زِﻧﺎي ﭼﺸﻢ ﯾﺎ رﻧﺎي ﭼﺸﻢ؟ ﻧﻘﺪي ﺑﺮ ﺗﺼﺤﯿﺢ ﺑﯿﺘﯽ از ﻣﺜﻨﻮي ﻣﻮﻟﻮي

Zina of the Eye or Gaze of the Eye? A suggestion for editing a verse in the Mathnavi of Rumi

در ﺗﺼﺤﯿﺢ ﻧﺴﺨﻪﻫﺎي ﺧﻄّﯽ، ﻧﻘﺎط و ﻓﺎﺻﻠﮥ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺣﺮوف و ﮐﻠﻤﺎت ﻧﻘﺶ ﺗﻌﯿﯿﻦﮐﻨﻨﺪهاي دارﻧﺪ. اﮔﺮ در ﯾﮏ ﻋﺒﺎرت، ﮐﻠﻤﻪاي ﺑﻪ ﭼﻨﺪﯾﻦ ﺷﮑﻞ ﺧﻮاﻧﺪه ﺷﻮد ﮐﻪ ﻫﺮﮐﺪام ﻣﻌﻨﺎﯾﯽ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ آن ﺑﺎﻓﺖ داﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ، ﯾﺎ اﮔﺮ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﻪاي ﺑﯿﻦ ﯾﮑﯽ از ﺣﺮوف ﮐﻠﻤﻪ، آن را ﺑﻪ دو ﺷﮑﻞِ ﻣﻌﻨﺎدار ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺗﺒﺪﯾﻞ ﮐﻨﺪ، اﻧﺘﺨﺎب ﺷﮑﻞ درﺳﺖ دﺷﻮارﺗﺮ اﺳﺖ. ﺣﺎل اﮔﺮ ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮﭘﺬﯾﺮي و ﺧﺎﺻﻪ ﺷﯿﻮة ﺧﺎص ﺗﻔﺎﺳﯿﺮ ﻋﺮﻓﺎﻧﯽ را ﻧﯿﺰ در اﯾﻦ ﺧﻮاﻧﺶﻫﺎ دﺧﯿﻞ ﮐﻨﯿﻢ، ﺑﺎ اﻧﺘﺨﺎبﻫﺎي ﺑﯿﺸﺘﺮي ﻣﻮاﺟﻬﯿﻢ ﮐﻪ ﻫﺮﮐﺪام ﺑﻪﮔﻮﻧﻪاي ﺗﺄوﯾﻞ و ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮ ﻣﯽﺷﻮد. در دﻓﺘﺮ ﭼﻬﺎرم ﻣﺜﻨﻮي ﻣﻮﻟﻮي، در داﺳﺘﺎن »ﻗﺼﮥ ﻋﻄﺎرى ﮐﻪ ﺳﻨﮓ ﺗﺮازوى او ﮔﻞ ﺳﺮ ﺷﻮى ﺑﻮد...« ﻋﺒﺎرﺗﯽ ﻫﺴﺖ ﮐﻪ ﺑﻨﺎ ﺑﺮ ﻓﺎﺻﻠﮥ ﺑﯿﻦ ﺣﺮوﻓﺶ و داﺷﺘﻦ ﯾﺎ ﻧﺪاﺷﺘﻦ ﻧﻘﻄﻪ، ﺑﻪ ﭼﻨﺪ ﺷﮑﻞ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ ﺧﻮاﻧﺪه ﻣﯽﺷﻮد. ﻫﺮﮐﺪام از ﻣﺼﺤﺤﺎن و ﻣﻔﺴﺮان ﻣﺜﻨﻮي ﺷﮑﻠﯽ را ﺑﺮﮔﺰﯾﺪه و ﺑﻨﺎي ﺗﺼﺤﯿﺢ و ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮﺷﺎن را ﺑﺮ آن ﮔﺬاﺷﺘﻪاﻧﺪ. اﯾﻦ ﺿﺒﻂﻫﺎ و ﺗﻔﺴﯿﺮﻫﺎي ﺑﺮﮔﺰﯾﺪه ﻧﺎرﺳﺎﯾﯽﻫﺎﯾﯽ دارد. ﺑﺮآﻧﻢ ﺗﺎ ﺑﺎ ﺑﺮرﺳﯽ ﺣﺎﻟﺖﻫﺎي ﻣﻤﮑﻦ ﺿﺒﻂﻫﺎي اﯾﻦ ﻋﺒﺎرت و ﻧﮕﺎﻫﯽ ﺑﻪ اﻫﻢ ﺷﺮوح ﻣﺜﻨﻮي، ﭘﯿﺸﻨﻬﺎدي اراﺋﻪ دﻫﻢ ﮐﻪ ﻧﺎرﺳﺎﯾﯽ ﺿﺒﻂﻫﺎي ﭘﯿﺸﯿﻦ را ﻧﺪاﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ.

The dots of Persian and Arabic letters and spaces between them and other words play a decisive role in editing manuscripts. If in one sentence, the distance between one of the letters makes it meaningful in different ways, each of which has a proper application in the context, it becomes challenging to choose the correct one. Now, if we include the interpretability and, in particular, the distinct method of mystical interpretations in readings the phrases, we would face more fitting choices .In the fourth book of Rumi's Mathnavi, in the "story of druggist whose balance-weight was clay for washing the head..." there is a phrase that is read in different ways depending on the distance between its letters and having or not having a dot. Each of Mathnavi's editors and commentators has chosen a form and laid the foundation for their editing and interpretation. The two most picked commentaries are insufficient in conveying the phrase's meaning. In this article, I examine the possible forms of this phrase. Then, by showing how most important commentators of Masnavi interpreted this phrase, I offer a new possibility that does not have the inadequacy of the previous ones.