Document Type : علمی- پژوهشی

Author

• hasan heydarzade sardrood

Assistant Professor in Persian Language and Literature, Payame Noor University.Iran

Abstract

The story of "The Animals Lawsuit against Humanity", the oldest version of which is found in the Arabic Epistles oF Ikhwana al-Safa, has received more attention from Persian (and Turkish) writers in the two periods of the eighth and thirteenth centuries. In these two periods, twelve translations and adaptations of this story have been identified, which this study seeks to introduce and discover genealogy and the relationship between them in general. Based on the findings of this study, there are three main streams and one sub-stream (eclectic) in these translations and adaptations: the main stream maintains the structure of the Arabic narrative (plot, time and place, characters and trajectory of the story) and fundamental changes has not given. The intrusions and occupations of this steam have been mainly the change of its writing style from the sent prose to the artificial prose. The second stream summarizes the story; and the third stream, which begins with the initiative of Mir Hosseini Heravi, makes fundamental changes in the narrative and presents a story with a different structure, trajectory, and plot. In this process, although the main themes of the conversations and some characters are preserved, the plot and trajectory of the story are reproduced in the light of mystical discourse. The manifestation of the influence of mystical discourse is in adding the theme of "travel" and "Pir" and setting up seven courts in seven days, as well as the topics of conversation.

Highlights

Genealogy of Translations and adaptations of the Story "The Animals Lawsuit against Humanity" Ikhwana Al-Safa in Persian (and Turkish)

Hassan Heidarzadeh Sardrud

Assistant Professor of Persian Language and Literature, Payame Noor University

Introduction

The story of "The Animals Lawsuit against Humanity" is a long and old story, according to which animals, get tired of human persecution, complain to the king of Jinns. He calls human beings. They claim that animals belong for us, and we are honorable of creatures. The animals did not accept this claim, and following their petition, courts were formed with representatives of humans and animals. During several long debates, humans try to prove their claim by rational and narration reasons but animals respond them, and humans fail. In the final judgment, the seventh sage, arguing that only in man is the eternal divine spirit, overpowers the court and the animals accept the nobility of man.

Research Method

The present investigation has been a library study and has been carried out using a descriptive-analytic method and a content analysis. In order to do the research, we after doing complete literature review, and finding 7 narration from this story, we tried manuscript lists and find 5 more narration. Then we compare this 12 narrations if story and find their similarity and differences.

Discussion

This story, of which there are more than ten narrations in Persian and two narrations in Turkish, is taken from a story in the Epistles of Ikhwana al-Safa. The several number of translations/ adaptations shows its great popularity among Iranians. This popularity is not limited to Iran, and its translations in different languages, shows its high global popularity. Alvarez (2002) and Callatay (2018) report its translations into Hebrew in the 14th century, the missing translation into Spanish in the 15th century, and into Old French in the 16th century. Carl Brockelmann (1975: v. 4, 157-159) informs us about translation of the Hebrew text into German in 1882, and of course the translation of Friedrich Dieterici into German in 1858, and Molawi Ali’s translation into Indian in 1861. I know two new editions of this story in English. (See: List of sources) Persian (and Turkish) writers has paid more attention for that in the two periods: fourteenth and nineteenth centuries. In these two centuries, twelve translations and adaptations of this story have been identified:

1. "Bostan ‌ al-Aqool" of Zangi Bukhari (1313); 2. The narration of Mir Hosseini Heravi (d. 1318) in the third chapter of Tarab al-Majalis; 3. The narration of Ibn Zafer Shirazi (d.1382) in the first chapter of Kunuz al-Wadi'ah; 4. "Sharaf al-Ansan" of Lamei Bursavi (in Ottoman Turkish) (1517); 5. "Sherafat Al-Ensan" of Mohammad Ali Shirvani (1834(; 6. "Ra’d o Bargh" Abdul Ghafar bin Abdul Shakur Tabrizi (1849); 7. "Monazerat al-heyvan" of Laleji bin Parshad (1851); 8. "Marghzar” of Ahmad Vegar (1878; 9. The narration of Mullah Ismail Sabzevari in a part of Majma 'al-Nooreyn(1886); 10. "Notgheh Samet"(1905); 11. Turkish narration of Ahmad Basirat (1914); 12. "Mohakemeye Ensan va Heyvan of "Abdullah Mostofi (1946).

In the course of this translation/ adaptation, we are faced with three main currents and a synthetic current: 1. Translation/ adaptation in the style of Zangi Bukhari (full translation); 2. Translation/ adaptation of Ibn Zafer Shirazi (translation with summary) 3. Translation/ adaptations influenced by the narration of Mir Hosseini Heravi; 4. Sabzevari synthetic Translation/ Adaptation. Among this twelve narrations, the Zangi Bukhari’s translation is complete and is in the same simple style of Epistles Ikhwana al-Safa. Lalji and Mostofi's translation is also complete and the book's prose is simple. But Ahmad Vegar's style is as complicated as the style of Ibn Zafer. A prominent feature of Ibn Zafer is the summary and putting the story into complicated and obligatory style. We see the most distinctive translation in Heravi's narrative. He reduces the quantity of story to one third, and has made many changes in the story and characters and in its structure. In his narrative, many characters have been removed and many have been changed. He adds some motif: travel and patience in the journey (Seyr va Soluk), the follow the Pir, and the structure of the seven courts; Themes that indicate his sufistic and mystitic approaches. Heravi's method was taken in the early sixteenth century by Lamei Bursawi, Ottoman literature writer, who adding Persian, Turkish, and Arabic poems and many descriptions. In the Qajar period, Shirvani translated Lamei's Turkish text into Persian again with many omissions and additions. Sabzevari’s story is a synthetic narrative. He has tried to combine three currents in his work. On the other hand, his narration is accompanied by a summary. He tries to maintain the Heravi's seven courts structure by dividing the story into seven chapters. But on the other wise, he is also interested in the Arabic text and brings parts of it in his book. A few years after, Ahmad Basirat translated it into Azerbaijani Turkish with some changes.

Conclusion

The story of "The Animals Lawsuit against Humanity" can be explored from a variety of perspectives, such as animal rights and humanist tendencies. This story has been translated into different languages ​​in the ancient world, such as the legends of The Thousand and One Nights and Kelileh and Demneh. Iranians also liked this story very much because in addition to several new adaptations, there are more than twelve translations of it in classical literature. In this study, these translations and adaptations were classified into four different categories. We have taken an overview of all twelve narrations and enumerated the basic differences and similarities between them. Further research will be in the field of comparative literature and intertextual relations and research translation.

References   

• Ibn-e Zafer-e Shirazi, (1398), Konuz ol Vadia men romuz ol Zaria, jeld-e yek, Tashih-e Golamreza Shamsi, Tehran: Miras-e Maktub.
• Brockelmann, Carl, (1975), Tarikh ol Adab ol Arabi, jeld-e 4, tarjome-ye Seyyed Yagoob ol Akbar, Gahere: Daret ol Maaref.
• Basirat, Ahmad, (1332), Morafe-ye Heyvanat, bi ja, chapkhane-ye Karbalayi Mohammad (chap-e Sangi).
• Hoseyni-ye Gazvini, Sharaf ol din, (1383), Almojam Fi Asar-e Moluk ol Ajam, be kushesh-e Ahmad Fotuhi Nasab, Tehran: Anjoman-e Mafakher-e Farhangi.
• Rasael-e Ekhvan ol Safa va Khollan ol Vafa, (1992), Beirut: Dayerat ol Eslamiya.
• 10. Zangi Bukhari, Mohammad Ibn Mahmud, (1374), Bostan ol Ogool, Tehran: Pajuheshgah-e Olum-e Ensani.
• Sabzevari, Mulla Esmail, (1310), Majma ol Nurin, Chap-e Sangi, Tabriz: Karkhane-ye Haj Ahmad Aga.
• Shirvani, Mohammad Ali Ibn Eskandar, noskhe-ye khatti-ye Hagigat ol Bayan, Ketabkhane-ye Malek, Shomare: 4058.
• Abd ol Gaffar Ibn Abd ol Gafur-e Tabrizi, noskhe-ye khatti-ye Resale-ye Rad va Barg, mahall-e negahdari” Ketabkhane-ye Markazi-ye Daneshgah-e Tehran. Shomare: 4455.
• Fi Tadai ol Heyvanat Ala ol Ensan Inda Malik ol Jin, (1881), ba mogaddame-ye Fredrish Dieterici, Berlin: Leipzik.  
• Golchin Maani, Ahmad, (1344), Nafaes-e Ketabkhane-ye Astan-e Gods: Tara boll Majales, name-ye Astan-e Gods, shomare-ye 21, Mordad-e 1344, pp: 75-85.
• Lalji Ibn Setil Bershad, noskhe-ye khatti-ye Manazerat ol Ensan, mahall-e negahdari: Ketabkhane-ye Majles, shomare: 87804.
• Lamei Bursavi, Mahmud Ibn Osman, noskhe-ye khatti-ye Sharaf ol Ensan, mahall-e negahdari: Ketabkhane-ye Majles, shomare: 78459.
• Mobarak, Zeki, (1975), Alnasr ol Fanni Fi Garn ol Rabe, Beirut: Dayer ol Jalil.
• Mojmal ol Hekma, (1375), be kusheshe Mohammad Tagi Danesh Pajuh & Iraj Afshar, Tehran: Pajuheshgah-e Olum-e Ensani.
• Mostofi, Abdullah, (1324), tarjome-ye Mohakeme-ye Ensan va Heyvan, (az rasael-e Ekhvan ol Safa), Tehran: Ketabforushi Elmi.
• Moshar, Khan Baba, (1340), Moallefin-e Kotob-e Chapi-ye Farsi & Arabi az agaz ta konun, (bija, bina)
• Moshar, Khan Baba, (1353), Fehrest-e Ketabha-ye Chapi-ye Farsi, Tehran: Chapkhane-ye Arjang.
• Mir Hoseyni-ye Heravi, Hoseyn Ibn Alam, (1352), Tarob ol Majales, Mashhad: Ketabforushi-ye Bastan.
• Natge Samat, (1323), Tehran: Matbae-ye Ali Asgar pishkhedmat.
• Nafisi, Said, (1384), Zendeginame-ye Atar, Tehran: Egbal.
• Vegar, Ahmad, (1372), Mohakeme-ye Ensan va Heyvan; Margzar, tashih-e Mohammad-e Fazeli, Mashhad: Daneshgah-e Ferdosi.
• Alvarez, María Lourdes (2002), “Beastly Colloquies: Of Plagiarism and Pluralism in Two Medieval Disputations between Animals and Men”, Comparative Literature Studies, Vol. 39, No. 3 (2002), pp. 179-200.
• Alvarez, María Lourdes (2002), “Beastly Colloquies: Of Plagiarism and Pluralism in Two Medieval Disputations between Animals and Men”, Comparative Literature Studies, Vol. 39, No. 3 (2002), pp. 179-200.

Keywords

• The Animals Lawsuit against Humanity
• Ikhwana Al-Safa
• Rawzato al-Aqool
• Tarba al-Majalis
• Majma '
• al-Nooreyn

Main Subjects

• History of literature of Iran