussion and ConclusionOverall, there are 51 anecdotes in common between Attar’s Tazkirat alAwliya and his Masnavis. To put it exactly, Tazkirat alAwliya has 17 anecdotes in common with Elahinameh, three anecdotes in common with Asrarnameh, 13 anecdotes in common with Mantiq alTayr, and 18 anecdotes in common with Mosibatnameh. Among Genette’s five types of textual relationships, intertextualiy and hypertextuality are more tangible and concrete. Assuming Tazkirat alAwliya as the hypotext and Attar’s Masnavis as the hypertext, we studied these works through the framework of hypertextuality. Attar has made use of both types of intertextuality (i.e. homogeneity and transformation), which consist of substitution, reduction, and addition in the textual relationships of Tazkirat alAwliya and his Masnavis.