مرزباننامه به شیوة کلیله و دمنه مشتمل بر حکایات و افسانههای حکمتآمیز است و از زبانِ انسان ها و وحوش نوشته شده است. این مؤلفه ها به همراه شیوة نگارشِ کتاب باعث شده است تا این اثر را تقلیدی از کلیله و دمنه بدانند و اهمیّتِ آن را بیش تر در فنّ نگارشِ آن قلمداد کنند، در صورتیکه وقتی زیرساخت و ساحتِ محتواییِ این دو کتاب را مقایسه کنیم، در خواهیم یافت که زیرساختِ فکری شان به دلیلِ دیدگاه حاکم بر آنها، بسیار متفاوت است. پژوهشِ حاضر در پیِ پاسخ به این پرسش است که آیا اندیشۀ حاکم بر مرزبان نامه تحتِ تأثیرِ جهان بینیِ ایرانِ باستان است و یا فرهنگ و اندیشۀ هندیِ حاکم بر کلیله و دمنه؟ یافته های حاصل از این پژوهش که به روشِ مقایسهای - تحلیلی و با نگاهی به زیرساختِ فکریِ هر دو اثر، به انجام رسیده، نشان میدهد که دیدگاهِ حاکم بر مرزبان نامه بر خلافِ کلیله و دمنه - دیدگاهی مثبت نگر است؛ به گونهای که بیشترِ داستان های آن، دارای پایانِ خوبی هستند. زیرساختِ فکری مرزبان نامه بر اساسِ فلسفة مزدیسنا - فلسفة پیروزی نیکی بر بدی - و جهان بینیِ ایرانی شکل گرفته است و بر همین بنیاد، این اثر نه تنها تقلیدی محض از کلیله و دمنه نیست؛ بلکه تدوینی هدف مند و آگاهانه است.
عنوان مقاله [English]
Comparing the structure of Marzbannameh and Kelileh & Demneh (According to the appearance of ancient Iranian and Indian thought)
Same as Kelileh & Demneh, Marzban Nameh has also been created including anecdotes, allegories and philosophic myths which have been said with the language of humans, animals and birds. These factors beside the composition method of the book have led authors to treat it as a mere imitation of Kelileh & Demneh and take its importance in the composition method and art of its author. But, when we compare the intellectual foundation and atmosphere of Marzbannameh and Kelileh & Demneh, we find that as a result of their dominant viewpoint, they have egregious difference in their intellectual foundation. In the present study, using the analytical-comparative method and by looking at the intellectual substructure of these books, we have shown that Marzban Nameh, unlike Kelileh & Demneh, has an optimistic dominant viewpoint; in a way that most of its stories have good ending. The findings of the study show that the intellectual substructure of Marzban Nameh is based on Mazdyasna philosophy –victory of goodness against badness- and the Iranian worldview, and according to this, Marzban Nameh is not a mere imitation of Kelileh & Demneh; but, it is a deliberate and purposeful composition.
Story-telling and narration are of distinguished literary styles among Iranian and the Indians that beside their amusement aspect, they have had a great role in educational and tutoring fields. On top of these allegorical anecdotes with a comprehensive framework, is Kelileh & Demneh. Iranian poets, imitating Kelileh & Demneh, created a complex of stories with a special moral framework, called Marzbannameh. This is one of the most valuable artworks of the Persian literature that has been written by Espahbad Marzban-ebn- e Rostam-ebn- e Sharvin in Tabarestani language in the fourth century (A.H), and Saad al-din Varavini translated it to technical Farsi Dari in the first half of the seventh century (between years 617-622). (see: Safa, 1990, vol. 2: 1005-1008; Bahar, 1994, vol. 3: 14-20; Williams, Marzban-nama).
Most of the Iranian poetry systems after Islam and prose books as Marzbannameh are connected to the anecdotes and myths of before Islam and people believe that Marzbannameh has roots in the culture and literature of pre-Islamic era (Moein, 1946: 6-7; Ripeca, 2003: 336-337 and Rezaei, 2011).
This research is investigating the answer to the question: Are the contents and deep structure of Marzbannameh the same as Kelileh & Demneh as in its allegorical, fictive structure and narration of some stories? Or only their surface structure is similar?
Few researches have investigated the fundamental and mental issues of the work. Mohammad Moein is one of the pioneers in Youshat Fariyan and Marzbannameh book (Moein, 1946). Also, Sirus Shamisa in his article “Marzbannameh and Khatereh-ye shekast-e Divan” (Shamisa, 1982), concludes that the chapters “Div-e Gavpay and Danaye Dini” are symbols of battle between the Aryans and the natives of Gilan. Other researches include “Marzbannameh Yadegari Az Iran-e Ahd-e Sasani” (2009) by Mahdi Rezaei which declare the history of the work in the pre-Islamic era.
Necessity and importance of the research
Importance of the present study is showing that Marzbannameh is not a mere imitation of Kelileh & Demneh; but their mental structure is totally different and Marzbannameh has been created according to the ancient Iranian thought and a special moral system.
With a brief look to Marzbannameh, we discover that although the patterns of the work are loaned from Kelileh & Demneh, but the main thought and viewpoint of them are totally different; an optimistic viewpoint that results in a good ending for more than eighty percents of the stories. This is according to that optimistic viewpoint which the stories directly taken from Kelileh & Demneh or stories indirectly affected by Kelileh & Demneh have good endings or their ending in Marzbannameh has been changed to good ending.
For example, the story “the farmer with wolf and snake” is in concordance with the story “the man who scaped from the furious camel” in Kelileh & Demneh:
“a man suddenly saw a wolf; he rapidly climbed a tree. On the branch of the tree was a sleeping snake. He thought by himself that if I shout, the snake would get up and kill me, and if I go down I cannot fight with the wolf. He relied on God and kept patient. Suddenly a farmer arrived from the field. The wolf escaped and the man got down the tree; he prayed to God and continued his way” (Marzban-ebn- e Rostam, 1985: 233-234).
“the man who escaped from the furious camel” from Kelileh & Demneh:
“A man escaped from a furious camel and went into a well. He took two branches on top a stood on a place. When he looked more precisely, he found that his feet are on the heads of four snakes and at the bottom of the well a big dragon was waiting for him. On top, some black and white mice were chewing the branches. While he was thinking a way to survive, he saw a honey beehive. He started to eat honey and forgot to find a way to survive. Finally the mice chewed the branches and he fell down into the mouth of the dragon” (Monshi, 1967: 57-58).
The core idea of the story “farmer with wolf and snake” is also taken its roots from the mentioned story of Kelileh & Demneh. Both are symbolically narrating the world and life and human facing them. In both of them, a person has got a problem and relied on something, but in his safe place also got a new problem. The difference between the stories is their ending: the story in Kelileh & Demneh has bad ending (the man is neglectful and falls into the dragon’s mouth), but in Marzbannameh the man survives by relying on God and being patient.
plot and pattern of Marzbannameh is like Kelileh & Demneh; but its deep structure is different; since Kelileh & Demneh is an Indian book and its stories are according to the Indian’s culture and worldview. But Marzbannameh has been created based on the culture and thoughts of the ancient Iran. The winning of goodness and giving the right to the deserved one in the deep structure of Marzbannameh takes its roots from the thought of Mazdisna which is the basis of the Iranian worldview in the Sassanid era.
It is true that marzbannameh is created according to Kelileh & Demneh from the aspects of structure and formation and its content, like Kelileh & Demneh, is about moral and educational issues and a tool for inspiration of socio-political concepts; but taking into account the mental and fundamental structures of the two books, Marzbannameh is not a simple and mere imitation of Kelileh & Demneh.
Totally, the author of Marzbannameh has taken some steps from Kelileh & Demneh in its formation and literary style; but not in contents.
The viewpoint of the two books is completely different; because Marzbannameh is according to the Iranian worldview and thoughts of Iranians; but the mental source of Kelileh & Demneh is the culture and worldview of Indians.
1- Etminān, Khadijeh. (1998). “Librālizm va moshābahathāy-h mazāmin-e Kalileh va demneh va Marzbān-nāmeh bā ān”. Journāl of Persian Language and Literature. Year. 3. No. 4. pp: 37 – 49.
2- Bahār, Mohammād Taghi. (1986). Sabk shanāsi. Vol. 3. Tehrān: Amirkabir.
3- Bahār, Mehrdād. (2012). Pazhouhashi dar asātir-e Irān. 9th ed. Tehrān: Agah.
4- Boyce, Mary. (2010). “Deyānat-e zartoshti dar dowrān-e mota'kher”. Deyānat-e zartoshti. Tr. by Farydoun Vahman. 2th ed. Tehrān: Sales.
5- Pārsa, Sayyed Ahmad. (2015). “Bonmāyehāy-h ostoureheiy-h hakāyat-e khayr va shar dar Haft paykar-e Nazāmi”. Quārterly Journal of Mytho-mystic Literature.Year. 11. Vol. 38. pp: 41 – 56.
6- Halabi, Ali Asghar. / Kh. Etminān. (2007). “Mākyavalism va moshābahathāy-h mondaraj dar Kalileh va demneh va Marzbān-nāmeh bā ān”. Jornāl of Payk-e nour. Year. 7. No. 4. pp: 22 – 31.
7- Dādegi, Faranbag. (1982). Bondahesh. Report of Mehrdād Bahār. Tehrān: Tous.
8- Razāei, Mahdi. (2010). “Marzbān-nāmeh yādgāri az Irān-e Sāsāni”. Reseearches on Persian Language and Literature (Gowhar-i-Guyā). No. 13. pp: 47 – 68.
9- Ripka, Yan. (2002). History of Iranian Literature. Tr. by Eisā SHahābi. 2th ed. Tehrān: Scientific and Cultural Publishing Company.
10- SHamisā, Sirous. (1982). “Marzbān-nāmeh va khāterey-e shakaste Divān”. Chistā. No. 10. pp: 1276 – 1283.
11- Safā, Zabih-o-llāh. (1990). History of Literature in Iran. Vol. 2. 10th ed. Tehrān: Ferdows.
12- Moein, Mohammad. (1946). Yousht-faryān va Marzbān-nāmeh. Tehrān: Majles.
13- ________________. (2010). Mazd-yasnā va adab-e Pārsi. Vol. 2. 6th ed. Tehrān: university of Tehran.
14- Mohammadi-e Malāyari, mohammad. (1987). Farhang-e Irani-e pish az islam va āsār-e ān dar tamaddon-e islāmi va adabiyāt-e arabi. Vol. 4. Tehrān: Tous.
15- Marzbān-ebn-e Rostam-ebn-e Sharvin. (1984). Marzbān-nāmeh. Tr. by Sa'd-oddin Varāvini. With the effort of Mohammad-ebn-e Abdolvahhāb-e Ghazvini. Tehrān: Foroughi.
16- Monshi, Nasr-ollāh. (1966). Kalileh va Demneh. With the effort of Abdolazim Gharib. Tehrān: Pirouz.
17- Minovi-e Tehrāni, Mojtabā. (2012). “Moghdamay-h Kalileh va Demneh”. Correction by Mojtabā Minovi-e Tehrāni. Vol. 8. Tehrān: university of Tehrān.
18- Najafi, Eisā. / F. Farzi. (2014). “Barrasi-e andishehā-y Irānshahri dar Marzbān-nāmeh”. Jornāl of Epic Literature. University of Lorestān. Year. 1. No. 1. pp: 123 – 154.
19- Williams, K. Crewe. “MARZBĀN-NĀMA”. Encyclopedia Iranica. Available at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/marzban-nama. [Accessed 20 October 2018].
20- Riedel, Dagmar. “KALILA WA DEMNA i. Redactions and circulation”. Encyclopedia Iranica, Available at: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kalila-demna-i. [Accessed 22 October 2018].