‫ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‪ :‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‬

‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺷﺎﻩ‬

‫ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﮑﺮﺩ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‬

‫ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﺁﻏﺎﺯﻳﻦ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺧﻂ ﺷﺎﻩ‬

‫ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ ﻧﻴﺸﺎﺑﻮﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺖ ‪ ٩٦٤‬ﻕ‪،‬‬
‫ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺨﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻠﮏ ﺵ ‪ ،٦٠٢٢‬ﻣﺄﺧﺬ‪:‬‬
‫ﻳﻮﺷﻴﻔﻮﺳﺎ ﺳﻪ ﮐﻲ‪٤٤: ١٣٩٠،‬‬
 ‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ‪ -‬ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﻲ ﻧﮕﺮﻩ‬

‫ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‪ :‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬

‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﮑﺮﺩ‬
‫*‬
‫ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‬
‫****‬ ‫***‬ ‫**‬
‫ﻣﺤﺴﻦ ﻣﺮﺍﺛﻲ‬ ‫ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﺻﻐﺮ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ‬ ‫ﺣﻨﻴﻒ ﺭﺣﻴﻤﻲ ﭘﺮﺩﻧﺠﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ‪٩٦/٤/١٠ :‬‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﺵ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ‪٩٦/٨/١٧ :‬‬

‫ﭼﻜﻴﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺗﺎﮐﻨﻮﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﻭ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﮐﻪ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺮﻗﻌﺎﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﻲ ﺷــﺪﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻟﻴﮑﻦ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷــﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺭﺟﺎﻋﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﻭﺑﺴــﺘﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ ﻫﻢﭼﻨﺎﻥ ﻣﻐﻔﻮﻝ ﻣﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﻝ‪٩٦٤‬ﻕ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻌﺪﻭﺩ‬
‫ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺮﻫﻪ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺩ‪.‬ﻫﺪﻑ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻋﻠﻞ ﺑﺮﺁﻣﺪﻥ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺼﻮﺹ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺮﻥ ﺩﻫﻢ ﮐﺪﺍﻣﻨﺪ؟ ﺳﻮﺍﻝ‬
‫ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﺴﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﭼﺮﺍ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ؟‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ »ﭼﺮﺍ«ﻳﻲ ﺍﻣﻮﺭﻭ ﭘﺎﺳﺦﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ‬
‫ﻋﻠّﻲ ﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻬﺮﻩ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻤﻲﺩﻫﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻭ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺯﻧﺠﻴﺮﻩﻫﺎﻱ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﻣﺘﻨﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﺘﺸﮑﻞ ﺍﺯ ﻓﻀﺎﻱ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ـ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻲ ﺁﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﺓ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﺖ‬
‫ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﭘﻴﺶﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﻓﮑﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﺼﻴﻼﺗﻲ ﻭ ﺷﻐﻠﻲ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﮔﺮﺩﻳﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﻭﺍﮊﮔﺎﻥ ﻛﻠﻴﺪﻱ‬
‫ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﺴﺘﺨﺮﺝ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﺩﮐﺘﺮﻱ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺑﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ »ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺒﻨﺎﻱ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ«‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺭﺍﻫﻨﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﺩﮐﺘﺮ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﺻﻐﺮ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ ﻭ ﺩﮐﺘﺮ ﻣﺤﺴﻦ ﻣﺮﺍﺛﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺷﺎﻫﺪ ﻣﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪Email:hanif.rahimi@yazd.ac.ir‬‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﻳﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﻜﺪﻩ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﻳﺰﺩ ‪ ،‬ﺷﻬﺮﻳﺰﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﻳﺰﺩ‪).‬ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﺓ ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻝ(‬
‫‪Email:a_shirazi41@yahoo.com‬‬ ‫ﺩﺍﻧﺸﻴﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮑﺪﻩ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺷﺎﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﺷﻬﺮ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪.‬‬
‫‪Email:marasy@shahed.ac.ir‬‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﻳﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮑﺪﻩ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺷﺎﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﺷﻬﺮ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫‪۵‬‬
‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ‪ ۴۶‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎﻥ‪۹۷‬‬
 ‫ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‪ :‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺷﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﮑﺮﺩ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬ ‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻭ ﺑﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻦ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻣﻐﻔﻮﻝ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺼﻮﺹ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ‬
‫ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪﻩﺗﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﻭﺍﻳﻞ ﻗﺮﻥ ﻧﻬﻢ ﻫﺠﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺫﻳﻞ ﮐﺘﺎﺏﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺭﺳﺎﻻﺕ ﻓﻨﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﺘﻤﺮﮐﺰ‬
‫ﻭ ﺟﺪﻱ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻂ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﻪ ﺩﻭﻡ‬
‫ﻗﺮﻥ ﺩﻫﻢ ﻫﺠﺮﻱ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﺍﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ )ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻫﺮﻭﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺑﻬﺮﺍﻡ ﻣﻴﺮﺯﺍ( ﺩﺭ ﮐﻨﺎﺭ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ‬
‫ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺩﺭ ‪۹۶۴‬ﻕ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺷﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺗﺤﺮﻳﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻣﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻃﺒﻖ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻗﺼﻪﮔﻮﻱ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺲ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﮐﻪ ﻋﻠﻞ )ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻱ ﻭ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﻱ( ﺑﺮﺁﻣﺪﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﮐﺪﺍﻣﻨﺪ؟‬
‫ﺳﻮﺍﻟﻲ ﮐﻪ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﭼﺮﺍ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺮﻫﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ؟‬

‫ﺭﻭﺵ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩﻱ ﻧﻈﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﻣﺎﻫﻴﺖ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺵ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ‪ . ١‬ﺑﺮﮔﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺧﻂ ﺷﺎﻩ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ ﻧﻴﺸﺎﺑﻮﺭﯼ‪ ،‬ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺖ‬ ‫ﻫﻤﭽﻨﻴﻦ ﺭﻭﺵ ﮔﺮﺩﺁﻭﺭﻱ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺨﺎﻧﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫‪ ٩٦٤‬ﻕ‪ ،‬ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺨﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻠﮏ ﺵ ‪ ،٦٠٢٢‬ﻣﺄﺧﺬ‪ :‬ﻳﻮﺷﻴﻔﻮﺳﺎ ﺳﻪ ﮐﯽ‪٥٢ :١٣٩٠ ،‬‬ ‫ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺴﻴﺮ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻪ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ »ﻋﺎﻣﻞ«‪» ،‬ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺳﺒﮏﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ ﺍﺛﺮ« ﻭ »ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ«ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺍﺳﻨﺎﺩ ﻭ ﻣﺪﺍﺭﮎ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ‪،‬ﻫﻮﻳﺖ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻳﮏ‬ ‫ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ‬
‫ﺟﺰﺀ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻥ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺑﺎ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻭ ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻣﻲﮐﻨﺪ )ﺁﺑﺮﺍﻣﺰ‪۱۷-۱۶ :۱۹۸۲ ،‬؛ ﻫﻤﻴﻠﺘﻮﻥ‪:۱۳۸۷ ،‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﺒﮏﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻲ‬
‫‪ .(۱۱۱‬ﺍﺳﮑﺎﭼﭙﻮﻝ ﺳﻪ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ‬ ‫ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺳﭙﺲ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺮ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ‬
‫ﻳﮑﺪﻳﮕﺮ ﻣﺘﻤﺎﻳﺰ ﻣﻲﮐﻨﺪ‪.۱ :‬ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺴﺖ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﻱ ﻋﺎﻡ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ؛‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻠﻂ‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻋﻼﺋﻢ ﻣﺘﻨﻲ‪،‬‬
‫‪.۲‬ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ )ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ‬ ‫ﺗﺄﺧﺮ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻭ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺩﺭﻭﻧﻲ‬ ‫ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﻲ ﻭ ﺩﻻﻳﻞ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻭ ّ‬
‫ﻧﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ‪.‬؛ ‪ .۳‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻧﻈﻢﻫﺎﻱ ﻋﻠّﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ )ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﺁﻧﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﺻﺪﺩ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻭ ﮐﺸﻒ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ( )ﻧﮑـ ‪ :‬ﺍﺳﮑﺎﭼﭙﻮﻝ‪.(۵۰۲-۵۱۶ :۱۳۸۸ ،‬‬ ‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪.‬ﺑﺴﺘﺮ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﻭ ﻣﺤﻴﻄﻲ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺼﻴﻦ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﺧﻴﺮ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ »ﭼﺮﺍ«ﻳﻲ ﺍﻣﻮﺭ ﻭ‬ ‫ﻫﻢ ﺍﺛﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻢ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻋﻠﻠﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﭘﺎﺳﺦﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻋﻠّﻲ ﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ )ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‪-۵۱۶ ،‬‬ ‫ﺩﺭ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺁﻣﺪﻥ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻨﺎﺭ‬
‫‪ .(۵۱۷‬ﺍﻱ‪ .‬ﺍﭺ‪ .‬ﮐﺎﺭ )‪ (E. H. Carr‬ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻲﮐﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ‬ ‫ﻫﻢ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻣﺎﺑﻴﻦ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻪ ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻼﺵ‬
‫ﻋﻠّﺖ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻠّﺖ ﻏﻴﺮ ﻣﻬﻢ ﻣﺘﻤﺎﻳﺰ ﻣﻲﮐﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﻋﺪﻩﻣﻨﺪﻱ ﻭ‬ ‫ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﭘﺎﺳﺨﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻌﻤﻴﻢ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻱ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ ـ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻫﻲ ﻫﻤﻴﺸﮕﻲﺍﺵ ﺑﺎ ﻳﮏ‬
‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ )ﻓﺮﺑﺮﻥ‪.(۱۲۱-۱۲۰: ۱۳۹۴ ،‬‬ ‫ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻨﻪ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ‬
‫ﮐﻮﺋﻴﻦ )‪۱۳۸۷‬ﺏ( ﺑﺎ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺁﺑﺮﺍﻣﺰ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﮐﻮﺷﺸﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺼﺮ ﺻﻔﻮﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﭘﻴﺸﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺑﺤﺚ‬ ‫ﻓﻬﻢ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﻓﻌﺎﻟﻴﺖ ﻭ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﺷﺨﺼﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻳﮏ ﺳﻮ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺯﻣﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺤﺴﻮﺏ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ؛ ﻫﺮﭼﻨﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺩﻭﻡ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ‬ ‫ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻮﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﺰﻟﻪ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﺪﺍﻭﻡ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺯﮔﺎﺭ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺷﺎﻩ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ )ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‪۱۳۸۷ ،‬‬ ‫ﺩﺭ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻓﺮﺁﻳﻨﺪﻱ ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻒ( ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﭼﻨﺪﺍﻧﻲ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶﻫﺎﻱ‬ ‫ﺩﻝﻣﺸﻐﻮﻟﻲ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻲ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﭘﺮﻭﻳﻦ ﮔﻨﺎﺑﺎﺩﻱ )‪ (۱۳۴۸‬ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬ ‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﻨﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﻓﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻮﻧﺎﮔﻮﻧﻲ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ ﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ‬
 ‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ‪ -‬ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﻲ ﻧﮕﺮﻩ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕﺁﺭﺍﻳﻲ ﻣﻘﺘﺪﺍﻱ ﺳﺨﻨﻮﺭﺍﻥ ﻓﺼﺎﺣﺖ ﺍﻋﺼﺎﺭ‪ ....‬ﺑﻪ ﭘﻴﺶ‬
‫ﺷﺎﻩ ﺩﻳﻦ ﭘﻨﺎﻩ ﺗﻘﺮﺏ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ« )ﺭﻭﻣﻠﻮ‪(۵۳۹ : ۱۹۳۱ ،‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻓﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺳﺮ ﻫﻮﻳﺖ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻲ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ‬
‫»ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥ«‪» ،‬ﻳﺰﺩﻱ« ﻭ »ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩﻱ« ﺑﻪ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺭﺍﮐﺴﺒﺮﻭ )‪ (۲۰۰۱‬ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﺮﺷﻤﺮﺩﻩ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺭﻭﻣﻠﻮ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﻣﻄﺎﺑﻖ ﺑﺎ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩﻱ ﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ ﻳﮑﺴﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﻳﺰﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻳﮑﺴﺎﻥ ﻧﻤﻲﺩﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﭼﺮﺍ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﻟﻲﺍﻓﻨﺪﻱ ﻭ ﻳﺰﺩﻱ ﺩﺭ ‪۹۹۴‬ﻕ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩﻩ ﻭﻟﻲ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ‪۹۷۰‬ﻕ ﻓﻮﺕ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻓﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺣﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﺍﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﻃﻮﻻﻧﻲ ﺑﻴﺴﺖﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﻳﺰﺩﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﻣﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﻋﺎﻟﻲﺍﻓﻨﺪﻱ ﻧﻴﺰ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﭘﻨﺪﺍﺷﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺷﻬﺮﺕ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻲ ﺑﺎﺯ ﻫﻢﭼﻨﺎﻥ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﺑﺮ ﺳﺮ ﻫﻮﻳﺖ ﻭﻱ‬
‫ﻗﻮﺕ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺎﻗﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺻﻮﺍﺏ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﺧﻼﻑ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ّ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮ ﺭﺍﮐﺴﺒﺮﻭ‪ ،‬ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﻳﺰﺩﻱ ﺭﺍ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺘﻪ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺷﻐﻞ ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﻣﺸﻐﻮﻝ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺗﺎ ﺳﺎﻝ ‪۹۶۴‬ﻕ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺳﺎﻝ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺮ ﺑﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺳﭙﺲ ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎﻻ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ‪۹۷۴‬ﻕ ﻳﺎ ﮐﻤﻲ ﻗﺒﻞﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺮﮎ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺪﺕ ﺑﻴﺴﺖ ﺳﺎﻝ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺗﺎ ﺳﺎﻝ ‪۹۹۴‬ﻕ ﮐﻪ ﻋﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻓﻨﺪﻱ ﻭﻱ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﻣﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ ﺳﺎﮐﻦ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﻭﻱ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺼﻮﺹ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺒﻴﻪ ﻭ ﺷﻐﻞ ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﻭﻱ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﻀﻲ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﻳﮑﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺸﺎﻏﻠﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺗﻴﻤﻮﺭﻱ ﻭ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ ﺭﻭﺍﺝ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺻﻨﻒ ﺧﺎﺻﻲ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺗﺸﮑﻴﻞ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﺩﻧﺪ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮﻧﻪﺍﻱ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻌﻀﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺿﻤﻦ‬
‫ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﺻﺪ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻲ ﻭ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﺗﻲ ﺧﻮﺩﺷﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﺒﻠﻴﻎ ﻣﻲﮐﺮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻌﻀﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻧﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ ﻣﻲﺯﻳﺴﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺮﺑﺎﻥ ﺳﻼﻃﻴﻦ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ ﮐﻤﺎﻝﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥ ﻭ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻢ ﺣﮑﺎﻳﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺁﻧﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺳﺮﻱ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ )ﻣﺎﻳﻞ ﻫﺮﻭﻱ‪:۱۳۷۲،‬‬ ‫ﺑﺎ ﺗﺒﻠﻴﻎ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﺳﺮ ﻭ ّ‬
‫ﺷﺼﺖﻭﻫﻔﺖ ﻭ ﺷﺼﺖﻭﻫﺸﺖ(‪.‬‬
‫ﭼﻮﻥ ﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪ /‬ﮐﻦ ﺍﺯ ﻓﺮﺧﻨﺪﮔﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻡ«؛ ﻭ »ﻓﺮﺧﻨﺪﮔﻲ«‬
‫ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‬
‫ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻓﺼﻞﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ ﺗﻔﺼﻴﻠﻲ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺮﺍﺝ ﮐﺮﺩ‪:‬‬
‫‪.١‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪،‬ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺨﺎﻧﻪﻣﻠﻲﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪،‬‬ ‫‪.۱‬ﻣﻄﻠﻊ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻲ ﻳﺎ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﺪﻳﻪ ﺧﺪﺍﻭﻧﺪ‪.۲ ،‬ﺣﻤﺪ ﺭﺳﻮﻝ ﻭ ﺍﺋﻤﻪ‬
‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ ،٦٩١‬ﺑﺮﮒﻫﺎﻱ ‪.٣٩٣-٤٠٦‬‬ ‫ﺍﻃﻬﺎﺭ )ﺳﻼﻡ ﺍﷲ ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ(‪.۳ ،‬ﻓﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﺎﺏ‪.۴ ،‬ﺫﮐﺮ ﻣﻨﺸﺄ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﺤﺮﻡ‪ ١) ١٠٥٧‬ﻓﻮﺭﻳﻪ‬
‫ﻗﺪﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻮﻫﻲ ﺧﻂ ﻭ ﺁﻳﺎﺕ ﻭ ﺍﺣﺎﺩﻳﺚ ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ‪،‬‬
‫ـ ‪ ٧‬ﻣﺎﺭﺱ ‪ (١٦٤٧‬ﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺭﺿﺎ‪ ،‬ﭘﺴﺮ ﺣﺎﺟﻲ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‬ ‫‪.۵‬ﺫﮐﺮ ﺁﻓﺮﻳﻨﺶ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺑﺮ ﺩﻭ ﻧﻮﻉ‪ :‬ﻧﺒﺎﺗﻲ ﻭ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﻲ‪.۶ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ‬
‫ﻗﻠﻲ ﺑﻴﮏ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺴﺎﺥ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻧﮑـ‬ ‫ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻧﺒﺎﺗﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﺳﻔﺎﺭﺵ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺒﺮ ﻭ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻂ‬
‫‪ :‬ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﺧﺪﻳﻮﺟﻢ‪» ،‬ﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪﺍﻱ ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﺧﻮﺵ‪.۷ ،‬ﺫﮐﺮ ﻣﻨﺸﺄ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺧﻂ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻗﻼﻡ ﺳﺘﻪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺧﻂ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥ«‪ ،‬ﺳﺨﻦ‪١٦-١٧ ،‬‬
‫‪.۸‬ﺫﮐﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ‪.۹ ،‬ﺫﮐﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ ﻭ ﺩﻭ ﺷﻴﻮﻩ‬
‫)‪.٦٦٦-٧٦ :(١٩٦٧/١٣٤٦‬‬ ‫ﺧﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﺤﻲ‪.۱۰ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺑﺎ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫‪۷‬‬
‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ‪ ۴۶‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎﻥ‪۹۷‬‬
‫»ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ« ﻧﺎﻡ ﺑﺮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺟﺰﺀ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺭﺍﮐﺴﺒﺮﻭ )‪ (۲۰۰۱‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﺛﺮ‬
‫ﻋﺎﻟﻤﺎﻧﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ‪ :‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻗﺮﻥ ﺩﻫﻢ‪/‬ﺷﺎﻧﺰﺩﻫﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﻔﺼﻞ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺻﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺍﻭﺍﺧﺮ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺗﻴﻤﻮﺭﻱ ﻭ‬
‫ﺻﻔﻮﻱ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻭﻱ ﻫﻢﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺧﻮﺩ‬
‫)ﺭﮐـ‪ .‬ﺭﺍﮐﺴﺒﺮﻭ‪ ۱۳۸۸ ،‬ﺍﻟﻒ ﻭ ﺏ ﻭ ‪ (۲۰۰۵‬ﺑﻪ ﺑﺴﻂ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﻢﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻮ ﭘﻮﺭﺗﺮ )‪ (۱۳۸۸‬ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ »ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺗﺎ ﻫﻔﺖ‬
‫ﺍﺻﻞ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ« ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﮐﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﺗﺤﺖ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ »ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻫﺮﻭﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ‬
‫ﺑﻬﺮﺍﻡ ﻣﻴﺮﺯﺍﻱ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ« ﮐﻪ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﮐﻨﻮﻧﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺁﻥ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺮﻫﻪ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﺍﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻌﻲ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺷﺎﻩﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻌﻠﻮﻡ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺁﻳﺎ ﺧﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﻫﺮﮔﺰ ﺣﺘﻲ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﺷﺪ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪) ۱‬ﺭﮐـ ‪ .‬ﺧﺪﻳﻮﺟﻢ‪،‬‬
‫‪ .(۶۶۶-۶۷ :۱۳۴۶‬ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻋﻴﻨﴼ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺮﻗﻌﻲ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻣﻴﺮﻏﻴﺐﺑﻴﮓ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﻝ ‪۹۷۳‬ﻕ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻣﻀﺎﻱ ﻣﻴﺮﺳﻴﺪﺍﺣﻤﺪﺍﻟﺤﺴﻴﻨﻲﺍﻟﻤﺸﻬﺪﻱ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﻣﺎﻳﻞ‬
‫ﻫﺮﻭﻱ‪ :۱۳۷۲ ،‬ﺷﺼﺖ ﻭ ﻫﺸﺖ ﻭ ﻧﻪ(‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻪ ﻗﺴﻤﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎﻡ ﻭ ﺷﻬﺮﺕ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻲﮐﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻳﮑﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻧﺠﺎ ﮐﻪ ﻋﻠّﺖ ﮔﺮﺩﺁﻭﺭﻱ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﮐﻨﺪ‪» :‬ﺑﻌﻀﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻄﻮﻁ ﻭ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻓﻘﻴﺮ ﺣﻘﻴﺮ‪ ،‬ﺩﻋﺎﮔﻮﻱ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ‬
‫ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،«...‬ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﻣﻲﮐﻨﺪ‪» :‬ﭼﻮﻥ ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﺍﺯﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﺫﮐﺮ ﺑﻌﻀﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﺑﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ‪ «...‬ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺑﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻧﻲ ﻣﺎﺩﻩﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪» :‬ﺯﻗﻄﺐ ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺳﻢ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪/‬‬
‫ﺷﻮﺩ ﺑﻲﺷﺒﻬﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‪ /‬ﺑﻪ ﺻﺪ ﻓﺮﺧﻨﺪﮔﻲ ﺍﺗﻤﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺳﺎﻝ ﺍﺗﻤﺎﻡ ﺁﻥ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ‪۹۶۴‬ﻕ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ )ﺗﺼﺎﻭﻳﺮ‬
‫‪ ۱‬ﻭ ‪.(۲‬‬
‫ﻋﺎﻟﻲﺍﻓﻨﺪﻱ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ‪۹۹۴‬ﻕ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩ ﻣﻼﻗﺎﺕ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ‬
‫)ﻋﺎﻟﻲﺍﻓﻨﺪﻱ‪ (۸۵ : ۱۳۶۸ ،‬ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﻗﻄﺒﻴﻪ ﻭﻱ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺐ ﻫﻨﺮﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺷﺘﻪ ﺗﺤﺮﻳﺮ ﺩﺭﺁﻭﺭﺩ )ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‪(۲۰ :‬‬
‫ﻭ ﺣﺴﻦ ﺑﻴﮏ ﺭﻭﻣﻠﻮﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﺪﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻭﻓﻴﺎﺗﺶ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺳﺎﻝ‬
‫‪۹۷۰‬ﻕ )ﺭﺍﮐﺴﺒﺮﻭ)‪ (۲۰۰۱‬ﺍﺷﺘﺒﺎﻫﴼ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺳﺎﻝ ‪ ۹۲۰‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ‬
‫ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ( ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺩﺳﺘﺎﻭﺭﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ‬
‫ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻴﻮﻩ ﺫﻳﻞ ﺗﻮﺻﻴﻒ ﻣﻲﮐﻨﺪ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺑﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﺠﻤﺎﻉ ﻓﻀﺎﻳﻞ ﻭ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻦ ﺍﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﻭ‬
‫ﺳﺨﻦﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻱ ﺳﺮﺁﻣﺪ ﻣﻨﺸﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﻼﻏﺖ ﺷﻌﺮ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺷﻴﻮﻩ‬

‫ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﻫﻤﻴﺸﻪ ﻫﻢ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺖ؛ ‪ .۳‬ﻃﺮﺡ ﺑﺤﺜﻲ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ‬
‫ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺣﮑﻤﺮﺍﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺗﺪﺑﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻬﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ‬
‫ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻩ ﻭ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺕ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻩ؛ ‪ .۴‬ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻭ‬
‫ﺳﻮﺍﺑﻖ ﺧﺪﻣﺎﺗﻲ ﺍﻭ؛ ‪ .۵‬ﺫﮐﺮ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤﺎﺗﻲ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﻭ‬
‫ﻫﺪﻑ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﺵ؛ ‪ .۶‬ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻓﺼﻞﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ )ﻗﺎﺳﻤﻲ ﻭ‬
‫ﺭﺣﻤﺎﻧﻲﻓﺮ‪.(۱۲۵-۱۲۴ : ۱۳۹۰ ،‬‬
‫ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻧﺴﺒﺘﴼ ﻣﺸﺎﺑﻪ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻋﻤﺪﻩ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻣﻀﺎﻣﻴﻦ ﻭ ﻣﻔﺎﻫﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺘﴼ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺍﺭﺩﻱ ﻣﺘﻀﺎﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮﻧﻪﺍﻱ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻫﺮ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻭﺿﺎﻉ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‬
‫ﻭ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺥ ﺑﺎ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﻧﺴﺒﺘﴼ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺤﺼﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺮﺩﻱ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺷﺒﺎﻫﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﺷﮑﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻧﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﺴﻠﻂ‪ ،‬ﻧﺸﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻋﻼﺋﻢ‬
‫ﺗﺄﺧﺮ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ ﻭ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﻲ ﻭ ﺩﻻﻳﻞ ﺗﻘﺪﻡ ﻭ ّ‬
‫ﺩﺭﻭﻧﻲ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻓﻬﻢ ﻭ ﮐﺸﻒ ﺍﺑﻌﺎﺩ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺭﺍﻩﮔﺸﺎ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ )ﺭﺷﺘﻴﺎﻧﻲ‪.(۴۱ :۱۳۹۰ ،‬‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻣﺬﮐﻮﺭ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ ﻫﻤﺴﺎﻧﻲﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ ۱‬ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺧﻼﺻﻪ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲﺍﺵ ﮐﻪ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻭﻗﺎﻳﻊﻧﺎﻣﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ‬
‫ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‪۱‬‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺳﻪ ﻣﺤﻮﺭ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﻢ ﻋﻠّﻲ ﻭﻳﮋﻩﺍﻱ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺨﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺁﻓﺮﻳﻨﺶ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺧﺪﺍﻭﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺳﭙﺲ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺄﮐﻴﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻮﮎ‬
‫ﻗﻠﻢ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﮐﻠﻴﺪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻧﺒﺎﺗﻲ ﻭ‬
‫ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﭘﻲ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻴﺖ ﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﻳﺎ‬
‫ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻗﻠﻢﻣﻮﻱ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺳﭙﺲ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺶ ﻗﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ‪ ،‬ﻫﻔﺖ ﺍﺻﻞ )ﻗﻠﻢ( ﺩﺭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺘﻨﺎﻇﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻴﺮﻏﻢ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻭﺍﻗﻊﮔﺮﺍ‪ ،‬ﭼﻨﺪﺍﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮﭘﺮﻭﺭﺍﻥ ﻧﻤﻲﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺩ ﻭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻭﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺼﻠﻮﻩ«(‪ :‬ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‪ :‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺷﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﮑﺮﺩ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﻗﻠﻢﻣﻮ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﺍﻟﻒ‪ :‬ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻓﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﻲ)ﻉ( ؛ ﺏ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺣﮑﺎﻳﺖ ﺭﻗﺎﺑﺖ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﻲ ﻭ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻲ )ﻉ( ؛ ﺝ‪ :‬ﺫﮐﺮ‬
‫ﺧﻴﺎﻝ ﻧﻘﺶ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ؛ ﺩ‪ :‬ﺣﮑﺎﻳﺖ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﻭ ﺯﺭﮔﺮ؛ ﻫـ‪ :‬ﺣﮑﺎﻳﺖ‬
‫ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻩ ﻭ ﺩﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﺵ‪.۱۱ ،‬ﻫﻔﺖ ﻗﻠﻢ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‪.۱۲ ،‬ﺫﮐﺮ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﻣﺘﺄﺧﺮ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻒ‪ :‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﺧﺮﺍﺳﺎﻥ؛ ﺏ‪ :‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻋﺮﺍﻕ ﻭ ﻓﺎﺭﺱ‪.۱۳ ،‬ﺳﺘﺎﻳﺶ ﻭ ﺩﻋﺎﻱ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‪.۱۴ ،‬ﻋﻠّﺖ‬
‫ﮔﺮﺩﺁﻭﺭﻱ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﻭ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻦ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‪.۱۵ ،‬ﻧﻌﺖ ﺁﻓﺮﻳﻨﺶ‬
‫ﭘﺮﻭﺭﺩﮔﺎﺭ‪.۱۶ ،‬ﺫﮐﺮ ﻣﺎﺩﻩﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﺗﻤﺎﻡ )ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ‪(۳‬‬
‫ﻫﻢﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺷﻴﻮﻩ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻫﻨﺮﻫﺎﻱ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺷﮑﻞ ﺯﻳﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺑﺮ ﺩﻭ ﻧﻮﻉ‪.۱ :‬ﻗﻠﻢ ﻧﺒﺎﺗﻲ؛ ‪.۲‬ﻗﻠﻢ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﺎﻥ )ﺻﺎﺣﺒﺎﻥ ﻗﻠﻢ ﻧﺒﺎﺗﻲ( ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻉ ﻗﻠﻢ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻒ‪.‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻗﻼﻡ ﺳﺘﻪ؛ ﺏ‪.‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﻧﺴﺘﻌﻠﻴﻖ؛‬
‫ﺝ‪.‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻖ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ )ﺻﺎﺣﺒﺎﻥ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﻲ( ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺟﻐﺮﺍﻓﻴﺎ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻒ(ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﻣﺸﻬﻮﺭ ﺧﺮﺍﺳﺎﻥ؛ ﺏ(ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﻋﺮﺍﻕ‬
‫ﻭ ﻓﺎﺭﺱ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺟﺰﺍﻱ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ‬
‫ﮐﻮﺋﻴﻦ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻗﺮﺍﺭﺩﺍﺩﻱ ﺑﻪ ﮐﺎﺭ ﺭﻓﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺶ ﺍﺛﺮ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ ﺭﺍ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻲ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ :‬ﻳﮏ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺗﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺗﻲ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺛﺮ‪ .‬ﻫﺮﮐﺪﺍﻡ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻪ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺗﻔﮑﻴﮏ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻋﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ )ﮐﻮﺋﻴﻦ‪۱۳۸۷ ،‬ﺏ‪.(۸۴-۸۳ :‬‬
‫ﻗﺎﺳﻤﻲ ﻭ ﺭﺣﻤﺎﻧﻲﻓﺮ ﺩﺭ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﻧﺴﺒﺘﴼ ﻣﻔﺼﻞ ﺧﻮﺩ‬
‫ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻉ ﻧﻈﺮﺍﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﺟﺰﺍﻱ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎ‬
‫ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻣﻲﮐﻨﻨﺪ‪:‬‬
‫‪ .۱‬ﻣﻄﻠﻊ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻲ ﻳﺎ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﺪﻳﻪ؛ ‪ .۲‬ﺫﮐﺮ ﻓﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﺎﺏ )ﺍﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺑﻌﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻦﺑﻌﺪ ﻣﺨﻔﻒ »ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﻌﺪﺍﻟﺤﻤﺪِ ﻭ ّ‬

‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪ .١‬ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻖ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻭﻗﺎﻳﻊﻧﺎﻣﻪﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺩﻭﺍﻭﻳﻦ ﺷﻌﺮﻱ ﺑﺎ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻣﺄﺧﺬ‪ :‬ﻧﮕﺎﺭﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻭﻗﺎﻳﻊﻧﺎﻣﻪﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺩﻭﺍﻭﻳﻦ ﺷﻌﺮ‬

‫ﻣﻄﻠﻊ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻲ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﺪﻳﻪ‬

‫ﻓﺼﻞ ﺍﻟﺨﻄﺎﺏ‬ ‫‪ .١‬ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﻧﺨﺴﺘﻴﻦ ﺩﺭﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ‬

‫ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺛﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺮ ﻓﻴﻠﻴﭗ ﺳﻴﺪﻧﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﺤﺜﻲ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺣﮑﻤﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻭ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻴﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﻋﺮﻭﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩﺳﺮﺷﻨﺎﺱﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﺷﻌﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﻭ ﺳﺎﻝ ﭘﻴﺶ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻲ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺳﻮﺍﺑﻖ ﺧﺪﻣﺎﺗﻲ ﺍﻭ‬ ‫ﺍﺯ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﺵ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﮐﺎﻣﻞ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮﺡ‬
‫ﺫﮐﺮ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤﺎﺗﻲ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﮐﺘﺎﺏ ﻭ ﻫﺪﻑ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﺵ‬ ‫ﺯﻳﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫‪Sidney, Philip, A Defense of‬‬
‫ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻓﺼﻞﺑﻨﺪﻱ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﺐ‬ ‫‪Poesie or An Apology for Po-‬‬
‫‪---‬‬ ‫‪etry, 1583.‬‬
 ‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ‪ -‬ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﻲ ﻧﮕﺮﻩ‬

‫ﺩﺑﻴﺮ‪ /‬ﺩﮔﺮ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﺯﻭ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ /‬ﮐﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺏ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻥ‬

‫ﺩﺭﺍﻓﺸﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ /‬ﻧﮕﺎﺭﻧﺪﻩ ﻧﻘﺶ ﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﻓﺮﻳﺐ‪ /‬ﺍﺯﻭ ﮐﺎﺭﮔﺎﻩ ﻫﻨﺮ‬
‫ﺩﻳﺪﻩ ﺯﻳﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺑﺪﺍﻉ »ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻗﻠﻢ« ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻣﻴﺪ‪» .‬ﮐﻠﻴﺪ ﻫﻨﺮ«‬
‫ﻧﻮﮎ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻗﻠﻢ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻧﺒﺎﺗﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻳﺎ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﻲ‪» .‬ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻧﮑﺘﻪ ﻣﺆ ّﮐﺪ«‪ ،‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻴﺖ ﺑﺨﺸﻴﺪﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﻲ‬
‫)ﻗﻠﻢﻣﻮﻱ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ(‪»،‬ﺑﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﻋﺪﻝ‪ ،...‬ﺑﻪ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﻨﺪ ﻣﺮﻗﻌﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﻂ ﻣﻲﺳﺎﺧﺖ‪ ،‬ﻳﮑﭙﺎﺭﭼﮕﻲ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺑﺨﺸﻴﺪ« )ﭘﻮﺭﺗﺮ‪ .(۱۱۶ : ۱۳۸۸،‬ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻓﻲ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ‬
‫ﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻫﻤﻮﺍﺭﻩ ﺩﻏﺪﻏﻪ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻭ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺮ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺭﮐـ‪ .‬ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺻﺎﺩﻗﻲ ﺑﻴﮏ ﺍﻓﺸﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﺑﻴﺎﺕ ‪ ۱۲۱ ،۱۱۱ ،۳۲ ،۲۲ ،۲۱ ،۱۲‬ﻭ‬
‫‪ (۱۲۵‬ﭘﻮﺭﺗﺮ ﺍﻳﻦﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﺩ ﮐﻪ »ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻞ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻱ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻭ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺑﻲ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﮐﺮﺩ‪ :‬ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﭽﻮﻥ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺣﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻨﺎ‪ ،‬ﻳﺎ ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﻧﮕﺎﺷﺘﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺭﻭ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﺎﺵ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﻧﻤﻲﮐﻮﺷﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺒﻴﻌﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﺯﺁﻓﺮﻳﻨﻲ ﮐﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﮑﻪ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻧﻮﻋﻲ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﺯ ﻣﻲﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ« )ﭘﻮﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‪.(۱۲۱ :‬‬

‫ﺝ‪.‬ﺍﻧﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﻣﻨﺸﺄ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻲ )ﻉ(‬

‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺷﺮﺡ ﻣﻨﺸﺄ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺣﻴﻮﺍﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺮ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻲ )ﻉ( ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺫﮐﺮ ﻣﻨﺸﺄﻳﻲ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﺸﺎﻥ )ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺳﺖﻣﺤﻤﺪ ]‪۹۵۱‬ﻕ‪ /‬ﻣﺎﻳﻞ ﻫﺮﻭﻱ‪ [۱۳۷۲ ،‬ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﻭ ﺍﺑﺪﺍﻉ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺍﻧﻴﺎﻝ ﻧﺒﻲ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺧﺪﺍﻭﻧﺪ ﻣﻲﺭﺳﺎﻧﺪ( ﺧﻮﺩﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﻣﻲﮐﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻱ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ـ ﻓﻘﻬﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺩ‪.‬ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺰﻳﻴﻦ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﮐﺮﻳﻢ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻲ )ﻉ(‪:‬‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﻣﮑﺮﺭ ﺑﻪ ﮐﺎﺗﺐ ﻭﺣﻲ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ‬
‫ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﻲ)ﻉ(‪ ،‬ﺗﺬﻫﻴﺐ ﻭ ﺗﺰﻳﻴﻦ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﺸﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﻲﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪:‬‬
‫»]ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ[ ﻣﺘﻤﺴﮏ ﺑﺪﻳﻦﺍﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻘﻮﺵ ﺍﻗﻼﻡ ﮐﺮﺍﻣﺖ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﺁﻥ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﻬﺬﻳﺐ]ﺗﺬﻫﻴﺐ؟[ ﺍﻳﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﺰﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺭﺃﻱﺍﻟﻌﻴﻦ ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ »ﮐﺘﺒﻪ ﻭ ﺫﻫﺒﻪ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺑﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺑﻴﻄﺎﻟﺐ« ﻗﻠﻤﻲ ﻓﺮﻣﻮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻩ‪.‬ﺣﮑﺎﻳﺖ ﺭﻗﺎﺑﺖ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻲ )ﻉ(ﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﻲ )ﺧﺘﺎﻳﻲ(‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺣﮑﺎﻳﺖ ﺷﮑﺴﺖ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻗﺎﺑﺖ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻲ)ﻉ(ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺷﺎﻫﺪﻱ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺮﺻﻪ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻣﻲﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﮑﺎﻳﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻈﻢ ﻭ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺫﮐﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻋﺒﺪﻱ ﺑﻴﮓ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﮐﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻤﺎﻥﻃﻮﺭ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺳﻼﻡ ﺑﺮﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﭼﻮ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻧﺒﻮﺕ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﺭﺳﻴﺪ‪ /‬ﻗﻠﻢ ﺑﺮ ﺳﺮ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺍﺩﻳﺎﻥ ﮐﺸﻴﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮﮔﺮﻱ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﻲ)ﻉ(ﮐﻪ ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮﮔﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺮﺗﺮ ﺍﺯ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮﮔﺮﻱﻫﺎﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﺯﻱ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﮐﻠﻤﻪ »ﺧﻄﺎ« ﺗﺄﮐﻴﺪ ﺑﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻄﺎ ﺭﻓﺘﻦ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺧﻄﺎﻳﻲﻧﮋﺍﺩ‬
‫‪۹‬‬
‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ‪ ۴۶‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎﻥ‪۹۷‬‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ‪ .٢‬ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻣﻪ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺧﻂ ﺷﺎﻩ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ ﻧﻴﺸﺎﺑﻮﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺖ ‪٩٦٤‬‬
‫ﻕ‪ ،‬ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺨﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻠﮏ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ ،٦٠٢٢‬ﻣﺄﺧﺬ‪ :‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‪٥٣ :‬‬
‫ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﺎﺕ ﻭ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻴﺖﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ‬
‫ﺗﻔﮑﺮ ﺷﻴﻌﻲ ﻭ ﺑﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻲ )ﻉ( ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪:‬‬
‫‪.۱‬ﻣﻨﺸﺄ ﺍﻟﻮﻫﻲ ﻭ ﻗﺪﺳﻲ ﺧﻂ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻒ‪.‬ﺧﻠﻖ ﻗﻠﻢ‪ :‬ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺗﺄﮐﻴﺪ ﺑﺮ ﺧﻠﻖ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ‬
‫ﭘﺮﻭﺭﺩﮔﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻥ ﺍﺣﺎﺩﻳﺜﻲ ﺍﺯ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺒﺮ)ﺹ(‬
‫ﻭ ﺣﻀﺮﺕ ﻋﻠﻲ)ﻉ(ﺍﺯ ﻣﺰﺍﻳﺎ ﻭ ﻣﺤﺎﺳﻦ ﺧﻂ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ‬
‫ﺳﺨﻦ ﺭﺍﻧﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺏ‪ .‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻗﻠﻢ‪ :‬ﻳﮑﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‪ ،‬ﺁﻳﻴﻦ ﺍﺳﮑﻨﺪﺭﻱ )ﺣﺪﻭﺩ ‪ ۹۵۰‬ﻕ(‪ ،‬ﺍﺛﺮ ﻋﺒﺪﻱ ﺑﻴﮓ‬
‫ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻓﺼﻞ »ﺍﺭﺟﻤﻨﺪﻱ ﻫﻨﺮ« ﻗﻄﻌﻪ ﺑﻲﻧﻈﻴﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﮐﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﻭﻗﻠﻢ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ )ﻋﺒﺪﻱ ﺑﻴﮓ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ‪/۹۵۰،‬ﭼﺎﭖ ﻣﺴﮑﻮ‬
‫‪ . (۱۰۳ :۱۹۷۷‬ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺫﮐﺮ ﻣﻨﺒﻊ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻠﺨﻴﺺ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻗﺘﺒﺎﺱ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﮐﻠﻴﺪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺧﺮﺩ ﺷﺪ ﻋﻠﻢ‪ /‬ﮐﻠﻴﺪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﭼﻴﺴﺖ ﻧﻮﮎ ﻗﻠﻢ‪/‬‬
‫ﻗﻠﻢ ﻧﻘﺶﺑﻨﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﭼﻬﺮﻩﮔﺸﺎﻱ‪ /‬ﻗﻠﻢ ﺑﺮ ﺩﻭ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺁﻓﺮﻳﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺧﺪﺍﻱ‪ /‬ﻳﮑﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻧﺒﺎﺕ ﺁﻣﺪﻩ ﺩﻟﭙﺬﻳﺮ‪ /‬ﻧﻲ ﻗﻨﺪ ﮔﺸﺘﻪ ﺯ ﺑﻬﺮ‬
 ‫ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‪ :‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺷﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﮑﺮﺩ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺭﻗﻢ ﮐﺮﺩ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺩﻟﺮﺑﺎ‪ /‬ﮐﻪ ﺷﺪ ﺣﻴﺮﺕ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻫﻞ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎ‪ /‬ﭼﻮ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺻﻞ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺘﺸﺎﻥ‪ /‬ﺑﺸﺪ ﻧﻘﺸﻬﺎﻱ ﺩﮔﺮ‬
‫ﭘﺴﺘﺸﺎﻥ‬
‫‪.۲‬ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻭﺍﻗﻊﮔﺮﺍ‪ :‬ﻳﮑﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻠﻲ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻤﻮﺍﺭﻩ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺎﺩ ﻓﻘﻬﺎ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺭ ّﺩ ﻫﺮﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﮕﺮﻱ ﺑﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﮕﺮﺍ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻗﺼﺪ ﺭﻗﺎﺑﺖ ﺑﺎ ﭘﺮﻭﺭﺩﮔﺎﺭ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺣﺪﻳﺜﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻣﻨﺴﻮﺏ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﭘﻴﺎﻣﺒﺮ )ﺹ( ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻀﻤﻮﻥ ﮐﻪ »ﻫﺮﮐﺲ ﺗﻤﺜﺎﻟﻲ ﺑﺴﺎﺯﺩ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺭﺳﺘﺎﺧﻴﺰ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻭ ﺗﮑﻠﻴﻒ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥ ﺭﻭﺡ ﺑﺪﻣﺪ‪ ،‬ﺣﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺁﻥﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﮐﺎﺭ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻤﻲﺁﻳﺪ« )ﺷﻴﺦ ﺻﺪﻭﻕ‪۱۴۰۴ ،‬ﻕ‪-۳:‬‬
‫‪ ۱۸‬ﻭ ﺭﮐـ‪ .‬ﮐﻠﻴﻨﻲ‪۱۳۱۸ ،‬ﻕ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻲﺗﺎ(‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲﺭﺳﺪ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ ـ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻧﭽﻪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺻﻨﻒ ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻧﺎﻥ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺪ ـ ﺑﺎ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺿﻮﻉ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭ ﺣﮑﺎﻳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺜﺮ ﻭ ﻧﻈﻢ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﮐﻠﻲ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭﺍﻗﻊﮔﺮﺍ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻒ‪.‬ﺣﮑﺎﻳﺖ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﻭ ﺯﺭﮔﺮ‪ :‬ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻨﺸﻴﻨﻲ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﻭ‬
‫ﺯﺭﮔﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺧﻴﻢ ﺷﺪﻥ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻣﺎﻟﻲ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ‪ ،‬ﺳﻔﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﻡ‪ ،‬ﺣﻀﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺑﺘﺨﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ ﺳﺮﻗﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺧﻴﺎﻧﺖ ﺯﺭﮔﺮ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺧﺖ »ﺗﻤﺜﺎﻝِ«‬
‫ﻭﺍﻗﻊﮔﺮﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺣﺎﺋﺰ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫»ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺮﺍﺳﺎﻥ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺑﻲﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺯﺭﮔﺮﻱ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻢ« ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻇﺎﻫﺮﴽ ﻭﺿﻊ ﻣﺎﻟﻲ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﻭﺧﻴﻢ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺯﺭﮔﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﻡ ﺳﻔﺮ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺘﺨﺎﻧﻪﺍﻱ‬
‫ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ‪.٣‬ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﺁﻏﺎﺯﻳﻦ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺧﻂ ﺷﺎﻩ ﻣﺤﻤﻮﺩ ﻧﻴﺸﺎﺑﻮﺭﻱ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺍﻗﺎﻣﺖ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﮐﻠﮏ ﻭ ﺣﻘﻪ‪» ،‬ﻋﺎﮐﻔﺎﻥ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺘﺨﺎﻧﻪ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺮﻳﺪ‬
‫ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺖ ‪ ٩٦٤‬ﻕ‪ ،‬ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺨﺎﻧﻪ ﻣﻠﮏ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ ،٦٠٢٢‬ﻣﺄﺧﺬ‪ :‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻭ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻨﺪ«‪.‬ﺑﻌﺪ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺳﺎﻝ‪ ،‬ﻳﮏ ﺷﺐ ﺑﺘﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺷﮑﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻃﻼ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺮﻩ ﺯﻳﺎﺩﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﺠﺎ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻫﺮ‬
‫ﻃﻮﺭ ﺑﻮﺩ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺮﺍﺳﺎﻥ ﺭﺳﺎﻧﺪﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻃﻼ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺮﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺻﻨﺪﻭﻗﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺧﺎﻧﻪﺍﻱ ﮔﺬﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﻣﺼﺮﻑ ﻣﻲﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ ﻏﺬﺍ ﻣﻲﮔﺸﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﻪ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻣﺮ‬ ‫ﺭﻭﺯﻱ ﺯﺭﮔﺮ ﺧﻴﺎﻧﺖ ﮐﺮﺩ ﻭ ﻧﺼﻔﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻃﻼﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺮﻩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺖ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺁﻥ ﺩﻭ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺠﻠﺲ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﺁﻣﺪﻧﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻳﻲ ﺩﻓﻦ ﮐﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﻣﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺻﻴﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺯﺭﮔﺮ ﺧﻴﺎﻧﺖ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﺁﻣﺪ‬ ‫ﺩﻭ ﺑﭽﻪ ﺧﺮﺱ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻨﺰﻝ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪» .‬ﭘﻴﮑﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻮﺏ‬
‫ﻭ ﻃﻼ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺮﻩﺍﻱ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﭘﺲ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻭ ﺗﻮﺑﻪ ﮐﺮﺩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﺮﺍﺷﻴﺪﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺯﺭﮔﺮ ﭼﻬﺮﻩ ﮔﺸﺎﺋﻲ ﮐﺮﺩ« ﻭ ﺑﭽﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﺑﭽﻪ ﺧﺮﺱﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻭ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻭ ﭘﺴﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﭘﺲ ﺩﺍﺩ‬ ‫ﺧﺮﺱﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻏﺬﺍ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﺩ ﻭ ﺁﻥ ﻏﺬﺍ »ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻨﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺑﻐﻞ ﺁﻥ‬
‫ﻭ ﭘﺮﺩﻩ »ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﻱ ﺭﺍﺯ ﺑﺮﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻭ ﺭﻓﻴﻖ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻋﺬﺭ‬ ‫ﺗﻤﺜﺎﻝ ﻣﻲﻧﻬﺎﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺍﻳﺸﺎﻥ ﺑﺪﺍﻥ ﻋﺎﺩﺕ ﮐﺮﺩﻧﺪ«‪ .‬ﻳﮏ ﺭﻭﺯ ﺯﺭﮔﺮ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ«‪.‬‬ ‫ﻭ ﺩﻭ ﭘﺴﺮﺵ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻴﻬﻤﺎﻧﻲ ﺩﻋﻮﺕ ﮐﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺷﺐ ﭘﺴﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻭ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﺩﺯﺩﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﺻﺒﺢ ﺯﺭﮔﺮ ﻫﺮ ﭼﻘﺪﺭ ﮐﻪ ﺟﺴﺘﺠﻮ ﮐﺮﺩ ﭘﺴﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺏ‪.‬ﺣﮑﺎﻳﺖ ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻩ ﻭ ﺩﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻧﻴﺎﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﻧﺰﺩ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﺭﻓﺘﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪ ﮐﻪ ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻫﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﻣﺼﺎﺣﺐ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﮔﻔﺖ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﻋﺠﻴﺒﻲ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪» .‬ﭘﺴﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻭ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﺎﻫﺮ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﻭﻟﻲ ﻳﮑﻲ ﺍﺯ‬ ‫ﺭﺍ ﺷﺐ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻨﺰﻟﻲ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺑﻮﺩﻡ ﭼﻮﻥ ﺻﺒﺢ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﺯ ﮐﺮﺩﻡ‬
‫ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺭﺷﮏ ﻭ ﮐﻴﻦ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻝ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ‪:‬‬ ‫ﺍﻳﺸﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺴﺦ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺩﻭ ﺧﺮﺱ ﺑﭽﻪ«‪.‬‬
‫ﺯﺩ ﻧﻘﺶ ﮐﺰﻭ ﺷﻪ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﺪﺍﺭ‬ ‫»ﺣﺎﺿﺮﺍﻥ ﮔﻔﺘﻨﺪ ﻣﺴﺨﻴﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍ ّﻣﺖ ﭘﻴﻐﻤﺒﺮ )ﺹ(‬
‫ﺷﺪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺧﻮﻳﺶ ﺭﺍ ﺧﺮﻳﺪﺍﺭ‬ ‫ﻧﻤﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪ«‪ .‬ﭼﻪ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺥ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ »ﮐﻪ ﻣﻮﺍﻓﻖ ﻣﻠﺖ ﻧَﺒﻮﻱ‬
‫ﻭﻟﻲ ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‬ ‫ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ«‪ ،‬ﻭ ﭘﺴﺮﺍﻥ ﺍﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﮑﻞ ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪﻩﺍﻧﺪ؟‬
‫ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﺻﺤﻴﻔﻪﺍﻱ ﺩﻝ ﺍﻓﺮﻭﺯ‬ ‫ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﭽﻪ ﺧﺮﺱﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺠﻠﺲ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻧﺪ ﻭ ﭼﻮﻥ ﺩﻭ‬
‫ﺑﻨﮕﺎﺷﺖ ﺩﺭﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻃﺒﻊ ﻓﻴﺮﻭﺯ‬ ‫ﺳﻪ ﺭﻭﺯ ﺍﺯ ﻭﻋﺪﻩ ﻏﺬﺍﻱ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﮔﺮﺳﻨﻪ‬
‫ﺷﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻴﺮﻱ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺧﺸﻢ‬ ‫ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﻭ »ﭼﻮﻥ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻳﺸﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺭﮔﺮ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺗﻤﺜﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺯﻭ ﺗﺎﺏ ﺳﻨﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻮﺷﻪ ﭼﺸﻢ‬ ‫ﭘﻨﺪﺍﺷﺘﻨﺪ«‪ ،‬ﺑﻲﺻﺒﺮﺍﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻤﺖ ﺍﻭ ﺭﻓﺘﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻴﺐ ﻭ ﺑﻐﻞ‬
 ‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ‪ -‬ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﻲ ﻧﮕﺮﻩ‬

‫ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻭ ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﻘﻬﻲ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻼﺵ ﻭﺳﻴﻌﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺮﺡ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪ ۲‬ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﮕﺸﺎﺩ ﺯ ﺭﺷﺘﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺑﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻲ‬
‫ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒﴼ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻭﺍﺳﻂ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ ﻃﻮﻻﻧﻲ ﺷﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺍﻭﻝ )ﺣﮑـ ‪۹۸۴-۹۳۰ .‬ﻕ( ﺑﻪ ﺭﺷﺘﻪ ﺗﺤﺮﻳﺮ ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﺍﮐﺜﺮ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻣﺤﻘﻘﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﻪ ﻭﺍﻓﺮﻱ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺑﻪﺧﺼﻮﺹ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ )ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺭﮐـ‪ .‬ﻗﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ‪ ،۱۳۶۶‬ﻋﺒﺪﻱ ﺑﻴﮓ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﻣﻠﻮ(‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻓﻲ ﺗﻮﺑﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﻝ ﭘﺎﻳﺘﺨﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻗﺰﻭﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻫﺰﻳﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺧﺖ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺯ ﺑﻨﺎﻫﺎﻱ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺧﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻟﺌﺎﻣﺖ ﻭ ﻣﺎﻝﺍﻧﺪﻭﺯﻱ‬
‫ﻭﻱ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﺍﺗﻲ ﺟﺪﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻭ ﺭﻭﻧﺪ ﮐﺎﺭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺪﻳﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺿﻤﻦ ﺑﻲﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﻧﺪﺍﻧﺴﺘﻦ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‬
‫ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪﺍﻱ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺑﺮ ﺩﻭ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻧﻘﻄﻪ ﮐﺎﻧﻮﻧﻲ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻭ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﻤﺮﮐﺰ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﺎﻩﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‬
‫ﺷﺎﻩﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻴﺴﺖ ﺳﺎﻟﮕﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﻤﻴﻦ ﺳﺎ ِﻝ ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻫﻲ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩ )ﺳﺎﻝ ‪ ۹۴۰‬ﻕ‪ ،‬ﻃﺒﻖ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ ﺍﺳﮑﻨﺪﺭﺑﻴﮓ ‪ ۹۳۹‬ﻕ( ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻣﺸﻬﺪ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﺭﺿﺎ )ﻉ(ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﺏ ﺩﻳﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﻪ‬
‫ﮔﻨﺎﻫﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺗﺒﻪﮐﺎﺭﻱﻫﺎ ﺗﻮﺑﺖ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻟﺸﮑﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺳﭙﺎﻫﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻗﻠﻤﺮﻭ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺧﻮﻳﺶ ﺭﺍ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺮﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﮔﻨﺎﻩ ﻭ ﺗﺒﻪ‬
‫ﮐﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﻣﻴﮕﺴﺎﺭﻱ ﺗﻮﺑﺖ ﺩﺍﺩ ﻭ ﻣﻲﺧﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺑﻮﺯﻩﺧﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎ‬
‫ﻭ ﺑﻴﺖ ﺍﻟﻠﻄﻒ ﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺴﺖ ﻭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻧﺎﻣﺸﺮﻭﻉﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷﺖ )ﺍﺳﮑﻨﺪﺭﺑﻴﮓ‪ ،۱۲۲ ،‬ﻗﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ‪.(۲۲۵ :۱۳۵۹ ،‬‬
‫ﻧﺎﻣﻪﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ ﺷﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ ﻫﻢﭼﻨﺎﻥ ﺑﺮ ﺗﻮﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻘﺮ ﻭ ﺑﺮ ﺗﻮﺑﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺍﻣﺮﺍ ﻭ ﻟﺸﮑﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻫﻢﭼﻨﻴﻦ‬‫ﺧﻮﺩ ّ‬
‫ﻣﺼﺮ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ‬
‫ّ‬ ‫ﺟﻠﻮﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﺎﻫﻲ ﻭ ﻣﻔﺎﺳﺪ‬
‫ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﻋﺜﻤﺎﻧﻲ ﺩﺭ ‪۹۶۱‬ﻕ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥ ﻭ‬
‫ﺣﮑﻢ ﺷﺎﻫﺰﺍﺩﻩ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻥ ﺍﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻣﺎﺭﺕ ﻣﺸﻬﺪ ﺩﺭ ‪۹۶۳‬ﻕ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺗﻴﺮ ﮔﻬﻲ ﮐﺠﻲ ﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪﻥ‬
‫ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﭼﺸﻤﻲ ﺑﻬﻢ ﻧﻬﺎﺩﻥ )ﮐﺬﺍ(‬
‫ﺯﻳﻦ ﺗﺎﺯﻩ ﺧﻴﺎﻝ ﺁﻥ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪ‬
‫ﺷﻪ ﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﭼﻮ ﻓﮑﺮ ﺳﺤﺮ ﺳﻨﺠﺶ‬
‫ﺑﺨﺸﻴﺪ ﺩﻭ ﻣﻠﮏ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺭﻧﺠﺶ‬
‫ﺯﺍﻥ ﻳﮏ ﺻﻠﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻃﺮﺍﺯﻳﺶ‬
‫ﺯﻳﻦ ﻳﮏ ﺻﻠﻪ ﺧﻴﺎﻝ ﺑﺎﺯﻳﺶ‬
‫ﺯﺍﻧﮑﺎﺭ ﺩﻝ ﺣﺴﻮﺩ ﺑﺸﮑﺴﺖ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻣﻴﺪ ﺑﻪ ﮐﻨﺞ ﻏﺼﻪ ﺑﻨﺸﺴﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺒﻞ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭ ﺣﮑﺎﻳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﺑﺮﺗﺮﻱ ﻗﻮﻩ ﺗﺨﻴﻞ ﻃﺒﻘﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺎﺵ ﺑﺮ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺍﻫﻞ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺘﺬﮐﺮ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﻫﻢﭼﻨﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺄﮐﻴﺪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺖ ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮﭘﺮﻭﺭﻱ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﮑﺎﻳﺖ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺒﺎﻁ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪.۳‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻫﻔﺖ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻨﺎﻇﺮ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺷﺶ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻔﺖ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻼﺵ ﻣﻲﮐﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻫﺮﭼﻪ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻢ ﻧﺰﺩﻳﮏ ﺳﺎﺯﺩ‪:‬‬
‫»ﻭ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﺎﻥ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺧﻂ ﺷﺶ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺍﺻﻞ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻓﻦ‬
‫ﻧﻴﺰ ﻫﻔﺖ ﻗﻠﻢ ﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ :‬ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ‪ ،‬ﺧﻄﺎﺋﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﻧﮕﻲ‪ ،‬ﻓﺼﺎﻟﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺍﺑﺮ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻕ‪ ،‬ﮔﺮﻩ«‬
‫ﻇﺎﻫﺮﴽ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻗﺪﻳﻤﻲﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻪ »ﻫﻔﺖ ﺍﺻﻞ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ«‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ )ﭘﻮﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ‪ .(۱۲۲ :‬ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦﺟﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺭﺟﺎﻉ‬
‫ﺗﻘﻠﻴﺪﮔﺮﺍﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ »ﺷﺶ ﻗﻠﻢ« ﻳﺎ »ﺍﻗﻼﻡ ﺳﺘﻪ« ﺩﺭ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺳﻌﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻫﻲ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﻝ ‪۹۶۶‬ﻕ ﻋﺒﺪﻱﺑﻴﮏ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﺭﻭﺿﻪﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻔﺖ ﺍﺻﻞ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‬
‫ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﻲﻧﻮﻳﺴﺪ‪:‬‬
‫ﻧﻘﺶ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻔﺖ ﺍﺻﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻭ ﻓﺼﻞ ﻭ ﻭﺻﻞ‪ /‬ﻫﻤﭽﻮ ﺳﭙﻬﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻭ ﻫﻔﺖ ﺍﺻﻞ‪ /‬ﺭﻭﻧﻖ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻴﺎﻥ‪ /‬ﮐﺮﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺧﻄﺎﻫﺎﻱ ﻓﺮﻧﮕﻲ ﻋﻴﺎﻥ )ﭘﻮﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻋﺒﺪﻱ ﺑﻴﮓ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ،۵۰ :۹۶۶‬ﭼﺎﭖ ﻣﺴﮑﻮ ‪.(۱۹۷۴‬‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﻱ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺁﺷﮑﺎﺭ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ‬

‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .٢‬ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‪ .‬ﻣﺄﺧﺬ‪ :‬ﻧﮕﺎﺭﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ‬

‫ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‬

‫ﻣﻨﺸﺄ ﺍﻟﻮﻫﻲ ﻭ ﻗﺪﺳﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ )ﺧﻠﻖ ﻗﻠﻢ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺧﺪﺍﻭﻧﺪ ﻭ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻢ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻗﻠﻢ ﻭ ﺍﻧﺘﺴﺎﺏ ﻣﻨﺸﺄ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻲ )ﻉ((‬

‫ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺰﻳﻴﻦ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻲ)ﻉ(‬

‫ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻗﻠﻢ ﻭﺫﮐﺮ ﻫﻔﺖ ﺍﺻﻞ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‬

‫ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﮕﺮﺍ‬

‫‪۱۱‬‬
‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ‪ ۴۶‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎﻥ‪۹۷‬‬
 ‫ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‪ :‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺷﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪ .٣‬ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺟﺴﺘﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‪ .‬ﻣﺄﺧﺬ‪ :‬ﺯﺍﺭﻋﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺨﺸﯽ ﺍﺯ ﺟﺪﻭﻝ‪.۱۰۳ :۱۳۹۱ ،‬‬ ‫ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﮑﺮﺩ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‬

‫ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻲ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺘﻲ‬

‫ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻲ ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭﺭ ﻳﺎ ﮐﻨﺎﺭﻩ ﮔﻴﺮﻱ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ‬ ‫ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻲ ﻋﻀﻮ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ‬ ‫ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‬

‫ﻣﻘﺪﺱ ﺍﺭﺩﺑﻴﻠﻲ‬ ‫ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﮐﺮﮐﻲ‬ ‫ﻗﺎﺿﻲ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺣﺴﻨﻲ‬

‫ﺷﻴﺦ ﺍﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﻗﻄﻴﻔﻲ‬ ‫ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﺼﻤﺪ ﺣﺎﺭﺛﻲ‬ ‫ﻭﺯﻳﺮ ﺍﻣﻴﺮ ﻧﻌﻤﺖ ﺍﷲ ﺣﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‬
‫‪----------‬‬ ‫ﺷﻴﺦ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﻨﺸﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﻣﻴﺮ ﺟﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺁﺑﺎﺩﻱ‬

‫‪----------‬‬ ‫ﻣﻼ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﷲ ﺷﻮﺷﺘﺮﻱ‬ ‫ﺍﻣﻴﺮ ﻏﻴﺎﺙ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺩﺷﺘﮑﻲ‬

‫ﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺳﺒﺐ ﺷﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻓﻘﻬﺎﻱ ﺷﻴﻌﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺟﺪﻱﺗﺮﻱ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ‬ ‫ﻳﺎ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﻲ ﺩﺭ ‪۹۷۷‬ﻕ ﺑﻪ ﻳﮑﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺣﮑﺎﻡ )ﺟﻌﻔﺮﻱ‪: ۱۳۹۱ ،‬‬
‫ﺣﻜﻮﻣﺖ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻳﻜﻲ ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻋﻼﻗﻪ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‬ ‫‪.(۳۷۸-۳۷۷‬‬
‫ﻭ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻱ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﻣﺤﻘﻖ ﻛﺮﻛﻲ ]ﻓﻮﺕ ‪ ،[۹۴۰‬ﺍﺯ ﻓﻘﻬﺎﻱ ﺑﺮﺟﺴﺘﻪ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﺪ‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ﺗﻮﺑﺖ ﻭ ﭘﺮﻫﻴﺰﮐﺎﺭﻱ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺷﻴﻌﻪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻛﻤﺎﻝ ﺟﺮﺃﺕ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﻣﺸﺎﺭﻛﺖ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﮐﻪ ﺍﺭﺑﺎﺏ ﻃﺮﺏ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻭ ﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪﮔﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺧﻨﻴﺎﮔﺮﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ ﺑﺎ ﺟﺪﻳﺖ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻱ ﻛﺎﺭ ﺁﻣﺪﻥ ﺷﺎﻩ‬ ‫]ﮐﻪ[ ﻧﺰﺩ ﭘﻴﺮﻭﺍﻥ ﺷﺮﻳﻌﺖ ﺑﻲﺍﺭﺯﺵ ﺑﻮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺩﻳﻮﺍﻥ ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‪ ،‬ﺣﻀﻮﺭ ﻓﻘﻴﻬﺎﻥ ﺷﻴﻌﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺳﺮﻋﺖ‬ ‫ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﭘﺎﺩﺷﺎﻩ ﻭ ﺷﺎﻩﺯﺍﺩﮔﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻧﺰﺩ ﺑﺰﺭﮔﺎﻥ ﻭ ﮔﺮﺍﻥﻣﺎﻳﮕﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺶﺗﺮﻱ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﻪ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‬ ‫ﻫﻢ ﺁﺷﮑﺎﺭﺍ ﺍﺭﺟﻲ ﻧﻤﺎﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﻭ ﮔﺮﻭﻫﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺳﺨﺖ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺸﻴﻊ ﻓﻘﺎﻫﺘﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﻧﺪ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﻓﻘﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻧﺰﺩﻳﮑﺎﻥ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﮐﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻃﻮﻻﻧﻲ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺖ ﺍﻭ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺳﺮﻳﻊﺗﺮ ﺷﺪ )ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪ .(۳‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻫﺮﮔﺰ ﻧﻤﻲﮔﺬﺍﺭﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺷﺎﻫﺰﺍﺩﮔﺎﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺁﻧﺎﻥ ﺁﻣﻴﺰﺵ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﻋﺒﺪﻱ ﺑﻴﮓ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺰﻳﻦ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻓﻘﻴﻪ ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﮐﻨﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺟﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺮﻳﻌﺖ ﺑﻴﺮﻭﻥ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ )ﺍﺳﮑﻨﺪﺭ ﺑﻴﮓ‪،‬‬
‫ﺟﺎﻱ ﺣﻜﻴﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺷﻮﺩ‪:‬‬ ‫‪ ۱۹۰ :۱۳۸۴‬ﻭ ‪.(۲۰۹‬‬
‫»]ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ[ ﻣﻴﺮﻏﻴﺎﺙﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﺼﻮﺭ ﺻﺪﺭ ﺭﺍ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺩﺭ ﺧﺼﻮﺹ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻭﺿﻊ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻣﻨﻮﺍﻝ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ‬
‫ﭼﻮﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻓﻘﻪ ﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﻧﺒﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺣﻜﻤﺖ ﻭ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻪ ﻭ ﻫﻴﺄﺕ ﻭ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺻﺖ ﺍﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪» .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻭﺍﺧﺮ ﺍﻭ ]ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ[ ﺭﺍ ﮐﻤﺘﺮ‬
‫ﺭﻳﺎﺿﻲ ﻭ ﻃﺐ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻋﻠﻤﺎ ﻣﻤﺘﺎﺯ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﻣﻨﺼﺐ ﻋﺰﻝ‬ ‫ﮐﺎﺭ ]ﻣﺸﻖ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻭ ﻫﻤﻨﺸﻴﻨﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ[ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﺩ‬
‫ﻓﺮﻣﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﻴﺮ ﻣﻌﺰﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﻧﻘﻴﺐ ﻣﻴﺮﻣﻴﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﺻﻔﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﺭﺍ‬ ‫ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﻫﻢ ﺩﺭﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻧﺎﮔﺰﻳﺮ ﺍﻭ ﺑﺪﺍﻥ ﮐﻤﺘﺮ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻘﺎﻫﺖ ﻣﻤﺘﺎﺯ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺭﻉ ﻭ ﺗﻘﻮﺍ ﺑﻴﻦﺍﻻﻗﺮﺍﻥ ﺳﺮﺍﻓﺮﺍﺯ‬ ‫ﺭﻭﻱ ﻣﻲﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﮐﺎﺭﮐﻨﺎﻥ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﺧﺎﻧﻪ ﻳﺎ ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺨﺎﻧﻪ‬
‫ﻫﻢ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﮐﻪ ﺯﻧﺪﻩ ﻣﺎﻧﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ ﺍﻭ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺮﺧﺺ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩ« )ﺍﺳﮑﻨﺪﺭﺑﻴﮓ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‪ .(۱۷۶ -۱۷۴ :‬ﮐﻔﺎﻳﺖ ﮐﻮﺷﺎ‬
‫ﻋﺪﻡ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻣﺮﺧﺺ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﺍﻳﺸﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺎﺷﻲ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻃﺒﻊ ﻣﺎﻟﻴﺨﻮﻟﻴﺎﻳﻲ )ﺭﮐـ‪ .‬ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺩﺍﻟﺴﺎﻧﺪﺭﻱ ﻭﻧﻴﺰﻱ‪،‬‬
‫‪ ،۴۳۸-۴۳۷ :۱۳۴۹‬ﻗﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‪ (۵۹۹ :‬ﻭ ﺧﺴﺖ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻝﺍﻧﺪﻭﺯﻱ ﺷﺎﻩ)ﺭﮐـ‪ .‬ﺷﺎﺭﺩﻥ‪ ،۳۰۱ :۱۳۴۵ ،‬ﺭﻭﻣﻠﻮ‪:۱۹۳۱ ،‬‬
‫‪ (۱۸۴‬ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺘﻪﺍﺳﺖ )ﮐﻔﺎﻳﺖ‪.(۵۷-۳۲ :۱۳۸۳ ،‬‬

‫ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ‬

‫ﺗﺸﮑﻴﻞ ﻭ ﺍﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﻧﻬﺎﺩ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺖ ﺷﻴﻌﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ‬
‫ﺁﻏﺎﺯ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻧﻬﺎﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺤﺖ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻲ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﺎﻳﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﻣﺎﻡ ﻏﺎﻳﺐ‬
‫ﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺣﺎﮐﻢ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺯﻳﺮ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺗﻖ ﻭ ﻓﺘﻖ ﺍﻣﻮﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻲﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺖ‪ .‬ﺣﺘﻲ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻥﻫﺎﻱ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺘﻲ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﻲﺑﺎﻳﺴﺖ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ﺗﺄﻳﻴﺪ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻲ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲﮔﺮﻓﺖ )ﺯﺍﺭﻋﻴﺎﻥ‪.(۱۰۵ :۱۳۹۱ ،‬‬
‫ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ‪ .١‬ﻣﺆﻟﻔﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻋﻠّﻲ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺄﺧﺬ‪ :‬ﻧﮕﺎﺭﻧﺪﮔﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺩﻭ ﻣﺴﺌﻠﻪ ﺟﺎﻟﺐ ﺑﻪ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
 ‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ‪ -‬ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﻲ ﻧﮕﺮﻩ‬

‫ﻳﺰﺩﻱ ﮐﻪ ﻗﺼﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﻭ ﻧﺰﺩﻳﮏ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﭙﺲ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺳﻨﺖ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻭ ﻣﺸﺨﺺ ﮔﺮﺩﻳﺪ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻨﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﻣﺮﺳﻮﻡ ﺗﺴﻠﻂ ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﭘﻴﺮﻭﻱ‬
‫ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪.(۱‬‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻓﻲ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﻱ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻣﺴﻠّﻢ ﮔﺮﺩﻳﺪ ﮐﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﻭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﺑﺰﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﺗﻼﺵ ﻭﺳﻴﻌﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻭ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪.(۲‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻧﮕﺎﻫﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻭﻗﺎﻳﻊ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﮐﻪ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻫﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻴﺎﻧﻲ ﻗﺮﻥ ﺩﻫﻢ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩ ﻭ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵﻫﺎﻳﻲ‬
‫ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩ ﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺁﺷﮑﺎﺭ ﺷﺪ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻭ ﺑﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﻓﻘﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺣﮑﻮﻣﺘﻲ ﮐﻪ ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺭﺳﻤﻲ ﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﻡ‬
‫)ﻣﻘﺎﻡ ﺻﺪﺭ‪ ،‬ﺷﻴﺦﺍﻻﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﻭ ﻣﻼﻳﻲ( ﺑﻮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ )ﺟﺪﻭﻝ ‪،(۳‬‬
‫ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ ﺑﺮ ﮐﻠﻴﻪ ﻫﻨﺮﻫﺎ ﻭﺧﻴﻢ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﻄﻊ ﻧﻴﺎﺯ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻭ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺷﺮﻋﻲ ﺳﺨﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻓﺸﺎﺭ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺣﺴﺎﺱ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﺧﻼﺻﻪ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺍﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺍﺛﺮ )ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ(ﻧﻘﻄﻪﻣﺸﺘﺮﮎﻭﻣﺤﺼﻮﻝﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲﻧﺎﻣﻪ)ﭘﻴﺶﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ‬
‫ﻓﮑﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺗﺤﺼﻴﻼﺗﻲ ﻭ ﺷﻐﻠﻲ( ﻣﺆﻟﻒ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﺖ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺖ ﻣﺤﻴﻂ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪﺳﺎ ِﺯ ﻣﻮﻗﻌﻴﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﻗﺪﺍﻡ ﻭ ﻋﻤ ِﻞ‬
‫ﻣﺆﻟﻒ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲﺑﺎﺷﺪﻭ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻫﻲ ﻫﻤﻴﺸﮕﻲ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﻭﺍﺣﺪ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ‬
‫ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ).‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﺍﺭ ‪ (۱‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﻭ ﺑﺤﺚ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺧﺼﻮﺹ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻞ ﻭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﭘﺮﺩﺍﺧﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻧﺼﺐ ﻓﺮﻣﻮﺩﻧﺪ« )ﻋﺒﺪﻱ ﺑﻴﮓ‪.(۷۲ :۱۳۶۸ ،‬‬
‫ﺩﺷﺘﮑﻲ ﻓﻴﻠﺴﻮﻑ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﻫﺸﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻪ ﺳﺎﻝ ﺻﺪﺍﺭﺕ‬
‫)‪ (۹۴۴-۹۳۵‬ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﻭ ﮔﻮﻳﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﮐﺮﮐﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﮐﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﮐﻨﺎﺭﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﻳﺶ ﺍﻣﻴﺮ ﻣﻌﺰﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﻓﻴﻀﻲ ﻧﻘﻴﺐ ﻓﻘﻴﻪ ﺍﺻﻔﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﺩﺭ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ‪ ۹۵۲‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺻﺪﺍﺭﺕ ﺭﺳﻴﺪﻩ ﻭ ﻫﻔﺖ ﺳﺎﻟﻲ )‪ (۹۵۱-۹۴۴‬ﺻﺪﺍﺭﺕ‬
‫ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻭ ﺑﺪﻋﺖﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺷﺮﻉ ﺭﺍ ﺭﻭﺍﺝ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺷﻴﺮﻩﺧﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻣﻲﺧﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻟﻔﺴﻘﻪ ﺭﺍ ﻭﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻨﮑﺮﺍﺕ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺁﻻﺕ ﻟﻬﻮ ﻭ ﻗﻤﺎﺭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺸﮑﺴﺖ ﻭ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺳﻘﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻓﺎﺟﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﺗﺒﻪﮐﺎﺭﺍﻥ ﻭ ﻣﻠﺤﺪﺍﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺷﮑﻨﺞ ﻭ ﺭﻧﺞ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﭘﮋﻭﻩ‪(۹۲۷ : ۱۳۵۰ ،‬‬
‫ﺧﻮﺩ ﮐﺮﮐﻲ ﻫﻢ ﺷﻌﺎﺋﺮ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﭘﺎﻱ ﻣﻲﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻣﺎﮐﻦ ﻓﺴﺎﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻭﻳﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻲﮐﺮﺩ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺣﮑﻮﻣﺖ ﺩﺧﺎﻟﺖ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ )ﺭﮐـ‪ .‬ﺗﺤﻔﻪ ﺳﺎﻣﻲ ‪ ،۳۲‬ﺧﻼﺻﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺭﻳﺦ ﻗﻤﻲ‬
‫‪ ،۱۲۰‬ﺍﺣﺴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺭﻳﺦ ‪ ۳۱۳‬ﻭ ‪.(۳۰۴‬‬
‫ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﻓﻘﻴﻬﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺭﻭﻳﮕﺮﺩﺍﻧﻲ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﻝﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﺩﺭ ‪۹۵۱‬ﻕ ﻭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐ ﺍﻟ ّﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﺩﺭ ‪۹۶۴‬ﻕ )ﻫﺮﭼﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻫﻢﭼﻨﺎﻥ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺎﺣﺪﻭﺩﻱ ﻣﺘﻤﺎﻳﻞ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻣﻬﺎﺟﺮﺕ ﻭﺳﻴﻊ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ‬
‫ﺩﻭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﺩ )ﮐﻔﺎﻳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ( ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﻱ ﺯﻧﺪﮔﻲ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ‬
‫ﺛﺎﺑﺖ ﺷﺪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻐﺪﺍﺩﻱ ﮐﻪ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺲ‪ ،‬ﺧﻂ‬
‫ﺷﻨﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻱ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺻﺎﺣﺐ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﻪ ﻗﻄﺒﻴﻪ ﻭ ﻣﺴﻠﻂ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻓﻨﻮﻥ ﺍﻧﺸﺎﺀ ﻭ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﮔﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ‬

‫ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ‬
‫ﻫﺪﻑ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻧﻮﻉ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ »ﭼﺮﺍ«ﻳﻲ ﺍﻣﻮﺭ ﻭ ﭘﺎﺳﺦﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻋﻠﻲ ﻣﻌﺘﺒﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪» .‬ﭼﺮﺍ«ﻳﻲ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﺍﺻﻠﻲ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺑﻮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﻣﺒﻨﺎﻱ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺳﻪ ﻋﻠﺖ ﻣﻬﻢ ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﭘﻴﺶﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ‪ ،‬ﺳﻨﺖ‬
‫ﻧﻮﺷﺘﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﺯﻣﻴﻨﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺁﻥ ﻧﻘﺶ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﮕﻲ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻞ ﻭ ﺗﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﻭ ّ‬
‫ﺗﺄﺧﺮ‬
‫ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﮐﺮﺩ ﮐﻪ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺑﺨﺼﻮﺹ ﻓﻘﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻧﺒﺎﻝ ﺗﺜﺒﻴﺖ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺧﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺳﻌﻲ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﻭ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺩﺭ ﮐﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻣﻮﺭ ﻭ ﺗﻀﻌﻴﻒ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻃﺒﻘﺎﺕ ﻧﺰﺩﻳﮏ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻧﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺑﺮ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﻲ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺟﺐ ﺗﻮﺑﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﮑﺮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺳﺨﺘﮕﻴﺮﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺧﺮﺍﺝ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺑﻲﺍﺭﺝ ﻭ ﺑﻲﺍﺭﺯﺵ ﮐﺮﺩﻥ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﮔﺮﺩﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻭﺝ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻗﺎﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻫﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻨﺘﻬﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻠﻞ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻱ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻧﺎﻡ ﺑﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ‪،‬ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺎﻩ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﺕ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺷﺎﺭﻩ ﮐﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﮐﻪ ﺩﻝ ﺩﺭ ﮔﺮﻭ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺮ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﺎﻥ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺗﺎ ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ ـ ﻭ ﻧﻪ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺫﮐﺮ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﺑﺎ ﮔﻠﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﺁﻥﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﮐﻪ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺮﺍﻥ )ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﺭﺍﮐﺴﺒﺮﻭ‪ (٢٠٠١،‬ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ ـ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺑﺎ ﻫﻤﺮﺍﻫﻲ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﭘﻴﺸﮑﺶ ﮔﺮﺩﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ‬
‫‪۱۳‬‬
‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ‪ ۴۶‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎﻥ‪۹۷‬‬
 ‫ﺩﻓﺎﻋﻴﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ‪ :‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ‬
‫ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺷﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﺎ ﺭﻭﻳﮑﺮﺩ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ‬
‫ﻧﻴﺰ ﻣﻌﻴﺎﺭﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﭼﻮﻥ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻭ ﻧﻔﻮﺫ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺑﺎ ﻣﺬﻫﺐ ﻭ ﻓﻘﻬﺎ ﻭ ﺗﺴﻠﻂ ﺑﻪ ﻓﻦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﮔﻲ‪،‬ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺲ‬ ‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺑﻮﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﺧﻂﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﻭ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﻫﻨﺮﻱ ﻣﻼﮎ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻫﻤﻪ ﻟﺤﺎﻅ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺷﮑﻞ ﻓﻠﺴﻔﻲ ـ ﻓﻘﻬﻲ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺑﺮﻭﺯ ﮐﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺳﺘﻪ ﻋﻠﻞ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻠﻞ ﺻﻮﺭﻱ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻧﺎﻡ ﺑﺮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﭘﺎﺳﺦ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻮﺍﻝ ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ ﮐﻪ ﻇﻬﻮﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻴﻤﻪ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻗﺮﻥ ﺩﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻫﺠﺮﻱ‪ ،‬ﺻﺮﻓًﺎ ﻧﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﺳﻄﻪ ﻋﻠﺘﻲ ﻣﻨﻔﺮﺩ ﻳﺎ ﺣﺘﻲ ﻋﻠﻠﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺮﺽ ﻫﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻠﮑﻪ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺯﻧﺠﻴﺮﻩﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻋﻠﻞ ﻭﺟﻮﺩﻱ ﻭ‬
‫ﺻﻮﺭﻱ ﺩﺭ ﻫﻢﺗﻨﻴﺪﻩ ﺩﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﺮﺧﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺪﺕﻫﺎ ﻗﺒﻞ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺴﺘﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺷﮑﻞ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻭ ﺑﺎ ﻧﺰﺩﻳﮏ ﺷﺪﻥ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺯﻣﺎﻥ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﮕﺮﺍﺗﺮ ﻭ ﻧﻬﺎﻳﺘًﺎ ﻣﻨﺠﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒ ﺷﺪﻩﺍﻧﺪ‪.‬‬

‫ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻭ ﻣﺂﺧﺬ‬
‫ﺍﺳﮑﺎﭼﭙﻮﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﺪﺍ‪ .١٣٨٨ .‬ﺑﻴﻨﺶ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺵ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻫﺎﺷﻢ ﺁﻏﺎﺟﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻧﺸﺮ ﻣﺮﮐﺰ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺳﮑﻨﺪﺭﺑﻴﮓ ﺗﺮﮐﻤﺎﻥ‪ .١٣٨٢.‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﺁﺭﺍﻱ ﻋﺒﺎﺳﻲ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻳﺮﺝ ﺍﻓﺸﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﻣﻴﺮﮐﺒﻴﺮ‬
‫ﺑﺮﻗﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﺣﻤﺪﺑﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺑﻦ ﺧﺎﻟﺪ )ﺑﻲﺗﺎ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺎﺳﻦ‪ .‬ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﺟﻼﻝ ﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺣﺴﻴﻨﻲ‪ ٢.‬ﺝ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻟﮑﺘﺐ ﺍﻻﺳﻼﻣﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﭘﺮﻭﻳﻦ ﮔﻨﺎﺑﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪ‪» .١٣٤٨ .‬ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ«‪ ،‬ﺳﺨﻦ‪ .‬ﺵ ‪ ٢١٣‬ﻭ ‪.٢١٤‬‬
‫ﭘﻮﺭﺗﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻮ ‪» .١٣٨٨.‬ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪ ﺩﻭﻗﻠﻢ ﺗﺎ ﻫﻔﺖ ﺍﺻﻞ ﻧﻘﺎﺷﻲ«‪ ،‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪ ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﮔﺮﻱ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻭ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺟﻤﻬﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺟﻌﻔﺮﻳﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺭﺳﻮﻝ‪ .١٣٩١ .‬ﺻﻔﻮﻳﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺮﺻﻪ ﺩﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﻭ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﺖ ﺝ ‪ ،١‬ﭼﺎﭖ ﺳﻮﻡ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺣﻮﺯﻩ‬
‫ﻭ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻟﺴﺎﻧﺪﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻭﻳﻨﭽﻨﺘﻮ‪ .١٣٤٩ .‬ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺳﻔﺮﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﺎﻱ ﻭﻧﻴﺰﻳﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻣﻨﻮﭼﻬﺮ ﺍﻣﻴﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﺧﻮﺍﺭﺯﻣﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺶﭘﮋﻭﻩ‪،‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺗﻘﻲ‪».١٣٥٠.‬ﻳﮏﭘﺮﺩﻩﺍﺯﺯﻧﺪﮔﺎﻧﻲﺷﺎﻩﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ«‪.‬ﺟﺴﺘﺎﺭﻫﺎﻱﺍﺩﺑﻲ‪.‬ﺵ‪،٢٨‬ﺳﺎﻝ‪.٩٩٧-٩١٥:(٤)٧‬‬
‫ﺭﺍﮐﺴﺒﺮﻭ‪،‬ﺩﻳﻮﻳﺪﺟﻲ‪ ١٣٨٨.‬ﺍﻟﻒ‪».‬ﺭﻓﺘﺎﺭﻧﺎﺑﺴﺎﻣﺎﻥ؟ﺍﻑ‪.‬ﻣﺎﺭﺗﻴﻦﻭﻣﺮﻗﻊﺑﻬﺮﺍﻡﻣﻴﺮﺯﺍ«‪،‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻣﻘﺎﻻﺕﻧﮕﺎﺭﮔﺮﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻭ ﻋﻤﻞ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺻﺎﻟﺢ ﻃﺒﺎﻃﺒﺎﻳﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺟﻤﻬﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺭﺍﮐﺴﺒﺮﻭ‪ ،‬ﺩﻳﻮﻳﺪ ﺟﻲ‪ ١٣٨٨ .‬ﺏ‪» .‬ﺑﻬﺮﺍﻡ ﻣﻴﺮﺯﺍ ﻭ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﻫﺎﻳﺶ«‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﺮ ﻭ ﻣﻌﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﮐﻮﺷﺶ ﺷﻴﻼ‬
‫ﮐﻨﺒﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻣﺰﺩﺍ ﻣﻮﺣﺪ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺮ ﺟﻤﻬﻮﺭﻱ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺭﺣﻴﻤﻲ ﭘﺮﺩﻧﺠﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﻨﻴﻒ‪ ،‬ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﺻﻐﺮ ﻭ ﻣﺮﺍﺛﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﺴﻦ ‪» .١٣٩٥.‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺩﻭﺳﺖ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ‬
‫ﻫﺮﻭﻱ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺑﻬﺮﺍﻡ ﻣﻴﺮﺯﺍﻱ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ«‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﻫﻨﺮﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺴﻤﻲ ﻭ ﮐﺎﺭﺑﺮﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺑﻬﺎﺭ ﻭ ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎﻥ )‪٦٩-٥٣ :(١٧‬‬
‫ﺭﺷﺘﻴﺎﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﮔﻮﺩﺭﺯ‪» .١٣٩٠ .‬ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺍﻓﺸﺎﺭﻳﻪ؛ ﺗﺪﺍﻭﻡ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻮﻝ ﺩﺭ ﻳﮏ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ«‪ ،‬ﺩﻭ‬
‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺮﻱ ﻭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺟﺪﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﺳﺎﻝ‪ ،٨ ) ،٢١‬ﭘﻴﺎﭘﻲ ‪.٦١ -٣٧ :(٩٠‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﻣﻠﻮ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﻦ ﺑﻴﮓ‪ .١٩٣١.‬ﺍﺣﺴﻦ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺭﻳﺦ‪ .‬ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﭼﺎﺭﻟﺲ ﻧﺎﺭﻣﻦ ﺳﻴﺪﻥ‪ ،‬ﮐﻠﮑﺘﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺯﺍﺭﻋﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺮﻳﻢ‪» .١٣٩١ .‬ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺒﺎﺕ ﺭﻭﺣﺎﻧﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﺎ ﺩﻭﻟﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ«‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ‪(٢)٤‬‬
‫‪١١٦ -٨٧ :‬‬
‫ﺳﻪﮐﻲ‪،‬ﻳﻮﺷﻴﻔﻮﺳﺎ‪».١٣٩٠.‬ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦﻣﺤﻤﺪﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥﺑﺮﻣﺮﻗﻊﺷﺎﻩﻃﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ«‪،‬ﻧﺎﻣﻪﺑﻬﺎﺭﺳﺘﺎﻥ‪،‬ﺳﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺩﻭﺍﺯﺩﻫﻢ )‪٥٦-٤١ :(١٩-١٨‬‬
‫ﺷﺎﺭﺩﻥ‪ ،‬ﮊﺍﻥ ‪ .١٣٤٥.‬ﺳﻴﺎﺣﺖﻧﺎﻣﻪ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻋﺒﺎﺳﻲ‪ .‬ﺝ ‪ ، ٨‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻣﻴﺮﮐﺒﻴﺮ‪.‬‬
‫ﺷﻴﺦﺻﺪﻭﻕ‪،‬ﺍﻳﻦﺑﺎﺑﻮﻳﻪ)‪١٤٠٤‬ﻕ‪.‬ﻣﻦﻻﻳﺤﻀﺮﻩﺍﻟﻔﻘﻴﻪ‪.‬ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖﻋﻠﻲﺍﮐﺒﺮﻏﻔﺎﺭﻱ‪٤.‬ﺝ‪.‬ﭼﺎﭖﺩﻭﻡ‪.‬ﻗﻢ‪:‬ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﻣﺪﺭﺳﻴﻦ‪.‬‬
‫ﺻﺎﺩﻗﻲ ﺑﻴﮏ ﺍﻓﺸﺎﺭ‪» .١٣٧٣. ،‬ﻗﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺍﻟﺼﻮﺭ«‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ‪ :‬ﺭﺳﺎﻻﺗﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺧﻮﺷﻨﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﻭ ﻫﻨﺮﻫﺎﻱ ﻭﺍﺑﺴﺘﻪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺣﻤﻴﺪﺭﺿﺎ ﻗﻠﻴﭻ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺭﻭﺯﻧﻪ‪.‬‬
 ‫ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﺔ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ‪ -‬ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﻲ ﻧﮕﺮﻩ‬

‫ﻋﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻓﻨﺪﻱ‪ ،‬ﻣﺼﻄﻔﻲ‪ .١٣٦٩.‬ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺐ ﻫﻨﺮﻭﺭﺍﻥ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺗﻮﻓﻴﻖ ﺳﺒﺤﺎﻧﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺳﺮﻭﺵ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺪﻱ ﺑﻴﮓ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﺯﻳﻦﺍﻟﻌﺎﺑﺪﻳﻦ‪ .١٩٧٧ .‬ﺁﻳﻴﻦ ﺍﺳﮑﻨﺪﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﺯﻳﺮ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺷﻔﺎﺋﻲ‪ .‬ﻣﺴﮑﻮ‪ :‬ﺩﺍﻧﺶ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﺒﺪﻱ ﺑﻴﮓ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﺯﻳﻦﺍﻟﻌﺎﺑﺪﻳﻦ‪ .١٩٧٤ .‬ﺭﻭﺿﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺼﻔﺎﺕ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﮐﻮﺷﺶ ﺍﺑﻮﺍﻟﻔﻀﻞ ﻫﺎﺷﻢ ﺍﻭﻏﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺭﺣﻴﻤﻮﻑ‪.‬ﻣﺴﮑﻮ‪:‬ﺩﺍﻧﺶ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﺒﺪﻱ ﺑﻴﮓ ﺷﻴﺮﺍﺯﻱ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺍﺟﻪ ﺯﻳﻦﺍﻟﻌﺎﺑﺪﻳﻦ‪ .١٣٦٨.‬ﺗﮑﻤﻠﻪ ﺍﻻﺧﺒﺎﺭ‪ .‬ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﻋﺒﺪﺍﻟﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﻧﻮﺍﺋﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻧﺸﺮ ﻧﻲ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﺮﺑﺮﻥ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﻳﻠﺰ‪ .١٣٩٤ .‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ‪ :‬ﻣﺴﺎﺋﻞ‪ ،‬ﺭﺍﻫﺒﺮﺩﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺭﻭﺵﻫﺎ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺍﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﻣﻮﺳﻲﭘﻮﺭ ﺑﺸﻠﻲ ﻭ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ‬
‫ﺍﺑﺮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﺑﺎﺳﻂ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺳﻤﺖ‬
‫ﻗﺎﺳﻤﻲ‪ ،‬ﺣﺴﻴﻦ ﻭ ﺭﺣﻤﺎﻧﻲﻓﺮ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﻤﺎ‪» .١٣٩٠ .‬ﺑﺮﺭﺳﻲ ﺍﻫﺪﺍﻑ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﻧﺤﻮﻩ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻋﻴﺖﺑﺨﺸﻲ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﻮﺍﺭﻳﺦ ﺳﻠﺴﻠﻪﺍﻱ ﻭ ﻣﺬﻫﺒﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻭﺭﻩ ﺷﺎﻩ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﺍﻭﻝ ﺗﺎ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺣﮑﻮﻣﺖ ﺻﻔﻮﻳﺎﻥ«‪ ،‬ﻓﺼﻠﻨﺎﻣﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪.‬‬
‫ﺳﺎﻝ‪١٣٩-١١٩ :(٢٢ .٦‬‬
‫ﻗﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﻣﻨﺸﻲ ﻗﻤﻲ‪ .١٣٥٩.‬ﺧﻼﺻﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻮﺍﺭﻳﺦ‪ .‬ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺍﺣﺴﺎﻥ ﺍﺷﺮﺍﻗﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺎﺿﻲ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﻣﻨﺸﻲ ﻗﻤﻲ‪ .١٣٦٦.‬ﮔﻠﺴﺘﺎﻥ ﻫﻨﺮ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺗﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺍﺣﻤﺪ ﺳﻬﻴﻠﻲ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺴﺎﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻣﻨﻮﭼﻬﺮﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻗﺼﻪﺧﻮﺍﻥ‪ ،‬ﻗﻄﺐﺍﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ‪٩٦٤.‬ﻕ‪» .‬ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺮﻗﻊ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﻤﺎﺳﺐ«‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ‪:‬ﮐﺘﺎﺏﺁﺭﺍﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺪﻥ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ‪ .‬ﻧﺠﻴﺐ‬
‫ﻣﺎﻳﻞ ﻫﺮﻭﻱ‪ .‬ﻣﺸﻬﺪ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺁﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﻗﺪﺱ ﺭﺿﻮﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﮐﻮﺋﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺷﻌﻠﻪ‪ ١٣٨٧.‬ﺍﻟﻒ‪ .‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺯﮔﺎﺭ ﻓﺮﻣﺎﻧﺮﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺷﺎﻩ ﻋﺒﺎﺱ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻣﻨﺼﻮﺭ ﺻﻔﺖ ﮔﻞ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪:‬ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﮐﻮﺋﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﺷﻌﻠﻪ‪١٣٨٧.‬ﺏ‪» .‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ ﺩﻳﺒﺎﭼﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﻋﺼﺮ ﺻﻔﻮﻱ«‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻓﺮﺷﻴﺪ ﻧﻮﺭﻭﺯﻱ‪ .‬ﻧﺎﻣﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺎﻥ‪،‬‬
‫)‪.١١٦ - ٨٢ :(١٦‬‬
‫ﮐﻮﺷﺎ‪،‬ﮐﻔﺎﻳﺖ‪».١٣٨٣.‬ﻣﻬﺎﺟﺮﺕﻫﻨﺮﻣﻨﺪﺍﻥﺍﻳﺮﺍﻧﻲﺑﻪﻫﻨﺪﺩﺭﺩﻭﺭﻩﺻﻔﻮﻱ«‪.‬ﺁﻳﻨﻪﻣﻴﺮﺍﺙ‪،‬ﺩﻭﺭﻩﺟﺪﻳﺪ‪٥٧-٢٦:(٢٦)،‬‬
‫ﮐﻠﻴﻨﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪﺑﻦ ﻳﻌﻘﻮﺏ‪١٣١٨.‬ﻕ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﮑﺎﻓﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﺤﻘﻴﻖ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺍﮐﺒﺮ ﻏﻔﺎﺭﻱ‪ .‬ﭼﺎﭖ ﺳﻮﻡ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻟﮑﺘﺐ ﺍﻻﺳﻼﻣﻴﻪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺎﻳﻞ ﻫﺮﻭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻧﺠﻴﺐ‪ .١٣٧٢ .‬ﮐﺘﺎﺏﺁﺭﺍﻳﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺪﻥ ﺍﺳﻼﻣﻲ‪ .‬ﻣﺸﻬﺪ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﺘﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺁﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﻗﺪﺱ ﺭﺿﻮﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻫﻤﻴﻠﺘﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﮔﺮﻱ ﺟﻲ‪» .١٣٨٧ .‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻮ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ«‪،‬ﺩﺭ‪:‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﺟﺎﻣﻌﻪﺷﻨﺎﺳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ‬
‫ﻫﺎﺷﻢ ﺁﻏﺎﺟﺮﻱ‪ .‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﮐﻮﻳﺮ‪.‬‬

‫‪Abrams, Philip. 1982. Historical Sociology. Somerset, England: Open books.‬‬

‫‪Adle, Chahryar. 1993. “Les artistes nommes Dust-Mohammad au XVIe siecle.” Studia‬‬
‫‪Iranica 22, 2: 219-96.‬‬
‫‪Roxburgh, David J. 2001. Prefacing the Image: the writing of art history in sixteenth‬‬
‫‪century Iran. Leiden; Boston; Koln: Brill.‬‬
‫‪Roxburgh, David J. 2005. The Persian Album, 1400-1600. New Haven: Yale University‬‬
‫‪Press.‬‬
‫‪Sholeh A. Quinn, “The Historiography of Safavid Prefaces”, Safavid Persia: the history‬‬
‫‪and Politics ofan Islamic Society, ed.: Charles Melville, London and New York, l.b. Tau-‬‬
‫‪ris Co. 1996, pp. xi 428.‬‬

‫‪۱۵‬‬
‫ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ‪ ۴۶‬ﺗﺎﺑﺴﺘﺎﻥ‪۹۷‬‬
 Scientific Research Quartely Journal Journal of faculty of art Shahed university

and the position of painters. Then the religio-political setting for the making of the preface was
investigated. In that way, the life of Shah Tahmasb and his influence on the art and artist and also
the influence of clerks on Shah Tahmasb and the court are discussed. Lastly, researcher assumes
that different chains of linear and transversal causes like the political-religious atmosphere of
that period, written tradition and finally intellectual-educational-professional background of
the author tend to converge and the preface was written. One can regard these causes as two
interwoven existential causes and formative causes. The presence of clerks in politics and their
influence on King’s mind and pressure to artists, especially musicians and painters, changing
King,s mood and his reluctance of painting, miserliness and at last firing the painters from the
court, are existential causes of writing the preface in defense of painting and painters. Written
tradition of writing prefaces in the Safavid period which began many years ago in different
branches of literature and not in painting, skill of the author in literature and his familiarity
with techniques of lettering and secretary; also his religious beliefs in connection to his job
as a storyteller (Qisi Khwan) and a link between clerks and the artist are known as formative
causes. But the main cause must be known as the pressures of clerks on painting and painters
and writing the preface as a result was a reaction in defense of painting.
Keywords: Preface, Painting, Calligraphy, Qutb al-Din Muhammad, Analytical Historical
Sociology
References:
Ardalan, Nader .Bakhtiar, Laleh (1975) The Sense of Unity, The Sufi Tradition in Persian
Architecture, by The University of Chicago.
Blair, Sheila, (1992) The Monumental inscriptions from early Islamic Iran and Transoxiana,
Brill Academic Pub; Reprint edition.
Fazaeli, Habiboallah (1998) Teaching Calligrafy, Tehranm, Sorosh Publishing.
Ghelichkhani, Hamidreza (2014) Requests for Calligraphy, Tehran.
Godar, Andere (1993)Athar-E Iran, translate by Abolhasan, Sarvmoghaddam, Mashhad, Astan
Quds Razavi Printing and Publishing Institute.
Hasori, Ali (2003) the basics of traditional design in Iran, Tehran, Cheshmeh Publishing.
Khazae, Mohammad (2017) Minar Jam, Tehran, the Iranian Academy of Art Publishing.
Makinejad, Mahdi, Ayatollahi, Harati (2010) Proportion and combination in the Mihrab
Inscription of Tabriz Jame Mosque, Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba, Jornal of fine Art University of
Tehran.40 Winter2010.
Miremad, (2002) Resale AdabolMashq, Tehran, Mobaleghan.
Sahragard, Mahdi (2016) Art masterpieces on Astan Quds Razavi, Mashhad, Astan Quds Razavi
Printing and Publishing Institute.
Schimmel, Annemaria, Islamic Calligraphy and culture, (2012) Tehran, translated Azad,
Behnashr.

Abstract 2
Summer 2018 No46
 Scientific Research Quartely Journal Journal of faculty of art Shahed university

A Defense of Painting: Analysis of Qutb al-Din Muhammad’s Preface to Shah

Tahmasb’s Album with an Analytical Historical Sociology Approach*
Hanif Rahimi Pordanjani Assistant professor of the Faculty of Art Architecture, Yazd University
Ali Asghar Shirazi, PhD, Associate Professor‫ ﻭ‬Faculty of Art, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran
Mohsen Marasi, PhD, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Art, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran.
Recieved: 2017/6/1 Accepted: 2017/10/9

n Album making is a long-standing tradition in the history of Islamic Art in Iran, especially
at the end of the Timurid and Safavid Periods. Albums contain scattered pages of calligraphy
and paintings which are bound together and form a book that is used in order to review the
masterpieces of the artists in cultural meetings. These albums have some advantages for the art
of Iran. Firstly, they preserve the works of art. Secondly, there is a place for workmanship and
thirdly, sometimes the patron or the owner wanted an author to write a preface for it. In fact
prefaces of the albums must be known as the first art histories of Iran which include precious
information about artists, patrons and sometimes the history of forming the arts of calligraphy
and painting. Hitherto there has been much attention to literary aspects and historical information
in the prefaces of the albums, but sociological contexts of them and references of texts to their
historical setting is still neglected. Preface to Shah Tahmasb’s Album, written by Qutb al-Din
Mohammad in 964 AH, is one of the rare prefaces which in addition to calligraphy includes the
issue of painting and painters. Many contemporary scholars point to it and it has an important
place in the studies of Persian painting since the time it has been known, but a few scholars have
studied it critically. After Dust Muhammad’s preface in 952 AH, this is the second preface which
pays attention to paining and painters. While based on documents and texts neither of the authors
is a painter but calligrapher. Now the question is that why in the mid-century an author like Qutb
al-Din Mohammad after Dust Muhammad, paid attention to painting and painters? In fact this
research sought to identify which causes led to the making of Qutb al-Din Muhammad’s preface
* This article is derived about the painting in the tenth/sixteenth century. To answer this question, the analytical historical
from the first author’s
Ph.D. dissertation with sociology approach is taken. This method, by means of primary and secondary sources, mostly
the title of “Analysis focuses on “whys” in matters and answers based on authentic causal relationships; causes which
of Persian Painting
Historiography Based lead to similar results. At First step, researcher studied the biography of Qutb al-Din Muhammad
on Historical Sociology” and tried to solve the disagreement between the scholars about the real identity of him and
conducted at Shahed
University under similar historical figures like Qut al-Din Baghdadi and Qutb al-Din Muhammad Yazdi. After
supervision of Dr. that the article paid attention to the text of preface and analysis of it. Qutb al-Din Muhammad in
Shirazi and Dr. Marasi,
2017/1395. different ways, directly and indirectly tries to advocate painting and painters. He uses different
Abstract 1 sources like Hadith, historical remarks, poems and so on to prove the rightfulness of painting
Summer 2018 No46