Journal of Literary Criticism and Rhetoric

Abstract Poetry is one of the most prominent manifestations of Iranian culture, and learning the meter of classical poetry is considered one of the greatest challenges for Orientalists, which can be divided into two parts in terms of time: before and after Islam. The research in the first part, which examines the meter conditions of Iranian poetry before Islam, is pure and first-hand; while the research in the second part is mostly a reproduction of the knowledge of predecessors in the field of traditional Persian prosody. According to the approach and goals of the authors, the reproduction of prosody knowledge is classified into four categories, and the goal of some Orientalists has been only to translate a prosody treatise into the mother tongue; while other authors have simultaneously corrected the manuscript. Some Orientalists have also analyzed the meter and determined the origin of Persian poetry, and the fourth group has matched Persian prosody with the meter of poetry of other nations. On the other hand, the twenty-first century is the era of theory, and a number of Western theorists have studied the nature of the meter system of quantitative poetry in the living languages ​​of the world and determined the similarities and differences of this system with traditional Persian prosody.

Abstract Archetypal-mythological criticism is one of the prominent examples in the field of literary criticism and theory and interdisciplinary studies of literature, psychology and psychoanalysis, mythology, and anthropology. The interdependence and intertwining of symbolic ideas, myths, metaphors, dreams and visions with stories and other elements and components of popular culture and literature on the one hand, and Simin Dāneshvar's extensive use of the works, texts and words of her predecessors and contemporaries in the form of guarantees, adaptations, references, allusions, etc., have led to the diversity, prominence and richness of her stories. The construction and term of the parrot, (Beautiful and lovely parrot)  as a messenger of self-confidence and a manifestation of the subconscious, is rooted in this important feature of the author's writing style. This research is conducted using a descriptive-documentary method, library collection, and ultimately analysis. The purpose of this research is to further understand and introduce the symbolic form of the parrot, its history, role, and function in Dāneshvar's long stories, especially Sārbān sargardān (the sarban wander). In finally, it is concluded that the author, with full awareness of the presence and role of the parrot in the Tootināmehā (stories of the parrots) and the Mathnavi M’anavi (spiritual Masnavi), the Asrārnāme (The Book of Unseen Secrets), and the like, has, with the initiative of a different creation, replaced the , beautiful and lovely parrot with the parrot and the small parrot, and has expanded and broadened its role and function.

Abstract Anvari-e Abivardi is one of the great poets of the sixth century AH. His fame in the history of Persian literature is mostly due to his writing of technical odes. But apart from this, he is also considered one of the influential poets in the Persian ghazal tradition; in such a way that he can be considered one of the main role models of Saadi, one of the peaks of Persian ghazal, in ghazal writing. The themes of the ghazals of these two poets are mostly expressions of romantic states, the mysteries of love, descriptions of the lover's states and his need for the beloved. Apart from the thematic similarities, by examining and comparing the rhetorical and linguistic features of Anvari's and Saadi's ghazals, one can further understand the stylistic aspects of this influence. Researchers have written about the grammatical, syntactic and linguistic aspects in which Saadi's influence on Anvari is seen; for example, the similarity of the two poets in the rhetorical use of prepositions. By reflecting on the rhetoric of these two poets, we find that one of the common symbols in their rhetoric is the way they use lexical repetitions. In such a way that repetition in the speech of these two poets has an artistic, aesthetic and distinctive aspect. In this study, an attempt has been made to make a comparison between the rhetorical repetitions of Anvari and Saadi so that through this, the rhetorical development of Persian ghazal in the poetic relations between Anvari and Saadi can be addressed with a more precise view. For this purpose, an attempt was first made to present a definition of repetition as a rhetorical art within the framework of this study; in a way that it is distinct from technics such as Jenas and Alliteration or Radif and rhymes. Repetition in this study means repeating a word with the same lexical meaning in the form of a verse, and rhetorical or artistic repetition is a type of lexical repetition that has an aesthetic and artistic aspect. In the author's opinion, what makes repetition artistic is that the poet repeats the word in a way that, apart from simple repetition, adds new artistic and literary value to his speech. Based on this definition, the types of rhetorical repetition in Anvari's ghazal were discussed; by specifying the artistic methods of his repetitions in ten categories, this issue was compared in the rhetoric of Anvari's and Saadi's ghazals. Among the results of this research, one is that it was determined that rhetorical repetition in Anvari's poetry, like Saadi's, has a high and decisive frequency. Another is that Anvari's interest in simple word repetition was slightly higher than Saadi's, but Saadi's use of rhetorical and artistic repetitions was slightly superior to Anvari's.

Abstract This article employs an analytical-comparative method to examine the extensive appropriation of Aḥmad Samʿānī’s Rawḥ al-Arwāḥ fī Sharḥ Asmāʾ al-Malik al-Fattāḥ from Maybudī’s Kashf al-Asrār wa ʿUddat al-Abrār. Although the two works were composed within the same decade (520–529 AH), numerous textual correspondences—extending to verbatim repetition of phrases and sentences—are observed. By collecting a large body of evidence, the study classifies and analyzes various types of appropriation in Rawḥ al-Arwāḥ from Kashf al-Asrār, including “verbatim,” “amplificatory,” “abbreviatory,” “transpositional,” and “composite” adaptations. Taking into account criteria such as the earlier date of Kashf al-Asrār, its significantly larger volume, the stylistic affiliation of both works with a mode of rhymed, literary exegesis, and the unlikelihood that scribal intervention alone accounts for these commonalities, the preliminary conclusion strongly suggests that Aḥmad Samʿānī extensively appropriated material from Maybudī’s work in composing his own. This study exemplifies the complexity of intertextual relations and the methods of textual re-creation within the tradition of Persian mystical prose. The collected evidence shows that many passages in Rawḥ al-Arwāḥ were taken from Kashf al-Asrār verbatim or with slight modifications, and that the amplificatory and composite adaptations resulted in a creative recasting. The research also refutes the view of a few scholars who have proposed the opposite direction of borrowing, and, on the basis of historical and codicological data, it establishes the one‑way nature of the appropriation. The sheer extent of both overt and covert borrowing calls into question the boundary between literary influence and plagiarism, and underscores the need to reassess the originality of works within the mystical tradition.

Abstract Russian Formalists regard artistic creation as an autonomous domain and consider only artistic artifacts worthy of scholarly investigation. In the Persian literary tradition, such artifacts have traditionally been examined within the framework of rhetoric (balāghat). Kazazi draws a distinction between aesthetics and rhetoric; although it is undoubtedly impossible to substitute any word in one language with an exact equivalent in another, such a rendering may nonetheless be accepted through conceptual expansion and interpretive flexibility. Persian rhetorical writings, from early periods onward, have engaged in intellectually rigorous discussions, and with the exception of maʿānī—which presents greater analytical complexity—most rhetorical topics, particularly aspects of bayān and badīʿ, continue to appear in modern academic instruction.Over the past century, numerous works have been produced in this field, the core of which is largely grounded in classical and historical rhetorical texts, such as those by Shams-e Qays, Vatvāt, and others. At the same time, some scholars, drawing on Western theoretical and scientific writings, have sought to introduce new perspectives into contemporary rhetorical studies. The central question of this study is whether Iranian poets—most notably Ḥāfeẓ—tended to position instances of taḍmīn (textual incorporation) and literary influence within specific sections of their ghazals. Moreover, can rhetoric still be regarded as an open field of inquiry, receptive to newer and more innovative approaches? Beyond proposing fresh discussions in aesthetics, this research aims to demonstrate that Ḥāfeẓ, in light of the absence of punctuation marks in earlier periods and with a conscious intention to signal his literary borrowings, deliberately placed many of his incorporations and influences in either the opening or the concluding couplets of his ghazals. This claim becomes evident through close reading of Persian literary texts and careful examination of Ḥāfeẓ’s sources of inspiration.

Abstract Literary criticism in Afghanistan two last decades, concurrent with the expansion of literary and cultural activities, has witnessed a remarkable growth and proliferation of sources, academic theses and journalistic criticism; nevertheless, this quantitative expansion has failed to lead to the formation of a coherent, sustained and methodologically grounded critical discourse and has instead resulted largely in the accumulation of fragmented texts. The present article aims to identify and systematically analyze the conceptual and structural deficiencies of literary criticism in Afghanistan by examining the most significant domains in which theoretical weakness, methodological inadequacy and linguistic divergence are clearly manifested and traceable. The research adopts a descriptive–analytical method with a diagnostic approach grounded in conceptual and structural analysis of critical texts (Criticism of poetry and story/novel). The findings indicate that the crisis of literary criticism in Afghanistan stems primarily from the misinterpretation of literary theories, their superficial or merely formulaic application, the absence of a clear analytical language and the predominance of subjective judgment in place of structured and reasoned analysis. Moreover, structural examination reveals that deficiencies in systematic theoretical education, the prevalence of incomplete or inaccurate translations, the absence of effective mechanisms for scholarly evaluation and the dominance of taste-oriented approaches within the literary sphere have created conditions for instability, fragmentation, and methodological discontinuity, while further intensifying the persistence of this situation. These deficiencies operate in an interconnected, network-like manner, placing literary criticism in a state of “epistemic deficiency” a condition in which theory is not properly assimilated, methodology fails to become established and criticism is prevented from fulfilling its role in the production of scholarly knowledge. Overcoming this vicious cycle requires a fundamental reconstruction of theoretical education, the strengthening of analytical methodology and the establishment of research institutions equipped with academic journals and systematic systems of university-level evaluation. Such reforms are essential for disciplinary coherence alone.

Abstract Adaptation is one of the most important and prominent rhetorical devices in Persian literature. Despite its frequent use in literary works, scholars of rhetoric have not paid much attention to it, and after centuries since the emergence of rhetoric as a science, there is still no consensus regarding its definition, scope, application, and status. At times, this has even led to confusion among rhetorical Devices and, consequently, misled the audience. Based on this, the present study attempts to provide a more precise definition of this rhetorical device through the critique and analysis of the views of rhetorical scholars, and to clarify the position and boundaries of adaptation. Therefore, this article raises the following questions: 1.What is adaptation? 2. What is the difference between adaptation and other similar devices such as quotation, incorporation, Aqd, and others? 3. Can adaptation be considered a form of plagiarism? 4. What are the errors made by the authors of rhetorical works in citing examples of adaptation? To answer these questions, relevant materials on adaptation were collected from thirty rhetorical sources and were compared and analyzed using a descriptive-analytical method. The results of this study show that the disagreements among rhetorical scholars about the limits and scope of adaptation have led to confusion between adaptation and other rhetorical devices. This has, in turn, caused some rhetoricians to misidentify the position of this device, consider it a form of plagiarism, and make errors in citing its examples.