فهرست مطالب ناهید حجازی

The thoughts and attitudes of writers have always been influenced by the political, social, and cultural conditions of their societies, and their personality and life inevitably affect their literary creations as well. Iranian writers are no exception to this rule, and this paper, based on the new historicism approach and Foucault and Greenblatt theories, tries to first seek the influence of the lifestyle and personality of contemporary Iranian writers of 1920 to 2000 on the creation of their works. Furthermore, the impact of social, political, and ideological relations on their works is examined. Why specific authors and their works are selected in this study is a question tried to be answered, regarding the social circumstances and events. The data reveal that the creation of any novel or short story is in a complex network of diverse elements, and the novel is not just the product of the author’s genius and creativity. The author is influenced by certain discourses in society and the quality of his chosen language and themes is the result of his attitudes, motives, and the political and socio-cultural circumstances; moreover, it is a response to the needs of society.

Imagology or representation of the “other” provides the opportunity for the nations to see their face in the mirror of the “other”. Through imagology, the conversations begin, and identification of the “other” leads to recognition of “self”. Alterity and the necessity of recognizing “other” are significant keys in self-awareness. Examining several layers of travelogues represents a way to discover the underlying meaning of the text, with regard to the imagological keywords such as I, the other, classified view, judgment, and stereotypical thinking. These layers are read in four stages in Sharh-e Zendegani-ye Man by Abdollah Mostowfi (1878-1950), in which he explains his journey to Russia. The first layer is read, regarding the difference between “I” and the “other”, and the influence of the “others” on the author’s life. In the second layer, the classified view of “I” (Mostowfi) upon “other” is studied. The third layer refers to Mostowfi’s consideration of the reality of Russia and the effect of his stereotypes and mental concepts thereon. The fourth layer includes his linguistic structure and descriptions. Ultimately, Mostowfi’s journey to Russia is affected by his view and mentality, and it is not an account of the absolute and certain reality. By clarifying his way of thinking and living, his time, and the political and cultural relations between Iran and Russia at that period, along with his presuppositions and mental concepts, we can grasp a relative understanding of Mostowfi’s picture of Russia.

Literary works in a general manner and novel somehow in a particular way are created through the social, political and cultural context with its specific characteristics. A new historicist approach based on the ideas of Stephen Greenblatt and Michel Foucault transcends the traditionalist historian approach that only cares about the text or the new critique approach which surveys the creation of the work only according to the historical and social conditions. In this paper, based on the Greenblatt and Foucault’s new historian approach these topics are evaluated and analyzed: 1) the historical and social conditions and biographies of the two writers and the similarities between them, 2) representation of those terms in both works by the authors, 3) their interaction with other works, 4) style, discourse and power in both works, and 5) identity change. The first three components are the outer elements of the text and the last two, the inner ones.

One of the growth and arrogance indicators in every science is to hold special conferences especially in the academic communities. The first conference on comparative literature history took place in 1878in Paris. There is no association or conference in Iran in the field of comparative literature or if there is any, it seems that it is not active. The mentioned field does not have a background more than seven decades (since 1938); it was late 70s that universities started to hold such conferences with the Comparative Literature subject. The present article studies the pathology of the held conferences in this major.

After World War II، Japan was slowly coming out of political، social and economical isolation and situation in Japan was provided for the growing field of comparative literature. As a result of Japanese’s researchers desire to adapt to modern scholars، the French School of Comparative Literature was welcomed by them. Comparative literature was founded in 1948 and its first issue was published in 1958. Courses in literature، social sciences and humanities in most if not all national and private universities are hold from international and intercultural perspective، although private universities are more active than national. In 2002، international agreements between foreign universities outside of Japan were signed with Japanese universities inside to promote those subjects. The number of foreign masters was increased in the Japanese’s universes. Although Japan is not a world leader in the field of literary theory and comparative literature، but it has some of the world''s literary theory in its literature while preserving the traditions and culture of its own. Some aspect of its literature and culture has been introduced to the world in the form of world''s literary theory.

Although modern Spain has established relations with the European Union and has opened her political and economic doors to the rest of the world, the comparative literature used to be considered marginal. This article reviews and analyzes the causes of its marginalization and based on past and current status of comparative literature in this country predicts its future. Lack of attention to comparative literature in Spain has its roots in the decline of her political and economic power over Spanish colonies, domination of fascist regimes, closed doors to other countries, and involvement in civil wars. Fearing to lose their national literary identity, made Spanish researchers hesitant to adapt new theories of comparative literature as expressed in other parts of the world. Another reason is the multiplicity of languages and literatures in different regions of Spain, which has caused serious conflicts and disagreements among authors and poets. Regional authors usually claimed that the culturalidentity of Spain belonged to them and this created a gap between different languages and literatures of various regions. Thus, comparative literature was neglected as a discipline. From midtwentieth century with the establishment of the Comparative Literature Association of Spain, the number of comparative literature programs increased in the Spanish universities as well, and the researches of the prominent Spanish scholars, like Claudio Guillén, revived the academic life of this discipline in Spain.

Comparative Literature in Arabic countries like Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Kuwait and Bahrain has a short history, but it mainly developed in Egypt. Therefore, in this article, keeping historical, social, cultural and literary conditions in mind, I try to find out how Comparative Literature grew in Egypt as an example of Arabic countries. Egyptian literature did not achieve intellectual, literary and cultural status during Mongolian and three centuries of Ottoman rule. The French introduced printing industry and established libraries, scientific and literary institutions and thus started a new movement in Egypt. Comparative Literature as a new field ofknowledge developed in Egypt under the influence of the French school by Muhammad Ghunaymi Hilal in the 1950s, then in the 1980s Sáid Allush and Hussam Al-Khateeb introduced the American school to the Arab world. Despite the difficulties and problems like unfamiliarity with theoretical principles and methodology, some valuable studies and researches have been done in the Arab world.

India, with one official and twenty two important, but yet unofficial languages and various literatures, has endured a long and windy road in comparative literature especially after the colonial era. In this article I will look at the vigorous history and the foundation of Jadavpur University, where the department of comparative literature started in 1956 for the first time in India. I will then review the social, political, academic and literary conditions of that period. I will also examine how this new field of study was formed and solidified. To trace the history of Jadavpur University is to trace a part of India’s freedom movement in many aspects especially in literature

Mulla Sadra (979-1050 AH) and Parmenides (510-340 BC) are two of the most distinguished figures in the field of philosophy who have influenced philosophical thought with their innovations concerning the most important philosophical issues.Although one belongs to the era of the beginning of philosophical thought in ancient Greece and the other rose in a period in which his different thought was in its culmination, their theories of “being” are sometimes very close to and sometimes far from each other.Here, the writer first deals with the approaches, worldviews, and methods of the two philosophers regarding “being”. Then she reveals what the meaning of this issue for each of them is and describes how they sometimes come close to and sometimes go far from each other in this regard. Firstly, both of them agree that “being” is real, base phenomena on “being”, and maintain that anything other than it is unoriginal. Secondly, both believe that it is possible to demonstrate the principiality of “being” by means of logical reasoning. Thirdly, although their analyses are different, knowledge enjoys an ontological basis in their philosophies. For them, there is an agreement between thought and being; thought perceives being, which is not an abstract and mental issue. Nevertheless, Mulla Sadra and Parmenides move away from each other when they explain the kind of “being” and the mode of its principiality and actualization. This is because each of them follows a specific purpose.