جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "عروض فارسی" در نشریات گروه "ادبیات و زبان ها"

Arūz (prosody) is -one of the oldest and most common methods of measuring and classifying the weight of poetry - from the second century (A.H.) until today, has been the measure and standard of measuring the weight of Persian and Arabic poetry. A style book that many consider to be the origin of the Arabic language and its creator is an Arab scientist named Khalil Ibn Ahmad Farahidi. By examining the historical course of Persian poetry, this research seeks to find the linguistic and geographical origin of prosody.

The present research is a theoretical study that was conducted in the style of a library research, and to identify the origin of Arūz, the historical and literary path of Persian poetry was followed from before the era of Christ (PBUH), when Persian syllabic poetry was written in a quantitatively weighted form. The path of evolution of syllabic style to the emergence of prosodic style has been followed in order to determine the geographical and linguistic origin of Arūz. Regarding the background of the research, no focused work has been done in this regard and it has been mentioned sporadically.

The history of several thousand years of Persian poetry is indicative of the fact that Iranians used to sing poetry in a syllabic style with little weight, they had their own weights, and the prosody style is an evolved form of Persian syllabic poetry.

So Arūz is not a one-time event that was formed over centuries and Khalil Ibn Ahmad only systematized it. Being aware of the fact that the Arabs had no history in the art of music and borrowed and learned it from the Iranians after Islam, as well as the high influence of Arūz on music, requires Khalil Ibn Ahmad to be Iranian or to have learned it from the Iranians. In the 6th century, Yaqut al-Hamwi removes this ambiguity when he clearly points out that Khalil ibn Ahmad is an Iranian and a Persian speaker in his book Mujam al-Adba. Because in the second century (A.H.), the language of science and government in the Middle East region was Arabic, Khalil Ibn Ahmad proposed this method in Arabic. Therefore, the origin of Prozod can be considered Iran and the Persian language, as an Iranian person wearing Arabic clothes.

Prosodic elements are considered the main parts of the Prosody science. So, learning these elements and the system that governs them plays a critical role in traditional prosody. In addition, recognizing the different types of elements (Salim va Mozahaf) shapes a big part of prosody. By realizing the defects of the traditional system, prosodists created new prosodic systems. In this way, each of them introduced their desired prosodic elements. But in the meantime, the explanation of the relationship between the elements in the new prosody and the suggestion of a structure for them was neglected. As a result, it confused the basics of prosody and caused difficulty in learning it. This research aims to identify the relationships between the elements and structurally explain them. The results of the study show two types of structural relationships between Persian prosodic elements. The first is formed based on the increase and decrease of the last syllables of the elements, and the second is based on the old concept of prosodic circles. By using it, all elements can be derived from the circles we call ‘elemental circles’. Based on these two types of relationships, two new prosodic structures are introduced: linear structure and circular structure. The common result shows that, regardless of rare ideas, the number of correct elements of Persian Prosody reaches 44, which are: 1 one-syllable, 2 two-syllable, 7 three-syllable, 13 four-syllable, and 21 five-syllable elements.

In the textbooks of prosody of schools and universities of the country, from the years after the Islamic Revolution until now, there has been a special method that is different from the traditional method of prosody. Taghi Vahidian Kamyar and Sirus Shamisa are two of the authors of these textbooks, whose books have played the most important role in teaching prosody in schools and universities over these years. Both of these authors, whose method is very close to each other, claim that their method is scientific and much simpler and more efficient than the traditional method. But since this method alone is not able to explain all the issues of prosody, they claim that they have combined this method with traditional method where necessary. Now, in this regard, the following questions are raised: Is the method adopted by these authors to teach prosody really a scientific, efficient and simple method and has it been able to solve all the problems of prosody and introduce students to Persian prosody completely? Is this method more efficient, accessible and convenient than the traditional method? Are the criticisms made by these authors on the traditional method correct? Has the method they have adopted really improved the traditional method or has it made it more complicated and difficult? Have these authors, as they have claimed, succeeded in combining the scientific method with the traditional method or not? In this speech, we have reviewed their books with a descriptive-analytical method and have shown that first of all, these two authors have accepted unconditionally the criticisms that some contemporary researchers such as Parviz Natel Khanlari, Masoud Farzad, Alul Saton and Abolhasan Najafi have made on traditional prosody and the suggestions that these researchers have made to improve the traditional method and they have followed them in their books while all these criticisms have not been appropriate and correct, and all these suggestions have not advanced in the direction of improving the traditional method. For example it has been appropriate and correct that they have placed the intersection on the basis of syllables instead of static and moving letters and have redefined foots and components of prosody on the basis of syllables, and have used the data of phonetics and phonology to explain prosodic issues and it has contributed to the simplification and accuracy of prosodic topics, but the efforts that these researchers have made with the intention of avoiding the complex issue of Zahafat from traditional method have not led to any success and have unnecessarily caused the proliferation of prosody components and the complexity of the meter classification method. Also, this acts have practically broken the relationships that the classes of meters have with each other in traditional prosody and have placed the bases of classification on the formal factors and disrupted the coherence of classification system. On the other hand, such acts of taste have caused an excessive increase in the number of prosody meters and confused the border of common and pleasant meters with rare and insignificant meters. In addition, in many cases, this critics have not been able to offer something better instead of the objections they made on the traditional method, and they have finally returned to the same things that they criticized. For example these researchers have said that only meters whose components are repetitive or alternating are balanced and they have tried very hard to scan all meters with repetitive or alternating components, but in the end they were forced to accept the meters that are intersected with three or four different components in their classification system. Secondly, in the places where these two authors have used the proposed new methods despite the traditional method, they have not explained basics and principles of these methods, and as a result, their words have come out without an introduction and vague. And it has caused students to wander. While the contents in the educational books should be cooked and tested and experienced and classic and approved by the professors of art. Any untested and unconsidered proposal does not deserve to be included in official textbooks. Thirdly, the method that these researchers have called scientific, in the other words, the method that is based on the data of phonetics and phonology, it is true that it is accurate and calculated, but it is very limited and undeveloped and incapable, and without the help of the traditional method cannot justify and explain many basic issues of prosody knowledge. While this two authors have claimed that wherever it was necessary, they returned to the traditional method and combined it with scientific method, not only did they not do this, but actually under pretext simplifying, many basic problems of prosody have been left unexplained and finally, they have referred the prosody students to the traditional books of prosody. It is obvious that if these prosody student were able to use the traditional resources of prosody on their own, they would no longer need a class, a lesson, a teacher and to get acquainted with a handful of raw and unconsidered suggestions. Fourthly, these authors have not correctly raised some prosody issues as required by their proposed method; for example, both authors have suggested that prosody students use Persian script for phonetic writing, while this task is actually difficult and causes many mistakes for beginners or, where they have placed the components of mozahaf in the row of the main prosody components, they have not counted these components completely so that the prosody learner is able to scan all the available meters, but they have only included the components that are in a small number of famous and widely used meters. As a result, these educational books cannot introduce the learners of prosody to all problems of prosodic knowledge and provide them with ground to master this literary knowledge and deal creatively with its problems.

One of the controversial issues regarding the similarities and differences in the meter of Arabic and Persian poetry is related to the influence of the meter of Persian poetry on Arabic. In this article, attention has been paid to the metrical nature of these two metrical systems. The frequency of common meters in Arabic and Persian has been investigated in order to determine the importance and position of each meter in the prosody of that system. In this way, the possibility of comparing meters based on their frequency in two metrical systems is also known. The findings of this article, which is based on the comparative method, indicate that among the 10 commonly used meters of Arabic and Persian, there is only one common meter, and that meter is based on the repetition of the foot fa'ulon. Also, none of the 9 commonly used Arabic meters are among the first 32 Persian meters. Another result is that in comparing the meters of Arabic and Persian poetry, referring to the traditional names of meters (such as muzara and mujtath) leads to wrong results. Another achievement of this paper is that for the teaching of Arabic and Persian verse at the elementary and intermediate level, the first 32 meters of Arabic and Persian poetry and the extent of their use have been made available to be used in teaching prosody at the elementary and intermediate level based on the frequency of these meters.

After organizing prosodic feet and presenting so-called Najafi’s circle, Abolhasan Najafi managed to classify most of the Persian poetic meters, provide a criterion for their pleasantness or unpleasantness, and divide them into muttafiq al-arkan (i.e., each consisting of a repeated foot) and mutanawib al-arkan (i.e., each consisting of two types of feet alternately repeated) meters. Nevertheless he found some meters adopted by Persian poets since Rudaki which could not be placed in either group of meters, but, towards the end of his life, he found a way of including these meters in his classification. According the rule he called “tafarro‘-e vazni” or “metrical branching”, all meters of both groups which started with a foot of ᴗ - ᴗ, the foot could be changed into - - ᴗ, bringing about a new and distinct meter. Re-explicating this rule in this paper by introducing some of Simin Behbahani’s poems versified in this meter, we rename the rule into “qa’ede-ye Simineh” (“Siminegi”) or “Simin’s rule.” There are three reasons for calling the rule in this way. The first is that no one has taken advantage of this rule as much as Simin, and the second one is that the scansion of the word “Simineh” reveals exactly the same foot appears in the new meter (- - ᴗ). Finally, it is possible that Najafi was partly led to this rule by investigating part of Simin’s poetry written in this meter.

The identification of prosodic feet and their syllable arrangements have an undeniably important role in identifying and categorizing families of poetic meters (buhūr) in Arabic and Persian prosody. Any confusion in the identification of poetic feet can lead to confusion in understanding and teaching prosody, just as proper organization of feet can facilitate the classification of meters and prosodic pedagogy. In this article, we will consider the Arabic pentasyllabic feet and their effect on Persian traditional prosody and evaluate the viewpoints of contemporary prosodists since Parviz Natel Khanlari, Abolhassan Najafi, and Laurence Paul Elwell-Sutton. We will argue that, based on the poetic evidence, the use of pentasyllabic feet significantly helps us teach and categorize Persian meters and remove one of the important shortcomings of Persian prosody. Moreover, the present article will emphasize the necessity of using pentasyllabic feet in the study of prosody and will discuss the relationship between such feet and the circular ones (vazn-e dowrī).

There is a line of poetry in one of the tales of Sa'di's Gulistan causing much discussion “I am neither mounted on a camel, nor like a mule under a load. I am no lord of a vassal, neither the slave of any king. I have no concern about either the present or the past. I draw my breathe feely, and pass my life in comfort.” (Gladwin, 1865: 183,184). In Persian classical prosody, the lines of each verse must have similar meters, but in this verse, there is no such similarity between the lines. In this paper, different emendations of this verse have been mentioned and various views on the meter of this verse have been discussed. It is argued that the verse is composed according to the rules of Arabic prosody.