دکتر محمد احمدی

Saʿid Nafisi’s critical edition of Rashid-al-din Vatvat’s Divan is up-to-date and the only available edition of the poet’s Divan. It is also the only edition presented to academic assemblies. This book was published by Barani library in Tehran in 1960. This edition despite many advantages especially in terms of gathering almost all the poems attributed to Rashid-al-din Vatvat, contains plenty of errors and flaws and some inserted poems from other contemporary or subsequent poets to Rashid-al-din Vatvat. Some scholars have already pointed out some of these errors and deficiencies in their published research papers. These scholars have also stressed the need for a new critical edition of this precious heritage from 12th century AH based on newly-found sources and the poet’s style of poetry. This paper also highlights fourteen important errors in Sa’id Nafisi’s edition of Rashid-al-din Vatvat’s Divan based on eleven old manuscripts and handwritten anthologies from previous centuries. This study not only can collaborate and contribute to enriching studies related to Rashid-al-din Vatvat and Persian literary manuscript analysis, critical edition studies, and textual analysis but also can help scholars and researchers of Persian language and literature to solve other complexities in other Persian literary texts.

Rashid-Al-Din Watwat is among those poets whose poetic pedagogy especially in composing qaṣīdah is strongly influenced by Awhad Al-Din Anvari. Although we can trace the impact of other poets such as Farokhi, Suzani, Moezzi, Sanā'ī and above all Zahir Al-Din Faryabi in his poetry, but the influence of Anvari’s qaṣīdahs on his poetry is like the impact of Ḵᵛāju’s ghazals on Hafez with only one difference and that is Watwat’s insufficiency in creativity and innovation. This paper not only highlights Watwat’s tendency to loan form and content from his predecessors and contemporary poets particularly from Anvari, but also will provide valuable information about the Anvari’s impact on Watwat’s poetry which have been studied under two board categories: 1. similar verses with the same meter and rhythm and 2. similar verses with the different meter and rhythm and minor divisions of it. The result of this paper will demonstrate which poets have influenced Watwat most in his poetry and which of them are particularly important in forming his poetic framework.

Ferdowsi in his masterpiece, Shahnameh has revealed his thoughts and beliefs in some segments of his work. One of the most important occasions where he has spoken his thoughts repeatedly for about 80 times throughout Shahnameh are the verses in which he composed after almost every tragic event or death of kings, heroes and, other characters. In those verses, Ferdowsi has expressed his hatred towards the world’s hypocrisy, ruthlessness and, disloyalty. In these segments-which in this paper has been referred to as Ferdowsi’s complaints- the poet according to Burke’s theory of dramatism emphasizes on the scene for communication. Emphasis on scene in communication according to Burke’s theory is associated with philosophical fatalism which is a doctrine that stresses the subjugation of all events or actions to destiny, and is commonly accompanied with the consequent attitude of resignation in the face of future events which are thought to be inevitable. Among factors that have contributed to the formation of this attitude in Ferdowsi’s complaints, one is Shahnameh itself which is the story of the deterioration of the Persian Empire and other is the social, economic and political instability of Iran after the Arab conquest until 10th century A.D. Shahnameh and the social, economic and political instability of Iran can be seen as the common grounds (substance) Ferdowsi and his audience shared in this period of history. This paper studies the factors that helped to generate the common grounds between Ferdowsi and his audience

Rashid al-Din Vatvat, a poet and prose writer of the Khwarezmian court, was one of the most eminent figures in the 12th century AH. His fame and reputation in his lifetime went beyond Khwarazm and most of his contemporary poets such as Adib Sabir, Abd al-Vasi Jabali, Suzani Samarqandi, Seyyed Hasan Ghaznavi, Asir al-Din Akhsikati, Anvari, and Khaqani mentioned him in their poetry. The biographers after him recorded an extensive account of his life and considered him as one of the best panegyric poets of 12th century contemporary to the Khwarezmian. Vatvat’s widespread fame as a high-ranking official of the Khwarezmian court and an eloquent poet aroused the interest of biographers and scribes to attribute other poems of unknown and less important poets to him; poems which are not nearly close to Vatvat’s style of poetry and whose original poets, by investigating some old anthologies, may be identified. This paper highlights inserted poems in Vatvat’s Divan in Nafisi’s critical edition (Tehran, 1960) which is to date the only edition presented to academic assemblies. These poems are not likely to be composed by Vatvat, but since past biographers and scribes attributed it to him, Nafisi inserted them in his critical edition. This study discusses the reasons why the previously mentioned poems are not Vatvat’s and, to the extent possible, mentions the original composers of them. The results of this article can enrich the studies on Vatvat’s poetry and manuscript analysis.

In recent decades, there has been a growing interest to study a variety of figurative attributions and simile structures from the perspective of their profound social and cultural role, regardless of their mere aesthetic function. In literary studies, figurative attributions and simile structures which are commonly acknowledged as "metaphor" in this article, usually have mere ornamental function being considered as one of the most significant rhetorical devices, while the communicative function of metaphor for conveying a certain worldview is usually neglected. In recent decades, numerous research studies conducted in various fields have revealed that metaphor is one of the major means in history by which events in the world have been constructed as reality or knowledge for human being. The researches in the above studies hold that each metaphor can serve various manifestations of reality. In another words, metaphors can arrange human perception and experience so that they represent certain worldviews to the existing events. In this respect, metaphors are formed based on implicit assumptions, views, and values in order to convey and promote certain worldviews. Relying on contemporary theories on metaphor, it was attempted in this article to provide an extensive analysis of various divine and prophetic manifestations of king in Rashid al-Din Vatvat’s Divan to show the metaphorical basis of the diverse descriptions and qualifications of king in his poetry and to illustrate the communicative means used under the influence of the original metaphor.

Almost all of the panegyric poets of the 5th and 6th century AH in their poetry follow the fantasy of king, the national and religious hero. This fantasy which is the result of symbolic convergence of national and religious characters especially characters like Rostam and Heidar in post-Islamic Iranian worldview has become one of the main approaches to communicate with the court and to depict and describe the king in certain ways. In Iran this idealistic worldview begins with the national movements like Shu'ubiyya movement and the rise of Shia orientations among Iranians and eventually it leads to a shared fantasy between poets about the king which then according to religious beliefs was considered as the shadow of God and caliph of God on earth. This paper base on fantasy-theme criticism and base on analysis of frequency and intensity of common motifs in the poems of this period argues that the fantasy of king, the national and religious hero has brought about similar communicative patterns among poets and has shaped the panegyric poetry in Iran in certain ways. This analysis will show what communicative approaches have been used to address the court base on the shared fantasy.

Christian letters like Letter to the Hebrews or Epistle to the Galatians are the type texts frequently studied by various approaches. Rhetorical critics also in rhetorical criticism of the Bible have had different and various attitudes and have adopted different approaches. That’s why in recent years rhetorical criticism has come to be known as way of analyzing Christian letters in the bible. In this essay we will study the evolutions and the reasons for changing attitude in rhetorical criticism of the Bible. In the short history of rhetorical criticism stylistic approaches will soon be replaced by the method base on classical rhetoric and after other methods based on interdisciplinary studies will be introduced. Limitations of stylistic approaches which only considered the aesthetical aspects of the letters is one of the most important reasons for the emergence of methods base on classical rhetoric, However the disputes over the relationship between rhetoric and epistolography and the prescriptive nature of these methods lead to other methods based on interdisciplinary studies being introduced.

In the recent decades, rhetorical criticism has been recognized as a method for the assessment of the letters in the Holy Book and many critics have applied this critical approach in studying Christian epistles. Apart from the communicative structure of the epistles – which is, naturally, fit for rhetorical analysis – another reason for the application of rhetorical criticism in studying the letters seems to be the fact that in their composition, the Christian epistles have been influenced by the principles of ancient oratory. Nowadays, some scholars believe that due to the influence of the instructions of oratory teachers, the principles of letter-writing in the ancient times were regulated in a special style and this has caused similarities between orations and letters in ancient times. Even though this view is not completely accepted in academic circles, it has motivated some scholars to attempt rhetorical analyses of the epistles of the Holy Book following the principles of ancient oratory. The present article first introduces the most important methods that, based on the principles of ancient oratory, have emerged in the rhetorical criticism of the Holy Book and, then, assesses the existing challenges in applying these methods in studies on the rhetorical criticism of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Rashid al-Din Muhammad Umar-i Vatvāt is one of panegyrist poets in 12th-century, who had special skills in using artistic devices in composing poetry and this was a way for him to illustrate his talent in this regard. Unfortunately his poetry has never had popularity among contemporary scholars and they had only paid attention to his book about rhetoric known as Hadaegh –al Sehr, on the contrary to the litterateurs in past who were fond of his poetry and paid a lot of attention to his poems and his biography in various anthologies. In this essay we have analyzed the pros and cons of Rashid’s poetry and have tried to answer why contemporary scholars haven’t had interest in his poetry from different angles. Rashid’s innovations in poetry have also been analyzed in his essay and his position among poets and in the history of Persian poetry has been determined

Eloquence, literary studies, persuasion. As far as we know researches and studies about the nature of rhetoric gradually were considered by the theorists of eloquence and for this reason the meaning of rhetoric changed completely. Rhetoric in its new meaning was a kind of language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect and was more in relation with literature than the art of oratory. Rhetorical studies finally in the late nineteenth century and the early years of twentieth century became one of the most important branches of literary criticism and revitalized under the name of Rhetorical criticism. Followers of this critical approach in their analyses didn’t have any predefined theory so as a result they didnot form a special kind of literary school; despite this fact all rhetorical critics believe that in analyzing any kind of literary or non- literary works a critic should always consider different ways and tactics of persuasion.

IntroductionRhetoric is a term that has significantly changed in meaning throughout the history. Not enough attention has been given to the term’s conceptual complexity in Persian and its vast meaning in literary studies. Although it is impossible to differentiate between the various meanings of the term, rhetoric in different contexts has a particular meaning. In Persian, this term has frequently been translated to oratory and eloquence; as rhetoric is more than oratory and eloquence, in this essay we have studied how different meanings of rhetoric have been shaped throughout the history. Some of the most important meanings of rhetoric are eloquence, oratory, weak style and communication. This essay can help the scholars to distinguish between the various meanings of rhetoric in different contexts and differentiate their significance in translation.
MethodologyIndividuals trained in different fields often prefer to use rhetoric in specific contexts, while rhetoric cannot be restricted to a particular use. Considering the fact that none of its equivalents in Persian can completely demonstrate the true nature of rhetoric and also because of cultural and historical connotations, we have preferred to use the term rhetoric in this essay instead of any of its equivalents in Persian. Different meanings of rhetoric in different periods have been investigated in this essay. Obviously, the perspectives of our ancestors about rhetoric have never been forgotten completely in any time, but we can say in different historical periods, one specific meaning of rhetoric has been dominant over its other meanings.
DiscussionBased on historical facts, the term rhetoric was first used in one of the Plato’s dialogues known as Gorgias, which was probably written around 380 BC. Without any doubt, rhetoric in this work referred to oratory. After Plato, Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian who were the most eminent figures and biggest theoreticians of oratory in ancient times also used rhetoric in the same manner and rhetoric was long used to mean oratory. But after the democratic governments in Greece and Rome collapsed, the civic role of rhetoric gradually decreased and weakened and instead of practicing forensic and deliberative oratory, aesthetics became the concern of the teachers of rhetoric and the aesthetic topics in rhetorical handbooks became dominant, and rhetoric begin to mean eloquence. In other words eloquence is one of the several meanings of rhetoric. As soon as style became dominant over the other principles in rhetorical handbooks sophistication and attention to the decorative and imaginative aspects of language and the techniques and ways of beautifying grew among rhetoricians and they became obsessed with aesthetics. In this period the meaning of rhetoric changes to verbiage and weak style. Even today in educational institutions in the United States and other countries, rhetoric still has negative connotations. We can claim that rhetoric in its history was always fluctuated between moral and logical and aesthetical perspectives and these perspectives have imposed positive and negative meanings to this term. In the modern period, scholars believe that rhetoric is any kind of communication attempt to change or reinforce an idea, behavior or attitude of human beings. That’s why rhetoric nowadays is equal to all human communication. In other words rhetoric in its new meaning is part of human identity, because whenever man strives to express his emotions and thoughts with the aim of influencing others he is using rhetoric, so we can infer that rhetoric is omnipresent. In this new perspective rhetoric is more than oratory, eloquence and verbiage.
ConclusionThe term rhetoric was first used in one of the paltos dialogues known as Gorgias and has long been used to mean oratory; but due to intellectual, social and political developments in Europe the meaning of rhetoric underwent changes throughout the history and this term gradually not only referred to oratory, but also begin to mean eloquence, verbiage, weak style, persuasion and communication. Persian scholars and translators have mostly translated rhetoric to eloquence or oratory and have neglected the other meanings of rhetoric. In this essay we have analyzed how the scope of rhetoric due to political and social changes have changed throughout the history and what has rhetoric been referred to in different periods. This essay can help the scholars to distinguish the various meanings of rhetoric in literary and nonliterary studies and differentiate their significance in translation.

In the current article, the history of rhetoric from 400 B.C. to 100 A.D. is reviewed. During this 500 years, the theoretical basis of classical rhetoric was established and has remained almost the same throughout the centuries. The first sage who established theoretical basis for rhetoric with a logical approach was Aristotle. Aristotle’s views on rhetoric are very carefully and precisely analyzed in this article. Following Aristotle, Roman teachers of rhetoric such as Cicero and Quintilian added more to the theory of rhetoric. The Roman’s theory of rhetoric is also reviewed in the article. The current article seeks to show the differences and similarities of Aristotle’s theory of rhetoric as well as the Romans perception of it.

Searching the reasons for the superiority of one text over another with the same theme and the same subject has long been a vital question up on the minds of literary critics. Dealing with these types of texts, this critical question has always been outstanding in the mind of serious literary critics that why the narration of one author is more cohesive than the others. So analyzing the structures and the components of the more influential narrations, and comparing their intellectual foundation to the similar narrations can probably offer the answer to the question and, undoubtedly, a very beneficial method in literary studies. The logical structures of better narrations are definitely one of the main reasons of their superiority. The authors, in present essay, have analyzed the superiority of the allegory of Elephant in Masnavi- Ma`anavi over the same allegory in Ḥadiqat al-Ḥaqiqaand have shown, eliciting the rhetorical methods of each work, that Masnavi is indeed more coherent in comparison with Ḥaqiqain every respect.

Persuasion is a process which tries to convince audiences and invade their minds. This communicative process has an important role in literary world، because one of the main aims of authors and poets has always been to persuade their audiences. Considering such an important، there has been accomplished several different studies on the nature of persuasion in literature and literary studies in recent years. These types of researches which have started in West and developed and spread all over the world deal with various methods on which the audience would be persuaded. In this study، we have tried to survey the history of persuasion process to make the importance of such studies in the field of literature and literary criticism clear.