‫ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪﻯ ﺑﺮ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻯ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﺛﺮ ﺭﻭﻻﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻭﺍﺧﺮ‬

‫ﺣﻨﻴﻒ ﺍﻓﺨﻤﻰ ﺳﺘﻮﺩﻩ‬

‫*‬

‫ﺳﺎﻝ ‪ 1387‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻭ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﺁﻗﺎﻯ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺭﺍﻏﺐ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﻫﻢﺍﻛﻨﻮﻥ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻘﻄﻊ ﺩﻛﺘﺮﻯ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﺸﻐﻮﻝ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺤﺼﻴﻠﻨﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﭼﺎپ ﺭﺳﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﺣﺘﻤ ًﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﭘﺲ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ‪» ،‬ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ« ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﻧﺎﻣﻴﺪﺵ‪ ،‬ﺍﺛﺮﻯ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻧﺴﺒﺘ ًﺎ‬
‫ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﺭﺕ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺟﺎﻯ ﺁﻥ ﺧﺎﻟﻰ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻜﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺨﺼﻮﺻ ًﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻬﺖ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺩﻳﮕ ِﺮ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻳﺎ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒﺷﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺯﻳﺎﺩ ﺍﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺧﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﺛﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺘﺮﺱ ﻧﺒﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺮ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻤ ًﺎ ﺳﺮﺍﻍ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺎﺭﺕ ﺑﺮﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻧﻪ ﻧﻘﻞﻗﻮﻝﻫﺎﻯ ﺟﺴﺘﻪ ﻭ ﮔﺮﻳﺨﺘﺔ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻭ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺑﻌﻀ ًﺎ ﭼﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻫﻢ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺔ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﺼﺮ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ‬
‫‪49‬‬ ‫ﻓﺎﺭﻍ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ‪ 60 ،‬ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻫﻢ ﻧﻤﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺒﻮﻫﻰ‬
‫ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻯ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ِ‬ ‫* ﺩﺭﺁﻣﺪﻯ ﺑﺮ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺩﻭﻡ ﻭ ﺳﻮﻡ ﻭ ﻏﻴﺮﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻣﺴﺘﻐﻨﻰ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ‬
‫* ﺭﻭﻻﻥ ﺑﺎﺭﺕ‪.‬‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻣﺎﻩ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪) 32‬ﭘﻴﺎﭘﻰ‪(146‬‬

‫ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻣﺤﺘﺮﻡ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪﺍﻯ ‪18‬ﺻﻔﺤﻪﺍﻯ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﻯ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬

‫ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻃﻮﺭ ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻥ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ‪» ،‬ﻭﺍژﻩﻧﺎﻣﻪ« ﺁﻣﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻌﺪ »ﻧﻤﺎﻳﺔ ﻧﺎﻡﻫﺎ«‬
‫* ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻭ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‪ :‬ﻣﺤ ّﻤﺪ ﺭﺍﻏﺐ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺧﺮ‪» ،‬ﻛﺘﺎﺏﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ«‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻛﺘﺎﺏﻫﺎﻯ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻰ ﻭ‬ ‫* ﭼﺎپ ﺍﻭﻝ‪ ،‬ﺗﻬﺮﺍﻥ‪ :‬ﻧﺸﺮ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ ﺻﺒﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺖ‬
‫ﻣﻌﺮﻓﻰ ﻣﻮﺟﺰ ﻭ ﻣﻔﻴﺪ ﭘﺸﺖ‬ ‫ﻓﺮﺍﻧﺴﻪ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﻣﺰ ّﻳﺖﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻳﻜﻰ ّ‬ ‫ﻣﺆﺳﺴﺔ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻰ ﻫﻨﺮﻯ ﺭﺧﺪﺍﺩ ﻧﻮ‪.1387 ،‬‬
‫ﺟﻠﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﺔ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﺑﺎ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ »ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻨﺔ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ«‪ ،‬ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻯ ﻣﻰﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﭘﻴﺮﻭ ﺣﻤﻜﺖ ﻣﻄﻠﻘﺔ »ﺳﺮﻯ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺁﺫﺭ ‪1388‬‬

‫ﺩﺭﺩ ﻧﻤﻰﻛﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺳﺘﻤﺎﻝ ﻧﻤﻰﺑﻨﺪﻧﺪ« ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﺯﺍ ِﺭ ﺑﻰﺩﺭﺩﻯ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻯ ﺧﻮﺷﻮﻗﺘﻰ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﺨﺼﻮﺻ ًﺎ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﺓ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺔ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬
‫ﻼ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ ﺷﺪ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻯ ﻣﻰﻧﻤﺎﻳﺪ ﺗﺎ ﺁﮔﺎﻩ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﭼﺮﺍ ﺍﺻ ً‬
‫ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﺤﺚ ﺑﻨﺪﻩ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺏ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻏﻠﻄﻲ ﻓﺎﺣﺶ ﺑﻪ ﭼﺸﻢ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺎﻫﺪﻩ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ؛ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤﺎﺕ ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ ﺁﻥ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻧﺪ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺗﺼ ّﻮﺭﻱ ﺟﺎﻣﻊ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺭﺍﻯ ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ ﺑﺮﺳﺪ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﺿﻌﻒ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺏ ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻣﺤﺘﺮﻡ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺳﺮﺍﻍ ﻣﻨﺎﺑﻊ ﻏﻴﺮﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ ﻧﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ ﺍﺷﻜﺎﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺵﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻰ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻗﺘﻔﺎﻯ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺧﻄﺎ ﺭﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻭ ﺁﻥ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﻓﻘﻂ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺭﺍﻯ ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻤ ًﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﻣﻰﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺑﺨﺶ ﻣﻬﻤﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺭﺍﻯ ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ ﺩﺭ ﺣﻮﺯﺓ »ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ« ﺍﺑﺮﺍﺯ ﺷﺪﻩ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﻟﺬﺍ ﻫﺮﭼﻨﺪ ﻗﺼﺪ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻨﺔ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺣﻖ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺩﺍ ﻛﻨﺪ؛ ﻣﺜ ً‬
‫ﻼ‬ ‫ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻣﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ ﻣﻰﺭﺳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ّ‬
‫ﻋﻮﺽ ﻫﻔﺖ ﺩﺳﺘﻪ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ﺍﻳﺸﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺧﺘﺼﺎﺭ ﻣﻰﮔﻮﻳﺪ ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ »ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﺎﻳﻰ ﻛﻨﺶﮔﺮ ) ‪ (actant‬ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﺗﻘﺎﺑﻞﻫﺎﻯ‬ ‫ﭘﺮﺍپ‪ ،‬ﺳﻪ ﺩﺳﺘﺔ ﺩﻭ ِ‬
‫ﺩﻭﮔﺎﻧﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺖ« )‪ .(16‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ ﻫﺪﻑ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭ ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺎﻫﺶﻫﺎ ﭼﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﺩﻯ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺮﺍپ‬
‫ﻣﻰﮔﻴﺮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﭘﺮﺍپ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﻭﺳﻠﻮﻓﺴﻜﻰ ﻣﻰﮔﺮﻓﺖ‪ .‬ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻥ ﺍﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﺭ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺩﺍﺳﺘﺎﻧﻰ‪ ،‬ﻫﺮﭼﻪ ﻛﻤﺘﺮ ﺫﻫﻨﻴﺖ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪ ﺩﺧﺎﻟﺖ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ‬
‫ﻃﺮﻓﻰ ﻫﺮﭼﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻫﺮﭼﻪ‬‫ﺭﻭﺍﻝﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﺑﻴﺎﻳﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻰ ِ‬
‫ﻋﻴﻨﻰﺗﺮ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻧﺠﺎﻡ ﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‪ ،‬ﻫﺮﭼﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺯ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ‬
‫)‪ (parol‬ﺩﻭﺭ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )‪ (lang‬ﻧﺰﺩﻳﻚ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺮ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﮔﺮﺍﻯ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻌ ّﻬﺪﻯ‪ ،‬ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ ﻛﺎﺭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻭﺍﺣﺪﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﻮﭼﻚﺗﺮ ﺷﺮﻭﻉ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ »ﻭﺍژﻩ« ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﻤﻰﺁﻳﺪ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﺎﺗﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻣﻰﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﻗﺎﺑﻞﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩﺗﺮ‬
‫ﻣﻰﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﺭﺟﺎﻋﺎﺗﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﻣﻰﺁﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ »ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ«‬
‫ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﻂ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﺓ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻛﻤﺎﻧﻚ ﻣﻰﺁﻭﺭﻳﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ‪ ،‬ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﺪ‪:‬‬
‫»ﺗﻮﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﺯ ﭘﻴﺶﺍﻧﮕﺎﺷﺘﻪﺷﺪﺓ ﺭﺧﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻃﻮﺭ ﻏﻴﺮﺗﺼﺎﺩﻓﻰ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻢ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﺍﺗﺼﺎﻝ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪﺍﻧﺪ« )‪ .(9‬ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﻭ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ »ﻋﻠّﻴﺖ« ﻭ »ﺯﻣﺎﻥﻣﻨﺪﻯ«‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﺮ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﻯ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺩﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺁﻏﺎﺯﮔﺮ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺚ‪31 ،‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩ ﭘﺮﺍپ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩ‪» :‬ﻋﻤﻞ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺘﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺷﺨﺎﺹ‬
‫ﻗﺼﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﻄﻪﻧﻈﺮ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺘﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺟﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺎﺕ ﻗﺼﻪ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ« )‪ .(11‬ﻫﻔﺖ‬
‫ﺩﺳﺘﻪ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖ ﺭﺍ ﻫﻢ ﭘﺮﺍپ ﺑﺮﺷﻤﺮﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ »ﺭﻳﺨﺖﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﻗﺼﻪﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﭘﺮﻳﺎﻥ« ﭘﺮﺍپ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﺯ ﭘﺮﺍپ ﺗﺎ ﻟﻮﻯ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﺗﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ‪ ،‬ﺁﺭﺍﻯ ﺑﻮﺭﻳﺲ ﺗﻮﻣﺎﺷﻔﺴﻜﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻭ ﺭﻭﻧﺪ‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﻰ ﺭﺍ ﺩﻭ ﻣﺮﺣﻠﻪ ﻣﻰﺩﺍﻧﺪ‪ .1 :‬ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﺩﺭﻭﻥﻣﺎﻳﻪ‪ .2 ،‬ﺷﺮﺡ ﻭ ﺑﺴﻂ‬
‫ﺁﻥ‪» .‬ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﺩﺭﻭﻥﻣﺎﻳﻪ«‪» ،‬ﺩﻭ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺩﺭﻭﻥﻣﺎﻳﻪ )ﻋﻠّﻰ ﻭ ﺯﻣﺎﻧﻰ(«‪» ،‬ﺗﻤﺎﻳﺰ‬
‫ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﭘﻴﺮﻧﮓ ﻭ ﺩﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺑُﻦﻣﺎﻳﻪ«‪» ،‬ﺑُﻦﻣﺎﻳﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﺁﺯﺍﺩ ﻭ ﻭﺍﺑﺴﺘﻪ«‬
‫ﻭ »ﺑُﻦﻣﺎﻳﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﭘﻮﻳﺎ ﻭ ﺍﻳﺴﺘﺎ«‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﮕﻰ ﻧﻜﺎﺗﻲ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻮﻣﺎﺷﻔﺴﻜﻰ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻋﺎﻟﻢ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺁﻗﺎﻯ ﺭﺍﻏﺐ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻮﺛّﻖﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﺒﻊ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﻌﻨﻰ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺗﻮﺩﻭﺭﻭﻑ‪ ،‬ﻧﻘﻞ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺤﺚ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﺓ ﺁﺭﺍﻯ ﻛﻠﻮﺩ ﻟﻮﻯ ﺍﺳﺘﺮﺍﻭﺱ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺑﻰ ﭘﺮﻭﺭﺵ ﻳﺎﻓﺘﻪ‬
‫ﻟﺐ ﺁﺭﺍﻯ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﺍﺩﺑﻰ‬‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻋﻠﻰﺭﻏﻢ ﺧﻼﺻﻪ ﺑﻮﺩﻧﺶ‪ّ ،‬‬
‫ﻣﻰﺁﻳﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺁﻟﮋﻳﺮﺍﺱ ژﻭﻟﻴﻦ ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ ﺍﻓﺘﻰ‬
‫‪50‬‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻣﺎﻩ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪) 32‬ﭘﻴﺎﭘﻰ‪(146‬‬
‫ﺁﺫﺭ ‪1388‬‬
 ‫ﺍﺳﺖ‬‫ﺍﺛﺮﻯ‬
‫ﻣﻬﻢ‬ ‫ﺍﺛﺮ‪،‬‬‫ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺁﺛﺎﺭ‬‫ﻣﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺘﺎً‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﺕﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﻰ‬ ‫ﻭ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻯ‬ ‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪،‬‬ ‫ﺷﺪﻩ‬‫ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﺁﻥﺧﺎﻟﻰﺑﻮﺩ‪.‬ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻯ ﻳﻚ ﻭﺍژﻩ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺘﻦ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻨﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭ‬
‫ﺑﺨﺶ »ﻫﺴﺘﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻰ« ﻭ »ﺷﺎﺧﺼﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻰ ﻣﺘﻨﻰ« ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﺴﺘﺔ‬ ‫ِ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﺛﺮﻯ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﻣﻬﻢ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻳﻚ ﻭﺍژﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺮ ﻣﺘﻨﻰ ﺩﻳﺪﻩ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪،‬‬ ‫ِ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻰ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ‬
‫ﻧﺴﺒﺘ ًﺎ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺎﺭﺕ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪،‬‬ ‫ﻭ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻰ ﻣﺘﻨﻰ‪ ،‬ﺁﻥ ﻭﻳﮋﮔﻰ ﺧﺎﺻﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺳﺒﺐ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻯ ﺁﻥ ﺧﺎﻟﻰ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻜﺘﻪ ﻣﺨﺼﻮﺻ ًﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺭﻭﺍﺑﻂ ﻫﻤﻨﺸﻴﻨﻰ ﻭﺍژﻩ ﺑﺎ ﻭﺍژﻩﻫﺎﻯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﺎﻧﻰ ﻳﻜﺴﺎﻧﻰ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﻧﻜﻨﻴﻢ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﺑﺘﻮﺍﻥ ﻗﺮﺍﺋﺖ ﺩﺭﺳﺘﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺩﺍﺷﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺍﺯ ﻃﺮﻳﻖ ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ‬
‫ﺟﻬﺖ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺎﻝ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺷﺎﺧﺼﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻰ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻳﻚ ﺳﻄﺢ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻰ ﺭﺳﻴﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ‬
‫ﺩﻳﮕ ِﺮ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻳﺎ ﺗﺄﻟﻴﻒﺷﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪ ﺯﻳﺎﺩ‬ ‫ﺷﺎﺧﺼﺔ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻰ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﺍﻧﺴﺠﺎﻡ ﻣﺘﻦ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺗﻜﺮﺍﺭ ﺳﻄﻮﺡ ﺷﺎﺧﺼﺔ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺑﻮﺩ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ‬ ‫ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻳﻰ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺳﻄﺤﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺴﺠﺎﻡ ﻳﺎ »ﺍﻳﺰﻭﺗﻮﭘﻰ« ﺩﺭ ﻣﺘﻦ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺩﺳﺘﺮﺱ ﻧﺒﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﺎ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺛﺮ‪ ،‬ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺸﮕﺮ‬ ‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﺭﻣﺎﻥ ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ ﻫﺮﭼﻨﺪ ﻣﻮﻓﻘﻴﺖ ﺁﻣﻴﺰ ﻧﺒﻮﺩ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﺭﺳﺎﻧﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻴﻤ ًﺎ ﺳﺮﺍﻍ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﺎﺭﺕ ﺑﺮﻭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻧﻪ‬ ‫ﻛﻪ ﺑﺨﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺗﻮﺍﻟﻰﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺭﺍ ﻛﺸﻒ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ ﻳﻚ ﺍﻳﺰﻭﺗﻮﭘﻰ ﺭﺍ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻣﻰﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺘﻦ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺭﻭﺍﻝﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺍﻭ ﻣﺠﺒﻮﺭ ﺑﻮﺩ ﺟﻤﻼﺕ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﺍﻯ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻧﻘﻞﻗﻮﻝﻫﺎﻯ ﺟﺴﺘﻪ ﻭ ﮔﺮﻳﺨﺘﺔ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻭ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻧﻬﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﻭ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩﻫﺎ ﺑﻜﺎﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ ﺁﻧﺠﺎ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﻠﻰ ﭘﺎﻳﺪﺍﺭ ﺩﺭﺁﻳﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻌﻀ ًﺎ ﭼﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻫﻢ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‬ ‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻣﻌﻨﺎﻯ ﺟﻤﻼﺕ ﭘﻴﺸﻴﻦ ﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺏ ﻧﻘﺪ ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ ﺑﺮ ﭘﺮﺍپ‪.‬‬
‫ﻟﻔﻆ ﻣﻔﺮﺩ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻰ ﺭﺍ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩ ﻭ ﺟﻤﻊ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﻣﺜﻞ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺍﻭ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺎﻥ ﭘﺎﻳﺪﺍﺭﻯ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎﻯ ﭘﺮﺍپ‬
‫ﻧﻤﻮﻧﺔ ﺑﺎﻻ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺗﺠﺰﻳﻪﭘﺬﻳﺮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ‪ ،‬ﺍﻭ ﻫﺮﭼﻪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ )‪ (parol‬ﻣﺮﺑﻮﻁ‬
‫ﻣﻰﮔﻮﻳﻨﺪ ﺍﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺿﻤﻴﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻘ ّﺪﻡ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻗﺎﻋﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ‬ ‫ﻣﻰﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺣﺬﻑ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺜﻞ ﺿﻤﺎﻳﺮ ﺍﻭﻝﺷﺨﺺ ﻭ ﺩﻭﻡﺷﺨﺺ‪ ،‬ﻭ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻦ ﻫﻢ ﺻﺎﺩﻕ ﺑﺪﺍﻧﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﺮﺍﺩﺍﺗﻰ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺁﻗﺎﻯ ﺭﺍﻏﺐ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﻯ ﺁﻥ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ »ﻣﺘﻜﻠّﻢ« ﻭ »ﻣﺨﺎﻃﺐ« ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ ﺗﺎ ﻫﺮﭼﻪ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ‬
‫ﻼ‪ .3» :‬ﺳﻄﺢ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ )‪ :(narration‬ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒ ًﺎ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﻳﺎﻓﺖ؛ ﻣﺜ ً‬ ‫ﻣﺘﻦ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ )‪ (lang‬ﻧﺰﺩﻳﻚ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻭ ﺁﻧﻘﺪﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺣﺬﻑ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ‬
‫)‪ (discourse‬ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺗﻮﺩﻭﺭﻭﻑ« )‪ .(18‬ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺨﺶ‬ ‫ﺩﺍﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺗﻮﺍﻟﻰﻫﺎﻯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺭﺷﺘﻪﺍﻯ ﺍﺯ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﺳﻤﻰ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﻫﻤﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺩﻭﺭﻭﻑ ﭼﻴﺰﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﺍﺯ ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ ﻓﻬﻤﻴﺪ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻧﻪ ﺁﻥ ﻃﻮﺭﻯ ﻛﻪ‬ ‫ﻛﻨﺶﮔﺮﺍﻥ )‪ (actant‬ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺭﺳﺎﻧﺪ ﻳﺎ ﺑﻪ ﮔﺰﻳﺪﻩﺍﻯ ﻛﻪ ﻳﺎ ﻳﻚ ﻓﻌﻞ ﺑﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻓﺎﺩﺓ ﻳﻘﻴﻦ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺑﺨﺶ »ﺗﻮﺩﻭﺭﻭﻑ«‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺳﺨﻦ‬ ‫ﻳﺎ ﻳﻚ ﺻﻔﺖ ﭘﻮﻳﺎ )‪ (dynamic‬ﻳﺎ ﺍﻳﺴﺘﺎ )‪ .(static‬ﻓﻌﻞﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺍﻫﻴﻢ ﮔﻔﺖ‪ .‬ﺁﻗﺎﻯ ﺭﺍﻏﺐ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﻣﻰﮔﻮﻳﺪ‪ :‬ﻭﺍﺣﺪﻫﺎﻯ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻯ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻈﺮ‬ ‫)‪ (functions‬ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺻﻔﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ )‪ .(qualifications‬ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎ ﻭ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎﻯ ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻌﻰ ﻭ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎﻯ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺒﻰ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺷﺮﺍﻳﻂ‪ ،‬ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻰﺳﺎﺯﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩﻫﺎ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻧﻮﻋﻰ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺎ ﺍﻳﻨﺠﺎ ﺩﺭﺳﺖ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ »ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺩﻭ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ :‬ﺍﻟﻒ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻗﻴﺪﻯ ﺑﺸﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ‪ aspect ،‬ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺨﺶ»ﺑﺎﺭﺕ«‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﺻﻠﻰ‪ ،...‬ﺏ‪ .‬ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎﻯ ﻭﺍﺳﻄﻪ ﻳﺎ ﻛﺎﺗﺎﻟﻴﺰﻭﺭﻫﺎ« )‪.(18‬‬ ‫ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ »ﻧﻤﻮﺩ« ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﭘﺲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﻛﺪﺍﻡ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎ؟! ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﻰﮔﻔﺖ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎﻯ ﺗﻮﺯﻳﻌﻰ ﺑﻪ ﺍﺻﻠﻰ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻋﻰ‬ ‫ﺁﻗﺎﻯ ﺭﺍﻏﺐ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡﺗﺮ ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﻮﺩ‪.‬‬
‫‪51‬‬ ‫ﻭ ﺗﻘﺴﻴﻢ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺻﻔﺤﺔ ‪ 43‬ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻣﻄﻠﺐ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺑﻰ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ‬ ‫ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺳﻪ ﺩﺳﺘﺔ ﺩﻭﺗﺎﻳﻰ ﻛﻨﺶﮔﺮﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺗﻨﺪ ﺍﺯ‪ .1» :‬ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ‬
‫ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬ ‫ﺧﻮﺍﺳﺘﺎﺭﻯ‪ :‬ﻓﺎﻋﻞ‪ /‬ﻫﺪﻑ‪ .2 ،‬ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻃﻼﻉﺭﺳﺎﻧﻰ‪ :‬ﻓﺮﺳﺘﻨﺪﻩ‪ /‬ﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪﻩ‪.3 ،‬‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻣﺎﻩ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪) 32‬ﭘﻴﺎﭘﻰ‪(146‬‬

‫ﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺎﻟﺔ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ »ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩ« ﺭﺍ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻛﺮﺩﻳﻢ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺟﻨﺎﺏ ﺭﺍﻏﺐ‬
‫ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻣﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺁﺭﺍﻯ ﺗﻮﺩﻭﺭﻭﻑ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﭘِﻰﺭﻓﺖ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﺍﻯ‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﭼﻨﺪ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻔﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻮﺩ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩ ﺑﻪ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻧﻤﻰﺩﻫﺪ‬
‫)‪ .(21‬ﺍﺯ ﭼﻨﺪ ﭘﻰﺭﻓﺖ‪ ،‬ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺗﻮﻟﻴﺪ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﺣﺘﻤﺎ ًﻻ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﻄﺢ‬
‫ﻣﺘﻦ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ‪ discourse‬ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺻﻔﺤﺔ ‪» 18‬ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ« ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺻﻔﺤﺔ‬
‫‪» 22‬ﻣﺘﻦ« ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺍﻟﺒﺘﻪ ﻫﺮ ﺩﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﻧﻬﺎﺩ ﺭﻭﺍﺝ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﺩ ﺗﺎ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﻩ ﮔﻤﺮﺍﻩ ﻧﺸﻮﺩ ﻭ ﻧﺒﺎﻳﺪ ﭼﻮﻥ ﺁﻗﺎﻯ‬
‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﻧﺒﻮﻯ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻮﻃﻴﻘﺎﻯ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﮔﺮﺍﻯ ﺗﻮﺩﻭﺭﻭﻑ ‪ discourse‬ﺭﺍ »ﻣﺘﻦ«‬
‫ﺁﺫﺭ ‪1388‬‬
‫ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ ﺭﻗﺎﺑﺘﻰ‪ :‬ﻳﺎﺭﻳﮕﺮ‪ /‬ﻣﺨﺎﻟﻒ« )‪ ،(16‬ﺭﺍﻏﺐ ﻣﻰﻧﻮﻳﺴﺪ‪» :‬ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩ ﺍﻭ‬
‫]ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ[ ﻫﺮ ﺩﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥ ﺍﺯ ﭼﻨﺪﻳﻦ ﭘﻰﺭﻓﺖ )‪ (sequence‬ﺳﺎﺧﺘﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﻫﺮ ﭘﻰﺭﻓﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺗﻨﻬﺎﻳﻰ‪ ،‬ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﭼﻨﺪ ﻛﻨﺶﮔﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ« )‪ .(16‬ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﺮ ﭘﻰﺭﻓﺖ ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮ ﻛﻨﺶﮔﺮ‪ ،‬ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩﺍﻯ‬
‫ﻫﻢ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩ ﻳﺎ ﺷﺮﻁ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﻳﺎ ﺟﻨﺒﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﻗﻴﺪﻯ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺑﺤﺚ ﮔﺮﻳﻤﺎﺱ ﻛﻪ ﺑﮕﺬﺭﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﺩ ﺑﻨﺪﻩ ﻣﺘﻮﺟﻪ‬
‫ﺑﺨﺶ »ﺑﺎﺭﺕ« ﺩﺭ ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺣﻰ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ‬

‫ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻫﻨﮕﺎﻡ ﻧﻘﻞﻗﻮﻝ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‪ ،‬ﻟﻔﻆ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﺩ‬ ‫ﻼ »ﺳﻄﺢ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎ )‪ :(function‬ﺗﻘﺮﻳﺒ ًﺎ‬ ‫ﭘﻴﺶﺗﺮ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ ﻧﺸﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﻣﺜ ً‬
‫ﻭ ﺟﺎﻫﺎﻯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﺍﺯ ﻟﻔﻆ ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﻛﺮﺩ‪.‬‬ ‫ﻫﻤﺎﻥ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎﻯ ﭘﺮﺍپ ﻭ ﺑﺮﻣﻮﻥ« )‪ .(17‬ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎﻯ ﭘﺮﺍپ ﺗﻌﺮﻳﻒ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺏ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺍﺛﺮ ﻫﻢ ﻧﻜﺎﺗﻰ ﻫﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺎﺭﺕ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺨﺖﻧﻮﻳﺴﻰ ﻣﺸﻬﻮﺭ‬ ‫ﻛﺮﺍﺕ‬ ‫ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻛﺎﺭﻛﺮﺩﻫﺎﻯ ﺑﺮﻣﻮﻥ ﻧﻪ‪ .‬ﺿﻤﻦ ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﺑﻪ ّ‬

‫ﻣﻰﺭﻭﺩ »ﺗﻮﺳﻂ« ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻧﻤﻰﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺷﻮﺩ »ﺑﻪ ﻭﺳﻴﻠﻪ« ﺑﻬﺘﺮ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺧﻴﻠﻰ ﺑﺪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺪﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻧﻤﻮﻧﻪ‪ ،‬ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﻳﻚ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎﺯﻧﻮﻳﺴﻰ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﻢ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺣ ّﺪﺍﻛﺜﺮ ﻭﻓﺎﺩﺍﺭﻯ ﺑﻪ ﻟﻐﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ‪» :‬ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ‪ -‬ﺑﻰﺷﻤﺎﺭ‪ -‬ﻧﻤﻰﺗﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ‬
‫ﺍﺷﺨﺎﺹ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻳﺎ ﻃﺒﻘﻪﺑﻨﺪﻯ ﺷﻮﻧﺪ؛ ﺧﻮﺍﻩ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺑﻴﺎﻥﺷﺪﻩ ﭼﻴﺰﻯ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺧﺮﺩﻭﺭﺯﻯ ﻧﻘّﺎﺩﺍﻧﻪﺍﻯ ﻛﻪ ﻋﺼﺮ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺮ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻧﺎﺏ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﻰ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻞ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻰ‬
‫ِ‬ ‫ﻼ‬‫ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻧﺒﺎﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺍﻩ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻳﻚ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻛﺎﻣ ً‬
‫ﻣﻌﻴﻦ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻣﺎ ﺁﺷﻨﺎﺗﺮﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻣﻨﺤﺼﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻮﻉﻫﺎﻯ ّ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻯ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎ )ﻗﺼﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﻋﺎﻣﻪﭘﺴﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻦﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﭘﺴﺖﻣﺪﺭﻥ(ﻯ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ – ﻧﻪ ﺍﺷﺨﺎﺹ‪ -‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ ﻧﻴﺎﻭﺭﻳﻢ«‪ .‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺩﻭ ﺳﻄﺮ ﭘﺎﻳﺎﻧﻰ ﺻﻔﺤﺔ ‪ 65‬ﻧﻴﺰ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﻣﺸﻜﻠﻰ ﺩﻳﺪﻩ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺳﺒﺐ‬
‫ﭘﺮﻫﻴﺰ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻃﺎﻟﻪ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﻧﻘﻞ ﺁﻥ ﺻﺮﻓﻨﻈﺮ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪ .‬ﮔﺎﻫﻰ ﺍﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﻟﻔﻆ‬
‫ﻼ »ﻳﻚ ﻧﻈﺎﻡ ﻧﻮﺑﺖﻫﺎ« )‪ (53‬ﻛﻪ ﻣﻰﺷﺪ‬ ‫ﺑﻪ ﻟﻔﻆ ﺩﺭﺩﺳﺮﺳﺎﺯ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﻣﺜ ً‬
‫ﮔﻔﺖ »ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻮﺑﺖﻫﺎ«‪ There .‬ﺍﻏﻠﺐ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻧﻤﻰﺷﻮﺩ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ‬
‫ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪» :‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﺷﺎﻳﺪ ﭘﻴﺶﭘﺎﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩﻩ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ‪ .(65) «...‬ﻳﺎ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺕ‪» :‬ﻗﻄﻌ ًﺎ ﻧﻘﺶ ﻓﺮﺳﺘﻨﺪﻩ )ﺩﺭ ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﻪ]ﻱ[ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ‬
‫»ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ« ]ﻯ[ ﻳﻚ ﺭﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﻭﻟﻰ ﺑﻰ ﻫﻴﭻ ﻣﻼﺣﻈﻪﺍﻯ ﻛﻪ ﺁﻳﺎ ﺍﻭ ﻭﺍﻗﻌ ًﺎ‬
‫»ﺭﺍﻭﻯ« ﺍﺳﺖ( ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺑﺴﻂ ﻣﻰﻳﺎﺑﺪ«‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﻚ ﻭﻳﺮﺍﺳﺘﺎﺭ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻧﺴﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻋﺮﺿﺔ ﺑﻬﺘﺮ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻛﻤﻚ ﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺴﺌﻮﻟﻴﺖ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻣﺮ ﻣﺘﻮﺟﻪ ﻧﺎﺷﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺣﺘﻰ ﺩﺭ ﺣﺮﻭﻑﭼﻴﻨﻰ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ‬
‫ﻫﻢ ﺩﻗﺖ ﻧﺪﺍﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻳﺎ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺎﻯ ﻧﻴﻢﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﻌﻀﻰ ﺍﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﺟﻤﻠﻪﻫﺎ ﻓﻌﻞ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﻧﺪ‪» :‬ﺩﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥ )ﭼﻜﻴﺪﻩ )‪(argument‬‬
‫ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻣﻨﻄﻖ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻭ ﺩﺳﺘﻮﺭ ﺷﺨﺼﻴﺖﻫﺎ ]ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ[ ﻭ ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻫﺎ ﻭ ﻭﺟﻮﻩ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ« )‪ .(36‬ﮔﺎﻫﻰ ﺍﻭﻗﺎﺕ »ﺭﺍ« ﺟﺎ ﺍﻓﺘﺎﺩﻩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻧﺤﻮﻯ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎﻋﺚ ﺍﺑﻬﺎﻡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪» :‬ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻝ )‪] (dystaxia‬ﺭﺍ[ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺸﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻓﻘﻰ ﺗﻌﻴﻴﻦ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﺪ« )‪ .(81‬ﮔﺎﻫﻰ ﺍﻭﻗﺎﺕ ﻋﻮﺽ ﺻﻔﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳﻢ ﺁﻭﺭﺩﻩ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪» :‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻧﻴﻢ ﺑﮕﻮﻳﻴﻢ ﺗﺮﻛﻴﺐ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﺯﻩﺍﻯ ﺍﻳﺰﻭﺗﻮﭘﻰ‬
‫]ﺍﻳﺰﻭﺗﻮﭘﻴﻚ[ ﺍﺳﺖ« )‪.(81‬‬
‫ﺍﻣﺎ ﻫﻴﭻﻳﻚ ﺍﺯ ﺧﺮﺩﻩﮔﻴﺮﻯﻫﺎﻯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻛﺞ ﻣﺞ‪ ،‬ﻧﺒﺎﻳﺪ ﻣﺎﻧﻊ ﺍﺯ ﻗﺪﺭﺩﺍﻧﻰ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺯﺣﻤﺎﺕ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻳﺮﺍﺩﻫﺎ ﺁﻥ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺮﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻥ ﮔﺮﺩﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺍﺯ ﺧﻴﻠﻰ ﻣﺘﻦﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺯﺍﺭ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﺪﻧﻰﺗﺮ ﻭ ﻣﻔﻴﺪﺗﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﻫﺮﭼﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺭﺍﻏﺐ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻤﻰ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻴﭻ ﻧﺎﺷﺮ ﺑﺰﺭﮔﻰ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺣﻤﺎﻳﺖ ﻧﻤﻰﻛﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻃﻼﻳﻪﺩﺍﺭ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﻋﺠﻴﺐ ﻭ ﻏﺮﻳﺐ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ ﻭ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻫﻴﭻ ﻭﻗﺖ ﻣ ّﺪﻋﻰ ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺍﻭ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻯ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ‬
‫ﻫﺪﻳﻪ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻋﺎﻣﻪﭘﺴﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺘﻦﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﺪﺭﻥ( ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ – ﻧﻪ ﺍﺷﺨﺎﺹ‪ -‬ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺣﺴﺎﺏ‬
‫ﭘﻲﻧﻮﺷﺖ‬
‫* ﺩﺍﻧﺸﺠﻮﻯ ﺩﻛﺘﺮﻯ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻨﻜﻪ ‪ by‬ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺠﻬﻮﻝ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻰ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻓﺎﻋﻞ ﻳﺎ ﻧﺎﻳﺐﻓﺎﻋﻞ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻥ‬‫ﺪ‬ ‫ﭼﻨ‬‫ﺩﺭ‬ ‫ﺑﺎﺭﺕ‬
‫ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ‬
‫ﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻮﻡ‬‫ﺍﻗﺒﺎﻝ‬
‫ﻭ‬ ‫ﺧﻮﺵ‬
‫ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ‬
‫ﻫﺎﻳﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻭ‬ ‫ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ‬
‫ﺁﺛﺎﺭ‬ ‫ﺍﺯ‬ ‫ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻩ‬ ‫ﻋﺮﺿﻪ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ‪،‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ ﭼﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺧﻮﺵﺍﻗﺒﺎﻝ ﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻋﻤﻮﻡ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻭ ﻋﺮﺿﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﺩﻟﭽﺴﺒﻰ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻛﻨﻴﺪ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻓﻮﻛﻮ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ ﺩﺭﻳﺎﺑﻴﺪ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ‬
‫ﺻﺤﺖ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ‬ ‫ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﺕ ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺏ ّ‬
‫ﺳﺨﻨﻰ ﻧﻤﻰﮔﻮﻳﻢ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﮔﺮﺗﻪﺑﺮﺩﺍﺭﻯ ﻧﺤﻮﻯ ﻳﻜﻰ‬
‫ﺟﺪﻯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‬ ‫ﺍﺯ ﻣﺸﻜﻼﺕ ّ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻤﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻰ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﻛﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺳﺨﺘﻰ ﻣﻀﺎﻋﻒ‬
‫ﺧﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺷﺪ‪ .‬ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺭﺕ ﺩﺭ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ ﭼﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﺧﻮﺵﺍﻗﺒﺎﻝ ﻫﻢ‬
‫ﻧﺒﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﻋﻤﻮﻡ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪﻫﺎﻳﻰ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻭ ﻋﺮﺿﻪ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﺩﻟﭽﺴﺒﻰ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ .‬ﻣﻘﺎﻳﺴﻪ ﻛﻨﻴﺪ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻓﻮﻛﻮ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺎﺭﺕ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ‬
‫ﺻﺤﺖ‬ ‫ﺩﺭﻳﺎﺑﻴﺪ ﭼﮕﻮﻧﻪ ﺍﺳﺘﺎﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﺔ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺑﺎﺭﺕ ﭘﺎﻳﻴﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺑﺎﺏ ّ‬
‫ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺳﺨﻨﻰ ﻧﻤﻰﮔﻮﻳﻢ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﮔﺮﺗﻪﺑﺮﺩﺍﺭﻯ ﻧﺤﻮﻯ ﻳﻜﻰ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺸﻜﻼﺕ‬
‫ﻼ‪» :‬ﻳﻚ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻳﺎ ﺻﺮﻓ ًﺎ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﺁﺷﻔﺘﻪﺍﻯ‬ ‫ﺟ ّﺪﻯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ؛ ﻣﺜ ً‬
‫ﺍﺯ ﺣﻮﺍﺩﺙ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﻫﻴﭻ ﭼﻴﺰﻯ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺁﻥ ﺟﺰ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻨﺮ )‪ (art‬ﻗﺼﻪﮔﻮ )ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﻩ(‪ ،‬ﻗﺮﻳﺤﻪ ﻳﺎ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺪﺍﺩ‪ -‬ﻫﻤﺔ ﺍﺷﻜﺎﻝ‬
‫ﺍﺳﻄﻮﺭﻩﺍﻯ ﺑﺨﺖ‪ -‬ﻧﻤﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﮔﻔﺖ ﻳﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻏﻴﺮ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺻﻮﺭﺕ ﺑﺎ ﺳﺎﻳﺮ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭﻯ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻛﻪ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﮔﺸﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻭ ﻣﻬﻢ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‬
‫ﭼﻘﺪﺭ ﺷﻜﻴﺒﺎﻳﻰ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﺍﻟﮕﻮﺑﻨﺪﻯ ﺁﻥ ﻻﺯﻡ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺳﻬﻴﻢ ﻣﻰﺑﺎﺷﺪ« )‪-28‬‬
‫‪ .(29‬ﻋﻼﻳﻢ ﻧﮕﺎﺭﺷﻰ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺣﻜﻢ »ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﻟﻤﻌﺪﻭﻡ« ﺭﺍ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺎ ﻣﺘﻦ ﺭﺍ ﻋﻴﻨ ًﺎ ﻧﻘﻞ ﻛﺮﺩﻳﻢ‪ .‬ﻣﺘﺮﺟﻢ ﻣﺤﺘﺮﻡ ﻳﺎ ﺑﺎﻳﺴﺖ ﻗﺪﺭﻯ ﻭﻳﺮﮔﻮﻝ‬ ‫‪52‬‬
‫ﻭ ﻧﻘﻄﻪ ﺧﺮﺝ ﻣﻰﻛﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻳﺎ ﺟﻤﻼﺗﺶ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻰﺷﻜﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎ ﺍﻳﻨﻘﺪﺭ ﺗﻮﺩﺭﺗﻮ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﻣﺎﻩ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ ﺷﻤﺎﺭﻩ ‪) 32‬ﭘﻴﺎﭘﻰ‪(146‬‬
‫ﺟﻤﻼﺕ ﺗﻮﺩﺭﺗﻮ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴﻰ ﭼﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﻓﻬﻢ ﺭﺍ ﺩﭼﺎﺭ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻝ‬‫ِ‬ ‫ﻛﺎﺭ ﺩﺭﻧﻴﺎﻳﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻧﻤﻰﻛﻨﺪ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻰ ﻣﺸﻜﻞﺳﺎﺯ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻳﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺻﻔﺤﺔ‪» :60‬ﺑﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺍﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻃﺮﻑ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‪ ،‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ‬
‫– ﺑﻰﺷﻤﺎﺭ‪ -‬ﻧﻤﻰﺗﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪ ﺑﺮ ﺣﺴﺐ ﺍﺷﺨﺎﺹ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻭ ﻳﺎ ﻃﺒﻘﻪﺑﻨﺪﻯ‬
‫ﻼ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻰ ﻣﻨﺤﺼﺮ ﺑﻪ‬ ‫ﺷﻮﻧﺪ‪ -‬ﺧﻮﺍﻩ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻳﻚ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻛﺎﻣ ً‬
‫ژﺍﻧﺮﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﻌﻴﻦ )ﻛﻪ ﺁﻧﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﻣﺎ ﺁﺷﻨﺎﺗﺮﻧﺪ( ﻣﻼﺣﻈﻪ ﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺿﺮﻭﺭﻯ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﻌﺪﺍﺩ ﺑﺴﻴﺎﺭ ﺯﻳﺎﺩﻯ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎ )ﻗﺼﻪﻫﺎﻯ‬
‫ﺁﺫﺭ ‪1388‬‬
‫ﺑﻴﺎﻭﺭﻳﻢ‪ ،‬ﺧﻮﺍﻩ ﺷﺨﺺ ﺑﻴﺎﻥﺷﺪﻩ ﭼﻴﺰﻯ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺧﺮﺩﻭﺭﺯﻯ ﻧﻘّﺎﺩﺍﻧﻪﺍﻯ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺳﻂ ﻋﺼﺮ ﻣﺎ ﺑﺮ ﻋﻮﺍﻣﻞ ﻧﺎﺏ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﻰ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻞ ﺷﺪﻩ‪ ،‬ﻧﺒﺎﺷﺪ«‪ .‬ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺍﺯ‬