كليدواژه :
بلاغت فارسي , بلاغت انگليسي , براعت استهلال , استمداد , شاهنامۀ فردوسي , بهشت گمشدۀ ميلتون
چكيده فارسي :
پژوهش حاضر برآن است تا به بررسي بلاغت در شعر و ادب فارسي و انگليسي، نحوۀ طبقه بندي صنايع ادبي توسط بلاغت نويسان معاصر در اين دو زبان، و نيز به بررسي تطبيقي براعت استهلال و استمداد و تبلور آنها در شاهنامۀ ابوالقاسم فردوسي و بهشت گمشدۀ جان ميلتون بپردازد. براي اين منظور، برخي از كتب بلاغيِ معاصرين فارسي و انگليسي مورد نقد و درخلالِآن آرايه هاي ادبيِ نزديكي همچون براعت استهلال، استمداد ، آينه داري ، تمهيد مقدّمه ، و التفات مورد مداقّه قرار گرفته اند. نتايج اين تحقيق نشان ميدهد كه صنايع ادبي فارسي و انگليسي هميشه منطبق برهم نيستند و اين عدم انطباق به ماهيّت زبان و متن ادبي و تكثّر شيوۀ بيان نزد شاعران و نويسندگان اين دو ادبيات بر ميگردد. همچنين نارسايي و گنگ بودن معادل ها و توصيف و مسامح هاي كه فرهنگ نويسان در تبيين صنايع ادبي داشته اند بر ابهام مساله افزوده است. علاوه بر اين، اعمال سليقه در تعاريف و تفاسير صنايع ازسوي بلاغت شناسان انگليسي و فارسي منجر به ناهماهنگي هايي در كتب بلاغيِ هر يك از اين زبان ها گشته است. شيوۀ به كار گرفته شده در اين پژوهش توصيفي-كتابخانه اي است؛ نيز با رويكردي تحليلي تلاش شده است تا دو اثر حماسي مورد بررسي قرار گيرند. همچنين با بهره گيري از مكتب آمريكايي در نقد تطبيقي و فارغ از تاثير و تاثّر مستقيمِ آثار ادبي از يكديگر، براعت استهلال و استمداد در شاهنامۀ فردوسي و بهشت گمشدۀ ميلتون مورد نقد و بررسي قرار گرفته است تا بتوان زواياي مختلف اين آرايه هاي ادبي و نقش ديگر صنايع نزديك و مرتبط با آن در شعر و ادب فارسي و انگليسي روشن گردد.
چكيده لاتين :
Introduction: Literary devices in Persian and English literature share many features in common so much so that comparing them may help readers achieve a better unders tanding of their discrepancies and similarities.
Such devices become integrated into their cultural and psychological backgrounds,
and based on the poets’ philosophical outlooks they moved on the
his tory’s path and the human’s psychs course. In both English and Persian
poetry, the beginning of the texts and how to s tart a composition have always
turned to be the mos t significant part of the task to writers and poets.
That is why the world’s great epics ’prologues and invocations have been
under the attention of the readers and critics. This also can be found in
John Milton’s Paradise Los t and Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh where the poets
intentionally wanted to enrich their readers ’minds well at the beginning of
the book, and also to help the readers forecas t the future events.
Background S tudies: Reviewing the books of Rhetoric in Persian and English, one becomes familiar with how literary devices have been classified
and consequently how “prologue ”and “invocation ”function in these
languages. No doubt figures of thought and figures of language are among
the major topics of Rhetoric, and a close inquiry into them may open the
way for an absolute comprehension of their practices and functions. In
other words, a better unders tanding of them, their roles in the language
aes theticism, their effects on the text and context, and their final influences
on the readers ’thoughts might be among the firs t discussions and crucial
introductions to the literary devices and tropes. Rhetoric in English tradition
chiefly refers to the Greek and Roman art of speaking and writing
effectively, and the mos t important subjects might be found in Aris totle’s
Poetics and Cicero’s Ins titutio Oratoria, and also in the ideas of the Hellenis
t teachers and rhetoricians. In their discussions, one can observe the
science of oratory and how language might be a means of persuasion. The
eloquent speech in Persian Rhetoric refers to a text in which both fluency
and eloquence are present. In such an atmosphere, both the speaker and the
auditor are at the center, and their functions are cardinal in speeches ’final
effects. Thus, Rhetoric insis ts on the rules and grammars by which meanings
are presented along with fancy and imagination through which the
vividness and secrecy of the language might be achieved.
Methodology: The present s tudy aims at revealing Rhetoric in Persian
and English language and literature, and also focuses on discussing some
major literary terms classifications by rhetoricians, while emphasizing
“Prologue ”in Shahnameh and “Invocation ”in Paradise Los t. To do this,
some of the mos t significant contemporary books on Persian and English
Rhetoric and literary devices are analyzed, and simultaneously some approximate
literary devices such as Prologue, Invocation, Foreshadowing,
Prolepsis, and Apos trophe are compared and contras ted. The results of this
research indicate that Persian and English literary devices are not always
identical while sometimes seem to be incompatible. This incongruity refers
to the nature of their languages and literary text along with poets ’methods
of utterances and expositions. Further, the vague equivalents and lexicographers
’negligence aggravated such incongruity. The method employed in
this research is descriptive and analytical. Besides, the American School of comparative s tudies in which direct influences are not insis ted, are followed
in order to reveal Prologue and Invocation in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh and
John Milton’s Paradise Los t and to identify their approximate literary devices.
Results and Conclusion: The results of this research indicate that English
and Persian literary devices are not always coincident and equal, and
this dissimilarity is relevant to the nature of language, the character of the
literary texts, and the plurality of poets ’discourses in their languages. Furthermore,
the inadequacy and insufficiency of the equivalents along with
lexicographers ’negligence in describing these devices resulted in more
ambiguities. This can be viewed in such devices as “prologue ”and “invocation
”so much so that the readers of literary glossaries and books of literary
terms become puzzled and confused. Also, individual’s tas tes in giving
such definitions from the rhetoricians ’part, in both English and Persian
literary books, led to some incongruities and confusions in these books.
Consequently, there are some outer and inner factors: 1. Persian and English
devices are not always identical and this incongruity goes back both to
the nature of language and the texts ’characters; 2. It seems that the lexicographers’
and rhetoricians’ negligence is another influential agent; 3.
Personal tas tes in describing and defining the literary devices aggravated readers ’confusions in the books of literary terms.
