Hadith of Bat; Exploring and Criticizing a Verse from Sanaei’s Hadighah

جستارهای نوین ادبی

Article 5, Volume 53, Issue 2 - Serial Number 209, August 2020, Pages 86-96   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jls.v53i2.84476

Author

Ahmad Rezaei^*

Associate Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

Abstract

Extended Abstract

1. Introduction

The explanations of the literary texts are intended to explain and clarify the various aspects of the texts for the readers; in other words, from the exegete's view, a text has complexities that the reader, even an expert reader, may not be able to comprehend. Hence the commentator tries to resolve such difficulties and inform the reader about the process of the text.
Hadith of Sanai is one of the texts that can be considered one of the original works (Canon) in the Persian language due to its influence on the thought of subsequent writers and poets, and consequently, on other texts. This has led to much research on aspects of this text, especially in the field of its description, but despite the efforts of the commentators, it can be said that the explanations of the Hadigheh have not been left without of the shortcomings and errors.
In this research, we have studied one of the Hadigheh’s verses in different explanations and we have shown that these explanations are caught up in the fragmentation and repetition of the opinions of others, and they have not explained how to link their explanations to other parts of the text, and this has caused a profound change in the meaning of the text. 

Theoretical Framework

It can be said that the complexities that the commentators of the texts seek to explain are due to two components:

A) Different textual systems: This section includes all textual elements (i.e., linguistic systems), especially words (including the meanings of words and special terms), syntactic system and rhetorical system; the exegete explains the text according to the complexity that may have arisen from one of the above cases.
B) Meta-texts: Sometimes the ambiguity of the text is not the result of textual structures (as mentioned) but of elements or components outside the text, which is referred to here as meta-text; it is clear that the connection between the text and the meta-text is based on a specific sign and meaning, that is, in the text itself, there is a sign of its connection with the hypertext, and the exegete cannot place the meta-text in the text; the result is that understanding the meaning of the text depends on knowing the desired context. Such allusions or historical contexts can be considered as such.

These components cannot be independent and separate, but must be considered as interacting with each other; this is the same attention to the "form of the literary work" that the formalists also emphasized. According to it, every literary point, from word to discourse, should be examined in connection with other points (Ahmadi 1993); in this case, the text forms the whole structure whose various devices are interconnected, and each element must be considered in relation to other elements, whether text or meta-text.
According to what was said, it seems that in many explanations of Persian texts, two features can be seen: A) Ignorance of structure or partiality: that is, regardless of the overall structure of the text, only one of its components is examined or described. B) Quoting without examining the reception of others: in addition to being an issue, another problem in the description of texts is quoting the sayings of others without looking at its aspects. Quoting and repeating the opinions of others in these explanations has three characteristics: mere repetition without analysis or criticism, failure to check the correctness or accuracy of the material, which may be due to the narrator's trust, and ignoring the relevance or non-relevance of quoted content with the intended text. These factors cause the breaking between the description and the text. 

Method

Although the verse in question is one of the most remarkable of the verses of Sana'i Hadigheh and is a relatively early one, and many of the works that have described Hadigheh or explained its problems or have provided collection from this work have refused to explain this verse, in five popular and common Hadigheh commentaries, the verse is one of the verses that scholars have discussed in its context.
In this study, we have first quoted what the commentators of Hadith have said in historical order, then, while explaining their influence on each other, we have clarified their shortcomings and tried to provide an acceptable analysis of this verse according to the components of different text and meta-text systems.

Conclusion

As mentioned in textual analysis, in addition to paying attention to the structure of the text and meta-texts, we should avoid detailing and quoting without examining the words of others. In the commentaries of Persian texts, including Hadigheh of Sanai, in various positions, such factors have caused the loss of the texts’ meaning; one example is in the:
تو در این راه معرفت غلطی              سال و مه مانده در حدیث بطی
Abdul Latif Abbasi considered Hadith of Bat to include a story, and the commentators after him have repeated his words regardless of the structure of the text, especially its syntactic structure, while no connection can be made between the narrated story and the verse; others have changed the meaning of the story and replaced it with another story, but the problem with the text remains. However, if we consider the mentioned phrase according to the structure of the text and meta-text, the reference and meaning will be different.
It seems that this phrase refers to the style of one of the narrators named Ibn Bati or Ibn Batta, who among the Hadith scholars has less famous Hadiths, and it seems that the others did not pay attention to these Hadiths. However, the Hadith of Bat, in the general sense, can include any weak and baseless statement and as we have mentioned, other verses of Sana'i also confirm this meaning.

Keywords

Critique; Interpretation; Sana’i's Hadiqah; Hadith of Bat

Supplementary Files

5-Rezaei-Final.pdf

References

- احمدی، بابک (۱۳۷۲) ساختار و تأویل متن، تهران: نشر مرکز.

- اشرف زاده، رضا (۱۳۹2)آب آتش فروز، تهران: انتشارات جامی.

- بهادر، علاءالدین احمد (۱۳۸۹) طریقه بر حدیقه، شرح کامل باب اول حدیقه سنایی، به کوشش دکتر محمدرضا یوسفی، قم: انتشارات دانشگاه قم.

- حلبی، علی‌اصغر (۱۳۹۱) گزیده حدیقه‌الحقیقه، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه پیام نور.

- درّی، زهرا (۱۳۹۲) شرح دشواری‌هایی از حدیقه‌الحقیقه سنایی، تهران: انتشارات زوّار.

- راستگو، سید محمد (۱۳۸۸) گزینش و گزارش از حدیقه سنایی، تهران: انتشارات سمت.

- دانشنامه بزرگ اسلامی، مرکز دائره‌المعارف اسلامی، مقالۀ «ابن‌بطه عکبری»، ج۳، ص۹۷۷.

- سنایی غزنوی، ابوالمجد مجدود بن آدم (۱۳۷4) حدیقه‌الحقیقه و شریعه‌الطریقه، تحقیق و تحشیه مدرس رضوی،تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.

- سنایی غزنوی، ابوالمجد مجدود بن آدم (۱۳۹۷) حدیقه‌الحقیقه و شریعه‌الطریقه، مقدمه، تصحیح، تعلیقات و فهرست‌ها دکتر محمدجعفر یاحقی و دکتر سید مهدی زرقانی، تهران: انتشارات سخن.

- طغیانی، اسحاق (۱۳۸۲) شرح مشکلات حدیقه سنایی، اصفهان: انتشارات دانشگاه اصفهان.

- عباسی، عبداللطیف (۱۳۸۷) لطایف الحدایق، مقدمه، تصحیح و تعلیق دکتر محمدرضا یوسفی و دکتر محسن محمدی، قم: انتشارات آیین احمد.

- کحاله، عمر رضا (۱۴۱۴) معجم المؤلفین تراجم مصنفی الکتب العربیه، بیروت: مؤسسه الرساله.

- مدرس رضوی، محمدتقی(بی تا) تعلیقات حدیقه‌الحقیقه، تهران: انتشارات علمی.

- مهدوی دامغانی، احمد (۱۳۸۲)درباغ روشنایی: گزیدۀ حدیقه‌الحقیقه، تهران: انتشارات سخن.

- نصرالله منشی، ابوالمعالی (۱۳۷۳) کلیله و دمنه، تصحیح و توضیح مجتبی مینوی طهرانی، تهران: انتشارات امیر کبیر.