چكيده لاتين :
No one had the pluck to eat a mouthful of bread, because that snatcher of portions would carry off his entire meal. When the most divine meanings and concepts are expressed in a phrase, they require description and commentary. Mathnavi has attracted the attention of many commentators because it contains the best speeches. Most commentators of Mathnavi are frustrated with reading and understanding the concept of the above-mentioned verse in the second book of Mathnavi. In this study, data gathering and content analysis are reviewed, and their points are stated. After quoting and criticizing what commentators have said, the precise meaning of the verse is finally stated. Improper reading of the verse has caused some commentators to question the authenticity of the verse and refer to the incorrect versions, which does not help understanding it. In addition to relying on versions, most commentators of the Mathnavi, citing what the Goharin has brought to the Mathnavi vocabulary and interpretation as ‘taking a cow’, have another mistake and have considered it a mere rant, and there is no such irony in the Dictionary Dehkhoda. In the present study, ‘take’ is the main verb in the sense of stealing and cow, the metaphor of the rumen man. This is not a difficult heroic couplet verse that needs commentary, but its incorrect reading and subsequent misinterpretations, in the name of the most familiar of scholars Mathnavi, have made it a controversial verse.
Introduction
The questions posed in this research are: How is the following verse from the second book of Masnavi read? and what does it mean?
No one had the pluck to eat a mouthful of bread, because that snatcher of portions would carry off his entire meal.
Commentators fail to understand the truth of the verse and have mentioned wrong concepts for it out of helplessness. Most commentators, due to incorrect reading, have made the ironic combination of ‘taking a cow’ which has no background in Persian and has not been mentioned in the Dictionary of Dehkhoda and have compared it with ‘bringing a cow’. While paying tribute to the scientific field of all commentators of Masnavi, in this research, the explanations of Masnavi commentators on the above-mentioned verse have been quoted and their shortcomings were shown. The purpose of this paper was to obtain a correct reading and understanding of the concept that Maulana intended. The importance and purpose of such research were to be aware of and ensure the accuracy and authenticity of Persian literary texts and to read them correctly and to understand their concepts more accurately.
Material & Methods
The present research has been done by the descriptive-analytical method, known as the library method. In this way, the opinions of the commentators and their differences were discussed first. Then, their sayings were criticized and judged, and finally, the sayings were summarized and read correctly, which has a reasonable meaning and is in line with all the components of the story.
Discussion
Studying Masnavi has long been the subject of much research in Iran, Turkey, the subcontinent, and Europe. The volume and scope of research in this field and the development and spread of the Persian language in these areas indicate the importance of the book Masnavi for different societies. Since the subject of this study was to remove ambiguity from a verse of the second book of Masnavi, so all the explanations that have made even the slightest reference to the verse in question were referred to and the correctness of their views on this subject was discussed. These explanations are:
Sharh Zamani (2003) is one of the best explanations of Masnavi and it deserves the title of ‘a comprehensive description of Masnavi Manavi’. This description is good and methodical in terms of addressing the lexical, semantic, content, and containing the source of the anecdotes. Shahidi's commentary (2001) has been written using the method of Forouzanfar’s commentary and complements it. Sharh Anqrawi (1995), known as Sharh Kabir, is very detailed. It is a good and useful explanation in terms of lexical allusions and philosophical concepts. However, Anqrawi has viewed Masnavi in a philosophical way and has considered Rumi's thoughts to be related to Ibn Arabi. This description does not help to explain the lexical points. Sharh Parsa (1998), which is also called Asrar Al-Ghayub, is one of the brief explanations of Masnavi that has explained some verses after revising and modifying the opinion of others. The version he has used was not very credible.
Sharh Akbarabadi (1989), which is known as the Reservoir of Secrets, written in India, is a good and useful explanation. In this commentary, the author is also influenced by Ibn Arabi's thoughts. The description of Golpinarli (2002) is written in Turkish and Sobhani has translated it under the title of prose and description of Masnavi. Because his explanation was from Rumi and the author was familiar with his sources and sayings, he has written a simple and useful description. The description of Parto (2004) is very brief and describes some of the verses of Masnavi. Sharh Estelami (the inquiry description) (2008) is methodical and documented in the statements of the commentators. It has explained hints and terms well. But sometimes there are slips in the meaning of the verses. Nicholson (2005) has written a complete description because he used good versions and was familiar enough with the sources of Rumi’s ideas. He has avoided gossip. Zarrinkoob (1993) has introduced the themes, style, and religious sources of Rumi’s ideas and the vulgarity of some folk tales and applications in Masnavi in a thematic manner in Ser-e Ney, and at the end of the second volume, he has presented his cited verses.
Conclusions
From what has been said, the following points can be concluded:
1- The versions given by ‘Kavosh Barad, ‘Kavosh Bord’, ‘Chabok Barad’, or ‘Gameash Barad are not very original and do not make sense. As a result, the verse, as Nicholson has recorded, is based on authentic versions. What has led the commentators to incorrect manuscripts has in fact arisen from their inability to read the text correctly and understand Rumi.
2- What Goharin and Alavi have said does not justify it. Because taking a cow with the meaning that they have written is not an allusion, and as far as the author knows, according to his insufficient knowledge, there is such an allusion in Persian. It is not mentioned in the Dictionary of Dehkhoda. In addition, Rumi’s emphasis at the beginning of the story is on the gluttonousness of the imprisoned man, and what more easily conveys this concept to the reader or listener is the concept of eating a lot, which the cow is like in Persian.
3- Other commentators have been influenced by the words of their predecessors and have repeated this misreading and consequently the misunderstanding.
4- In this verse, a bite of the cow is an imitated adjective. That is, the cow is like a belly, and Jawa al-Baqir is like a familiar example. As a result of what Rumi has said:
No one had the pluck to eat a mouthful of bread, because that snatcher of portions would carry off his entire meal.
That is, no one dared to eat a bite, because that cow (belly) was eating that bite.
