دانشگاه اصفهان متن شناسی ادب فارسی 2476-3268 12 3 2020 09 22 Pandnameh is not from Attar ē Neyshaburi «پندنامه» از عطار نیشابوری نیست 49 70 24459 10.22108/rpll.2019.117650.1526 FA حمیده زینال زاده دانشجوی دکتری زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید مدنی آذربایجان، تبریز، ایران رحمان مشتاق مهر استاد زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید مدنی آذربایجان، تبریز، ایران 0000-0001-5097-651X احمد گلی استاد زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شهید مدنی آذربایجان، تبریز، ایران Journal Article 2019 06 21 Abstract One of the many works attributed mistakenly to Attar ē Neyshaburi is Pandnameh; a poem that its attribution to Attar is still doubtful among some literary critics. This article studies the stylistic features of Pandnameh in terms of aspects of structure, language, and content and compares it with the definitive poems of Attar. The results showed that the attribution of Pandnameh to Attar is wrong; because, this work has a significant difference with the speech and thoughts of Attar in his poems from all three of these stylistic aspects. That is, itʼs form and structure, with the form of Attar’s poems, is neither proportional in terms of volume of verses, nor in terms of the way of expressing the contents. From the point of view of poetic language, which has received a considerable degree of differences between Pandnameh and the works of Attar, there are significant discrepancies in terms of the use of vocabulary and linguistic elements along with the syntax and compilation of the word between these two categories. The ideas in this work are also distinguished from the thoughts of the Attar’s poems, both in the teachings of religion and Sufism and in general ethical advices. Introduction One of the most important topics in literary criticism is research into the correctness and inaccuracy of attributing a work to it's poet or writer. Throughout the history of the literature of various lands and nations, works have been attributed to famous poets and writers for various reasons, including political prejudices and religious Purposes, or similarities in form or theme that either really belonged to other poets and writers or have been works whose authors have been unknown; Attar ē Neyshaburi is one of the poets whose works have been mixed with those of poets of later periods, that have been written in a high degree of weakness in terms of form and structure and poetic language, and also differ from Attar’s definite poems in terms of their content. Undoubtedly various factors, whether intentional or unintentional, played a role in mixing the works of others with the works of Attar. The most famous work attributed mistakenly to Attar ē Neyshaburi is Pandnameh. This poem has about 900 bits, and the oldest Manuscript of it, is dated to 861 A.H.; namely ninth century; just two centuries after Attar's death. The difference between the date of the writing of the first version of Pandnameh since Attar's death, indicates that this poem most likely belongs to the eighth or ninth century and that it's author probably lived in the late eighth or early ninth centuries. Methods & materials In the present study, the attribution of Pandnameh to Attar has been investigated and compared with Attar’s poems in the analytical-inferential way from the point of view of stylistic issues namely structure, language and content. It should be noted that in this review, the printed version of Pandnameh, corrected and annotated by Silvestre de sacy, has been cited. Discussion Pandnameh differs dramatically from the point of view of three stylistic aspects, namely structure, language, and content, with the four definite mystical poems of Attar, Asrarnameh, Elahinameh, Manteqotteyr and Mosibatnameh. For example, besides the boring repetitions and the shortness of volume of the verses, there is no anecdote and allegorical story in the structure of Pandnameh. Whereas one of the most common methods of Attar to express the meaning and contents of his poems to the reader, is the insertion of allegorical stories and narratives. In other words, Attar as a narrator and interpreter tells stories and narrates to teach. The poetic language used in Pandnameh also differs from poetic language used in definite poems of Attar; some of the words and combinations used in the text of Pandnameh are either not used in Attar's poetry or have been used in different forms in his poetry. In terms of syntax and grammar there are also major differences between Pandnameh and Attar's poems; for example, verbs, adjectives, prepositions and other elements used in the verses, and the way of putting the linguistic elements together in verses is contrary with the syntax of Attar’s poems. The content of Pandnameh also differs from the content of Attar's poems; for example, the author of Pandnameh expresses beliefs about love, Health and Silence (in the mystical sense), kings and other topics that are opposed to what Attar thought in his poems. Conclusion In this article, by Scientific study and stylistic comparison of Pandnameh with Attar's poems from three aspects of structure, language and content, it is concluded that this poem is not from Attar, because first of all, the form and structure of Pandnameh is significantly different from which is clearly seen in the four definite works of Attar; because While Attar has attempted to convey the content of his mind and thought to the readers in all four of his poems by using narrative expression and allegory, Pandnameh is devoid of this structure and form of expression. A greater percentage of the poetic language used in Pandnameh is different both in terms of words and idioms and in terms of syntax from Attar's poetic language in his poems; a greater percentage of the content of these two groups of works are dramatically different from each other. The dominant thought in Attar's poems is pure mysticism and Sufism; but, not only is the prevailing thought in Pandnameh sometimes just for expressing religious themes far from the pure mysticism, it is more like other books written on the subject of advice that just teaches and expresses general ethics. مثنوی پندنامه ازجمله آثار فراوانی است که به‌نادرست به عطار نیشابوری نسبت داده‌اند؛ منظومه‌ای که هنوز هم انتساب آن به عطار در میان برخی منتقدان ادبی با تردید همراه است. این مقاله به مطالعۀ سبک‌شناختی پندنامه ازنظر ساختار، زبان، محتوا و مقایسۀ آن با منظومه‌های قطعی و مسلّم عطار می‌پردازد. نتایج پژوهش نشان می‌دهد انتساب پندنامه به عطار نیشابوری نادرست است؛ زیرا این اثر از هر سه جنبۀ سبک‌شناختی یادشده، با سخن و اندیشۀ عطار در منظومه‌هایش تفاوت برجسته‌ای دارد؛ بدین معنی که شکل و ساختار بیرونی آن با شکل منظومه‌های عطار، هم ازنظر حجم و طول ابیات و هم ازنظر شیوۀ بیان مطالب هیچ تناسبی ندارد. همچنین درصد تأمل‌برانگیزی از اختلاف‌های میان پندنامه و آثار عطار به جنبة زبان شعری آن بازمی‌گردد؛ چه ازنظر شیوۀ به‌کارگیری واژگان و عناصر زبانی و چه ازنظر نحو و ترکیب و تألیف کلام، میان این دو دسته آثار اختلاف آشکاری وجود دارد. میان محتوا و فکر حاکم در این اثر نیز با محتوا و اندیشه‌های موجود در منظومه‌های اصلی عطار، چه در پندهای مربوط به مذهب و تصوف و چه در اندرزهای اخلاقی عام، تفاوت‌های برجسته‌ای دیده می‌شود.

https://rpll.ui.ac.ir/article_24459_d04d1b9aa5dcda2f92ae3117bdb98504.pdf