2020-3623-AJHA

1 A Comparative Study of Metaphor in Arabic and

2 Persian
3
4
5 Metaphor as one of the most significant figures of speech has a special place in
6 every language. Regarding the concept of metaphor, there are more
7 commonalities than differences between Arabic and Persian language such
8 that most of metaphorical issues in Arabic rhetorical books have also been
9 restated in Persian ones 2-3 centuries later. Arabic metaphor has experienced 5
10 stages, namely the beginning, development, flourishment, recession, and
11 modernism, while Persian metaphor has had less transformations with only 3
12 stages named the emergence, expansion, and revision. The emergence stage in
13 Persian is compatible with the beginning and development stage in Arabic;
14 and the expansion and revision stages in Persian match with the recession and
15 modernism stages in Arabic respectively. Unfortunately, Persian rhetoric has
16 not gained much benefit from the flourishment stage in Arabic so the analytic
17 and aesthetic dimension is less visible in Persian. Current studies in both
18 languages are inclined toward critical arguments, metaphorical studies, as
19 well as linguistic perspectives though Persian researchers have paid more
20 attention to the language essence and nativism in their works. Lack of a
21 metaphorical dictionary, negligence to the variant literary schools and
22 evolution of metaphor in literary texts are among main drawbacks in
23 metaphorical studies in both languages.
24
25 Keywords: Rhetoric, Persian Language, Arabic Language, Figure of Speech,
26 Metaphor
27
28
29 Introduction
30
31 Arabic rhetoric which has been enriched with various resources flourished
32 significantly after Islam, seeking to confirm the rhetorical miracles of the
33 Qur'an. Nevertheless, Muslim researchers and scholars have never forgotten
34 the Greek, Iranian, and Indian resources contributing to Arabic-Islamic
35 rhetoric. In al-Bayan wa-al-tabyin, Jahiz speaks of the Persian book Karvand
36 and its rhetorical place (Al-Jahiz, 1926, vol.3, 14). In addition, Ibn Nadim
37 mentions the book of the Kasra Testimony by Anushravan Ela Ibn as "the nest
38 of Rhetoric" (Ibn Nadim, 1927, 559), and he also talks about the old
39 translations of his Rhetorica, that is Aristotle's Sermon, and " poetics" as a
40 technique of poetry (Ibn Nadim, 1927, 456), and introduces Persian, Hindi and
41 Nabatian into Arabic translators. Intellectual centers such as Bayt al-Ḥikmah,
42 or Khazaneh al-Hikmah or Dar al-Ilm, having been established established in

1
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 the first years of the third century by the order of Ma'mun Abbasi (813-817),
2 indicate the scientific transactions of Muslims with other nations, among
3 which Iranians have had a special place (Tafazoli, 1957, 314). It is, therefore,
4 not surprising when the scholars of Arabic rhetoric history emphasize the role
5 of other nations, especially Iranians, in the flourishment of rhetoric (Atiq, no
6 date, 50). As a result, the Islamic-Arabic rhetoric can be recognized as the
7 outcome of Muslim rhetoric interaction with Greeks, Iranians and Indians. A
8 thorough examination of this issue requires a great deal of time. Therefore, in
9 this article, we will focus on the comparative study of metaphor in Arabic and
10 Farsi in order to pave the ground for more comprehensive future research in
11 this field.
12
13 Research Background
14
15 Some researchers have recently been published regarding the relationship
16 between Arabic and Persian rhetoric. These studies have generally compared
17 rhetorical figures in both languages, among which we can mention Ehsan
18 Sadegh Saeed's book entitled Rhetorical Science between Arabs and Iranians;
19 nonetheless, no independent research has yet been published with regard to
20 comparing the rhetorical figures such as metaphor in two languages. The book
21 Metaphor in Islamic Rhetoric by Mohammad Mahdi Moghimizadeh is one of
22 few works addressing this subject, yet the portion of Persian research is not
23 much noticeable in that research. Therefore, this article can be considered as
24 one of pioneer studies in this field.
25
26 Significance, Method, and Questions of the Study
27
28 Since rhetoric of each language must be extracted from its text and the
29 context, comparative researches can, on the one hand, provide the rationale
30 for formulating the rhetorical system of any language and, on the other hand,
31 can have an impact on conscious, wise, and useful interaction among
32 languages. This necessity is more prevalent among the Arabic-Persian rhetoric
33 enjoying a long-standing connection. Using descriptive analysis, the present
34 article compares the metaphorical view of two languages and seeks to answer
35 the following questions: what are the similarities and differences of
36 metaphorical researches in the two above languages? and what are the
37 impacts of these similarities and differences on the use of metaphor in the two
38 above languages?
39
40
41

2
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 Discussion
2
3 Abu Ubaidah by his Majaz al-Qur'an initiated the metaphorical discussion
4 which began with the general name of trope and then experienced several
5 periods: 1. The beginning: from the second half of the second century to the
6 beginning of the fourth century; 2. Development: the fourth and first half of
7 the fifth century; 3. Flourishment: from the fifth to the first half of the seventh
8 century; 4. Recession: from the second half of the seventh century to the
9 present day; 5. Modernism and new perspective: formed in the recent century
10 along with the period of recession and decline.
11 The evolution of metaphor-research in Farsi can be studied in three periods
12 including emergence, expansion, and revision. Since the discussion of
13 metaphor in Arabic books post-Islam preceded rhetoric in Persian books, we
14 compare the metaphor discussion in these two languages focusing on the five
15 periods of metaphorical research in Arabic books.
16
17 The First Period
18
19 In this period, beginning in the second half of the second century and
20 continuing up until the end of the third century, the subject of metaphor is
21 associated with Qur'anic and literary discussions and is not yet recognized as
22 an independent rhetorical subject. Abu Ubaidah and Ibn Qatibah refer to it in
23 order to discuss Qur'anic words and meanings, and Jahiz and Mobarrad have
24 considered metaphor while analyzing poems and literary texts. Abu Ubaidah,
25 without mentioning the name of metaphor, refers to trope in the general sense
26 of the rhetorical sciences, such that as he introduces some types of trope, he
27 provides some metaphorical examples without bringing the specific name of
28 metaphor. Contemplation on the trope extensions provided by Abu Ubaidah
29 shows that he uses this figure to include the whole rhetoric sphere (Abu
30 Ubaidah, 1981, 18-19), and Ibn Qatibah also speaks of absolute borrowing of
31 the words, among which metaphor can be a subset (Sheikhun, 1994, 7).
32 However, Jahiz refers to the name of metaphor and its idiomatic definition,
33 albeit while explaining a verse, and writes: “Calling something by a different
34 name, then replacing it "(Jahiz, 1926, 1/116). Like Ibn Qatibah, Mobarrad
35 speaks of borrowing words in Arabic (Sheikhun, 1994, 9). The form of
36 metaphor is vague in this period; it has no comprehensive definition; it is not
37 recognized as an independent literary discourse; its aesthetic and imaginative
38 aspects are not desired; it is as if this term and its derivatives are used only for
39 the purpose of clarifying and analyzing thought. At the end of this period,
40 metaphor is proposed as a poetic and rhetorical discourse. Thalib in Qawaeed
41 al-Shir, discussing the "Heikal al-Shir" (physique of poetry), offers a definition
42 of metaphor: "metaphor is choosing a name or meaning for something other
43 than its own” (Thalib, 1995, 53). In the definition suggested by Thalib, taking

3
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 another name refers to an explicit metaphor, and taking another meaning

2 refers to an implicit metaphor in the later periods. Finally, it is worth
3 mentioning Ibn Mu'tazz and his book Al-Baadi, which studies metaphor under
4 the exquisite name in the general sense of rhetorical science. Until the
5 beginning of the tenth century, this feature was also found in Persian
6 rhetorical books. After quoting the definition of the metaphor, Ibn Mu'tazz
7 gives some examples of the Qur'an, hadiths and poems and Arabic references,
8 and finally mentions defective examples of the metaphor (Ibid, 107) without
9 introducing the reason or reasons for being defective. By virtue of the merits
10 of Mahasin al-Kalam of Morghinani, Al-Baadi, written by Ibn Mu'tazz, is the
11 foundation of the first Persian rhetorical book, that is Tarjoman Al-Bilaghah.
12 This means that Morghinani has taken a great advantage of al-Baadi book
13 (Morghani, n.d). In addition, Tarjoman al-Bilaghah is also an imitation of
14 Mahasin al-Kalam according to its author (Radaviani, 2001, 120). In this way, it
15 can be said that the subject of metaphor in Persian rhetoric books has been
16 influenced by Ibn Mu'tazz, but from this period on, there is no book left
17 discussing metaphor or other rhetorical and literary topics.
18
19 The Second Period
20
21 This period which is a developmental stage for metaphor and other
22 rhetorical debates, began from the beginning of the fourth century and
23 continued until the first half of the fifth century. Qadameh Ibn Ja’afar, Ghazi
24 Jarjani, Romani, Abu helal Askari, Ibn Rashiq Qiravani and Ibn Sinan Khafaji
25 are some of the prominent rhetoricians of this period. Each of them came from
26 different parts of the Islamic world and Iran; therefore, they were able to
27 introduce the rhetorical view of Muslim researchers pretty well. The most
28 important features of the metaphor subject in this period are: 1) Criticism to
29 the previous views: The rhyme adduction (muâzala) (Qadama, 1884, 66), an
30 acceptable and unacceptable metaphor, or rejected that is known in other
31 forms and synonyms, and repeated in the books of this period, shows a ruling
32 critical look at the discussion of metaphor in this period. The basis of these
33 categories is to pay attention to the clarity or ambiguity of the metaphor, to
34 avoid the riddle and riddle making in it, and to avoid the metaphorical
35 closeness to the truth. 2) Paying attention to the position of truth and trope
36 (metaphor), in which metaphor will often be superior to truth, if it is used
37 appropriately and is more useful than truth. 3) The metaphor in most of the
38 books of this period is discussed under figures of speech (badi’) in the general
39 sense of the rhetorical science. 4) Metaphor is known as an independent
40 rhetorical discussion, and each of the books in this period seeks to provide a
41 definition for it. The theme of all definitions is the use of a word in a meaning
42 other than its own determined meaning. Of course, as explained by the
43 authors of this period, attention to the comparative ratios between the two

4
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 sides, unlike the preceding one, has reduced the metaphorical scope of the
2 metaphor and clarified its boundaries. 5) Considering the difference between
3 simile and metaphor, there is a common discussion in most of the books of
4 this period, which does not lead to a definitive conclusion. Henceforth, it is a
5 cause for difference in all periods of studies on metaphor. It has provoked
6 controversy and turmoil in Farsi books to which we will refer later. The
7 difference between metaphor and simile in this period is based on the
8 elimination or preservation of the words of comparison and each side being
9 true or trope. Only Ibn Sanan al-Khafaji shook the distinction by bringing up
10 predestined words of comparison. He does not regard the elimination of the
11 words of comparison as a metaphor "as words of comparison are omitted in
12 the literal sense, and being omitted in the literal sense is like being mentioned"
13 (Sheikhun, 1994, 30). 6) Mentioning criteria for metaphorical criticism:
14 consistency of words and meanings, words and words in metaphor and no
15 tongue twisting between them, avoidance of excesses in the use of metaphor,
16 its formal aesthetics and its enlightening role, and above all, the
17 proportionality and similarity between the metaphorical sides are some of the
18 important criteria of metaphor criticism in the books of this period. 7) The
19 utility and purpose of metaphor is prominently considered in the books of this
20 period. Summary of the benefits of metaphor can be seen in al-Sinaatain of
21 Abu Helal Askari (Abu Helal Askari, 1993, 262). 8) The concern for the
22 metaphor having an influence on the audience is also one of the interesting
23 topics in the books of this period. 9) The audience's interest in discovering the
24 beauties of metaphor in al-Ummah ibn Rashiq is contemplative. Of course,
25 this requires further research. (Sheikhon, 1994, 27). 10) Another point that is
26 sometimes found in the books of this period is the necessity or unnecessity of
27 metaphor in the language that has been precedent in Aristotle's works and it
28 has been an axis to separate the classic and romantic view to metaphor. For
29 example, Ibn Rashiq Qiravani's theory can be mentioned in this regard, in
30 which he does not consider metaphor as a necessity in the Arabic language
31 (Ibn Rashiq Qiravani, 2000, 1/344). This is found in Aristotle's works not only
32 about the Arabic language, but also about all languages (Hawks, 2001, 56). The
33 metaphor-researchers’ view of this period is similar to that of Aristotle, which
34 should be sought in translating Aristotle's works into Arabic during this
35 period. What is prominent in the metaphorical view of this period is the
36 analytical-critical view of the rhetorical writers who, without resorting to the
37 excessive subdivisions that became commonplace afterwards, seek to analyze
38 the construction of metaphor, its critique, its appealing and unappealing form
39 and its benefit, the connection of metaphor to truth, and its relation to
40 language and audience.
41 Although the discussion of metaphor in the Arabic books of this period had
42 achieved remarkable growth and maturity, it began its improvement in
43 Persian rhetoric as well. Between the second and the third period, the study of

5
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 metaphor in Persian rhetorical books started by Tarjoman al-Balagheh, after

2 which formation period commenced. This is why the author of the Tarjoman
3 al-Balagha writes: "And that type is a new leaf on the rhetoric garden"
4 (Radaviani, 2001, 148). Since the discussion of metaphor in Persian continued
5 from the fifth century to the first years of the tenth century, undergoing slight
6 developments, this period is called the "emergence", which is comparable to
7 the first and second periods of metaphorical discussion in Arabic books. Books
8 such as Tarjoman Al-Balagha, Hadaiq-e-Sahar, Al-Mu’jam, Daghaigh al-Shir,
9 Haghaighah al-Hadaighah, Me’yar Jamali, Badaaye al-Afkar, and Badaaye al-Sanaaye
10 are some of the most important books of this period; however, the first three
11 books display a comprehensive review of all the metaphorical books in this
12 period. The most important features of metaphor discussion at this stage are:
13 1) providing a brief definition of metaphor: The literal transition from one
14 meaning to another, the metaphor being trope, and the likeness of similarity
15 between the two meanings are among the most important points in these
16 definitions. 2) In emergence stage books, like the books in the first two Arabic
17 periods, there is no mention of the metaphorical components and
18 consequently the formation of different types on the basis of the components.
19 Mentioning allegory under the metaphor (Shams Qays, 1994, 320), and the
20 implicit reference to personification in the "debate and conversation of the
21 non-speaking plants and animals" (Ibid, 319) are of the types formed under
22 the metaphor. The reason for considering the debate followed by
23 personification can be traced back to the Iranian pioneering attention to this
24 kind of poetry, the most prominent example being the Asurig Darakht, a
25 poem in Pahlavic era, which is a pre- Islamic poem and has changed the
26 debate of the Palm and the Goat into poetry. 3) The overwhelming evidence of
27 the implicit metaphor under metaphor, as is the case in Arabic books of the
28 first two periods. However, in the Arabic books of these two periods, the
29 difference between explicit and implicit metaphors has been mentioned under
30 the metaphor subject, but there is no mention of their names, while in Persian
31 books, the explanations and definitions refer to the explicit metaphor, but the
32 examples are of implicit metaphor. 4) The fusion of metaphorical evidence
33 with the evidence of metaphorical simile, Implicit simile, and eloquent simile,
34 which is also evident in the Arabic books of the first two periods. Although
35 this difference enjoys a theoretical support in the Arabic books and the subject
36 of the difference between simile and metaphor has been taken seriously in
37 some of the Arabic books with some evidence, in Persian books, it has either
38 added a confusion to the explanations (Radaviani, 2001, 158), or has
39 determined the implicit simile and metaphor to be the same (Taj al-Halawi,
40 2004, 47) or even has considered metaphorical simile and metaphor alike
41 (Hosseini Neyshabouri, 2005, 220). The intensity of the simile and metaphor
42 fusion and the frequency of its occurrences is more prominent in Persian
43 studies. 5) The metaphor criticism is less common in the Persian rhetoric than

6
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 the Arabic rhetoric during the emergence period. In Arabic books, the terms
2 rhyme adduction (Moa’zalah), as well as accepted and rejected similes come
3 from a critical point of view, while exemplary critiques of Persian rhetorical
4 criticism are restricted to general terms such as conceit and exquisite
5 metaphor (Watwat, 1983, 29). Only in al- Ma’ajam of Shams Qais, metaphor
6 criticism has been considered more, some of which is reminiscent of Ibn
7 Mu'tazí's manner of providing subtle and unappealing metaphors (Shams
8 Qais Razi, 1994, 9-318), and in some cases has come close to a critical view of
9 the books in the second Arabic period. (Shams Qays Razi, 1994, 318). The
10 reason for Shams Qais being highlighted in this feature is more relation with
11 the Arabic rhetorical books. As mentioned by himself, Qais wrote his book in
12 Arabic at the beginning (ibid, 32). 6) Most of the metaphorical evidences in the
13 emergence books are Persian evidences except in Hadā'iq al-sihr of Rashid al-
14 Din Watwat, in which Arabic evidence is prominent (Ibid, 32). However, it is
15 noteworthy that some Persian rhetoric writers consciously turned to
16 Persianism. This indicates that attention to the nature of the Persian language
17 during this period is highlighted.
18 In short, the Persian language emergence books were written following the
19 Arabic books of the first and second periods. Of course, paying attention to
20 the Persian evidence, highlighting the discourse of personification due to the
21 longer history of such types of debate in Iranian culture and language and
22 finally attention to the nativism and the nature of the Persian language are
23 among the points that show that the Persian rhetoricians have had a look at
24 the nature of the Persian language and its independence from the Arabic
25 language.
26
27
28 The Third Period
29
30 This period covers the first half of the fifth to the first half of the seventh
31 century, and the discussion of metaphorical research, in tandem with other
32 rhetorical discourses, is experiencing remarkable prosperity. Abdul Qahir
33 Jarjani, the author of Asrar al-Balaghah and Dalael al-ijaz and Zamakhshari the
34 author of Al-Kashshaaf as a rhetoric commentary of the Quran are some of the
35 prominent figures of this period, and of course, the flourishiment of the
36 metaphorical studies continues to a certain extent in Ibn Khatib Razi. It links
37 this period to the first years of the seventh century.
38 The metaphorical research of Abdul Qahir, which is more reflected in the
39 book of Asrar al-Balagha than the Dalael al-ijaz, points to his mastery on the
40 topic and his dominance on the subtleties, accuracies, capacity, and status of
41 metaphor. His view is an analytical one and serves to explain and interpret his
42 theory of poetry. In metaphorical debate, like most rhetorical arguments,
43 Abdul Qahir is reluctant to phrase, although his analytical arguments are the

7
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 source of term- making for the rhetoricians in the later periods. He combines
2 his theory with a lot of analytical evidences, and so there is no twist in his
3 materials except being innovative. The most important arguments being
4 raised by him in the discussion of metaphor are: 1) Critique of the former
5 views; the belief that metaphor is a claim of meaning for an object, not quoting
6 the name from the object (Jerjani, 1989, 532), critique of placing metaphor
7 under figures of speech category "without being conditioned" (Jorjani, 1995,
8 256) and finally the critique of former definitions of metaphor and their
9 sufficiency in examples (Ibid: 16), are important criticisms of Abdul Qahir to
10 the former views in the past 2) Attention to the position of metaphor in
11 rhetoric books; Abdul Qahir believes that truth and trope, simile, allegory, and
12 then metaphor, must be discussed respectively (Jorjani,1995, 17). But for the
13 sake of remarks not explicitly stated, he “starts his subject by metaphor" (Ibid,
14 17). It seems that the preface of metaphor and trope in the Aristotelian
15 tradition has subconsciously directed Abdul Qahir and some of the
16 rhetoricians toward this way. This feature is also found in some Persian
17 metaphorical emergence books such as the Tarjoman al-Balagheh and the
18 Hedayat al-Sahar. 3) In defining metaphor, he refers to the non-transfer of the
19 word, its meaning and its transmission, and the emphasis on the simile motif
20 of metaphor. Therefore, contrary to the definition of former scholars, his
21 definition is comprehensive, and synecdoche and cited declarations (I’lam
22 Manqulah) do not fall under metaphor. 4) considering the conditions of
23 metaphor making; unlike Aristotle, he believes that not every metaphor can be
24 constructed from simile and he considers the medium of comparison having
25 similar sources, its easy understanding, and the affirmation of the custom as
26 the required conditions for making a metaphor. In short, he says: “The
27 symmetry and the reason for the present and the custom must express your
28 purpose” (Ibid, 151). 5) Paying attention to the purpose and benefit of
29 metaphor: As he excessively praises metaphor, he also mentions some of its
30 benefits: “In this worthy manner of expression, a new face of a unique
31 immensity is being hidden" (Ibid, 24)" and it induces many meanings in short
32 words "(Ibid). By the aid of metaphor, plants come to life, speaking and non-
33 speaking creatures become fluent and eloquent and you find quiet and dumb
34 things to be preachers. In this magnificent realm, short and inadequate
35 meanings are enlightening and lively "(Ibid). 6) Avoiding term-making,
36 though he speaks of many kinds of metaphors in Dalail Al-Ajaz and promises
37 to talk about them elsewhere (Jerjani, 1989, 529); however, his promise never
38 came true. In his discussion of metaphor, it can be said that all the types of
39 metaphor that have been formed in the fourth period of metaphor
40 development have been originated from his analytical discussions, although
41 he does not make any terms for them. Rather than pursuing terminology, he
42 thinks about the analysis of the argument and suggests a way to evaluate the
43 types of metaphors. The argument of strong and weak metaphor could be

8
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 found here as well. The basis of this division is paying attention to the words
2 of comparison, tenor, and vehicle. (Jorjani, 1995, 31,32,35) In the introduction
3 of pure and mere metaphor, he writes: "Comparison is taken from rational
4 images like metaphor of light with this reasoning that unveils the truth and
5 eliminates doubt and hesitation" (Ibid, 36). There is not a very positive view of
6 such applications in the books of Persian language (Genesis, 1362, 1362).
7 Types such as the oxymoron and conformative metaphor (Vefaqiah) are
8 inspired by the discussions of Abdul Qahir in later periods.
9 He sometimes criticizes previous metaphorical types in rhetoric. Among
10 them, there is the rhyme adduction mentioned by Qaddama ibn Ja'far for the
11 first time, and not rejected by Abdul Qahir in every context (Jerjani, 1995, 22).
12 7) Considering discrepancies under metaphor, including those that have a
13 long history in the metaphorical discussion: Eloquent simile and its
14 similarities and differences with metaphor: Abdul Qahir considers simile as
15 the basis for both, except that elimination of the simile components increases
16 hyperbole but does not transform the simile into a metaphor (Ibid, 21-208). He
17 states explicitly: "It is enough to say that our word is like simile; is bounded to
18 hyperbole, is justified in its definition and is not called a metaphor” (Jerjani,
19 1989, 113). He also uses the syntactic features of the Arabic language to
20 explain the differences between simile and metaphor that is not possible in
21 Farsi (Jerjani, 1995, 211). He considers metaphor more exaggerated, more
22 concise, and more succinct than simile (Ibid, 149); however, he admits that
23 identifying the exact boundary between simile and metaphor is not simply
24 possible (Ibid, 214). In addition to simile and metaphor, attention to the ratio
25 of simile, allegory, and metaphor as another controversial topic in the
26 rhetorical books has a special place in Abdul Qahir's works. He argues: "The
27 metaphor-speaker transfers the word from the original meaning but the one
28 who speaks with an example does not do that” (Ibid, 149). He mentions
29 singularity of simile in metaphor and its plurality in allegory as a difference
30 between metaphor and allegory (Ibid, 161). He regards metaphor and allegory
31 that has reached to the metaphorical level to be of the same nature (Jerjani,
32 1985, 119). This means the allegorical metaphor of the later periods. 8)
33 Considering the difference between the two main types of metaphor, namely
34 explicit and implicit metaphor, without naming the two: He argues that the
35 first type of metaphor (explicit) is easily traced back to its origin (simile), but
36 that the second type (implicit) reveals its simile origin with the aid of a deep
37 thinking (Jarjani, 1995, 26). When proving that metaphor is not in the word but
38 in its meaning, he uses implicit metaphor evidence (Ibid, 536), and thus
39 implicit metaphor is superior to the explicit one (Ibid, 537). Although, like
40 Aristotle's works and Persian rhetoric books, Abdul Qahir emphasizes the
41 implicit metaphor, his commentary is often concerned with the explicit
42 metaphor. It seemed that proving the explicit metaphor is easier than the
43 implicit one, and implicit hyperbole and its further avoidance of simile makes

9
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 it difficult to prove its metaphorical state. 9) Discussing the characteristics and

2 introducing the best kind of metaphor; he knows a reinforcement of the words
3 of comparison as a necessity for metaphor, so that tenor cannot be
4 differentiated from vehicle (Ibid, 527). Abdul Qahir considers the simile and
5 metaphor to be valuable because they are hard to find (Ibid, 214). 10) the
6 comprehensive view of Abdul Qahir to figurative ascription (Esnad Majazi); at
7 the end of Asrar al-Bilaghah, Abdul Qahir discusses rational trope, synecdoche
8 and lexical trope. Although figurative ascription has been discussed in the
9 Arabic books in the previous periods, he discusses it in order not to leave any
10 ambiguity. This subject has attracted attention in the Farsi books of the second
11 period and post- Safavid era as well. He mentions two types of figurative
12 ascription, namely figurative and additive, and knows both to be of the same
13 kind (Ibid, 245). In distinction of the figurative ascription that has a literal
14 aspect with false speech, he emphasizes the consciousness and belief of the
15 speaker. He believes that in the figurative ascription, the speaker uses
16 consciousness, embedded reasoning, and the possibility of interpretation
17 while speaking in a trope format, whereas in False speech it is unaware,
18 manipulative, and unintelligible and used to deceive the audience. He,
19 therefore, divides the figurative ascription into two ideological and literary
20 categories (Ibid, 250). Abdul Qahir explicitly defines trope and its famous type
21 as metaphor and allegory (Jorjani, 1989, 112). Thus, introducing trope that
22 overlaps with the metaphor, especially the implicit metaphor, is in line with
23 the religious needs of his era and has religious backgrounds. By this
24 perspective, introducing this subject can be justified (Georgani, 1995, 250).
25 Failure to pay attention to the religious motives of this debate will give rise to
26 the turmoil in the following periods to which we will refer later. The
27 discussion of the figurative ascription, as well as introducing its special and
28 general types, and its benefits are completed in Dalail al- Ijaz (Jorjani, 1989,
29 368). 11) Abdul Qahir's emphasis on the sentence and the context of the word
30 in the subject of trope and metaphor (Jerjani, 1995, 266), his overview of the
31 languages including Farsi, in the Metaphorical Discussion, and not
32 considering Arabic language superior to other languages in studies on
33 metaphor (Ibid: 20), the discussion about the meaning of meaning regarding
34 trope (Jerjani, 1989, 332), paying attention to some metaphors that constitute
35 components of a compound (Ibid, 121 and 162), emphasis on the relativity of
36 ugliness and the beauty of metaphor (Jerjani, 1995, 161) are some of the
37 prominent points considered by Abdul Qahir in the issues on metaphor. Some
38 of his arguments, such as the discussion of "meaning of meaning," pioneered
39 the theories of contemporary Western scholars (Attic, n.d, 258), and some of
40 his theories, such as the superiority of collective metaphor to the single
41 metaphor supported with evidence and explanations, have not been studied
42 accurately in studies on metaphor (Jorjani, 1989, 121). In short, Abd al-Qahir's
43 view is a collection of the old and contemporary views, a ground for future

10
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 debates and the emergence of new ideas in the field of metaphor-research and
2 other rhetorical topics. Unfortunately, this view has little to do with the first
3 and second periods of Persian metaphor-research, it has lost its way in the
4 Arabic metaphor-research period, and its capacities are underutilized.
5 Abd al-Qa'ir's views regarding metaphor and other rhetorical topics are
6 loaded and stabilized in Al-Kashshaaf written by Zamakhshari (1114). In
7 addition to representing Qur’ican evidences for metaphor and other rhetorical
8 topics, Zamakhshari uses the analyses and interpretations of Abdul Qahir to
9 name the types still repeated under the category of metaphor. Some of the
10 names are explicit, implicit, main, submerged, allegorical, abstract, and
11 stipulated (Morashahah). What highlights Zamakhshari and his Kashshaaf in
12 the metaphorical research is his religious view of the rhetorical discourses,
13 which views the semantics (Ma’ani) and figurative language as sciences
14 devoted to the Qur'an and regards the mastery of these sciences as the
15 necessity of the commentator’s work. With such a view, metaphor research is
16 linked to the text of the Qur'an, and the types of metaphor become meaningful
17 in relation to the verses of the Qur'an, and henceforth receive greater
18 attention. After Zakhakhshari, Ibn Khatib Razi (1209) continued the work of
19 Abdul Qahir, and his book Nayyah-Al-Ijaz fi Darayatah Al-Ijaz summarizes the
20 Dalil al Ijaz and Asrar al- Balaghah written by Abdul Qahir. Except the fact that
21 he added to its divisions and explanations (Sheikhun, 1994-39, 39). Ibn Khatib
22 Razi's special view about Hadeq al-Sahir Rashid al-Din Watawat can be
23 considered as a turning point in the link between Arabic and Persian rhetoric.
24 However, in the field of metaphor-research, Ibn Khatib Razi has no prominent
25 place due to the presence of Abdul Qahir’s works.
26
27 The Fourth Period
28
29 Beginning in the seventh century and continuing until today, this period is
30 dominated by the views of the Arabic-writing Iranians such as Sakaki, Khatib
31 Qazwini, and Taftazani. Although there are major trends in Egypt and Yemen
32 and the works of Ibn A'thir, Ibn 'Abi al-Nabi, and the Alawi Yemeni, the
33 influence of Sakaki and his commentators on the rhetorical discourse is so
34 much that there is no opportunity left for the original trends. The second
35 period of metaphor- research in Farsi is also linked to the works of Sakaki and
36 his followers, to the extent that many Persian works in this period can be
37 considered as translations of the works of the fourth period. However, works
38 such as Hedayat al-Balagha continue to adhere to Persianism and attention to
39 the books of the first Persian period. The second period of Persian metaphor-l
40 research began in the early years of the tenth century and still continues. Most
41 of the rhetorical books of the Safavid, Zandieh, Afsharieh, Qajarieh, and
42 Pahlavi era are in the second period. For instance, we can refer to writings
43 such as Anwar al-Balagha by Mohammad Hadi bin Mohammad Saleh

11
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 Mazandarani, Bayan al-badi’s Excerpts by Mirza Abutaleb Fanderski, Motale’ by

2 Razi al-Din Mohammad, Abda al-Badai by Shams al-Alma'a Garkani, Mu'allam
3 al-Balagha by Mohammad Khalil al-Raja'I and Dorar al-Adab by hesam al-
4 Alma'a Aagh Ula. The rhetoricians of this period are trapped and stagnated on
5 the pretext that the past has left nothing for the future and there is nothing to
6 add to the rhetorical debate.
7 The most important features of Sakkaki's vision are that: 1) he places the
8 discussion of metaphor under the figurative language (Bayan) the initiator of
9 which is Abdul Qahir Jarjani and it is stabilized by Sakkaki. 2) Sakkaki's
10 definition of metaphor is not an invention, but it is interesting in that it is
11 defined in relation to simile. As opposed to the Aristotelian tradition and even
12 against the primacy of the metaphor in Abdul Qahir, the simile is first
13 discussed and then metaphor is defined in such a way that its relation to the
14 simile becomes apparent. The point noted in Sakkaki's definition is the
15 elimination or retention of the two sides of simile. That is, his definition refers
16 to the implicit and explicit metaphor, while the definitions of the past often
17 emphasized the elimination of tenor and the formation of explicit metaphor,
18 though their evidence was often of the implicit type. This characteristic raised
19 questions in the audience's mind. Sakkaki fixed this defect. He regards
20 metaphor as a rational trope, not a lexical one, and speaks of Abdul Qahir's
21 hesitation between lexical and rational trope (Sakkaki, no date, 157). What is
22 prominent in Sakkaki's explanation is his special attention to symmetry and
23 divides it into two types of single meanings and related meanings, which of
24 course existed in previous eras; however, Sakkaki’s has more emphasis on this
25 subject (ibid, 159). The important point is that with the introduction of
26 variants such as diminishing (Tahkamiah) and Sarcasm (Tamlihiah) and the
27 long-standing justifications for them, Sakaki virtually excludes the discussion
28 of metaphor from vigor. Justifications are also translated and repeated in
29 Persian books (Ibid, 159). In Sakaki's metaphorical discourses, the reduction of
30 analytical and interesting aspects and the addition of the metaphorical types
31 are prominent. He added types such as definite and probabilistic that do not
32 help much to the metaphorical discussion and some types such as the
33 diminishing and submerged metaphors that are incompatible with the
34 definition of metaphor, and they can be mentioned under the category of
35 metaphor just by using artifice and pretension. In general, Sakkaki can be
36 seen as an extremist imitator of Abdul Qahir Jarjani, Zakhakhri and Fakhr
37 razi, and there is a fact that if he had not come up with the metaphorical and
38 other rhetorical arguments, these arguments would have been more effective.
39 Khatib Qazvini repeated similar content to what Sakaki stated in Iza’ah and
40 Talkhis. In the preface of Talkhis, Qazvini praises Sakkaki and regards his work
41 as interpreting and removes that from the hassle (Ibid.: 37). He has collected
42 the previous definitions to prepare a definition for metaphor (Khatib, 2008,
43 151). The symmetry types in Khatib are divided into three types of single,

12
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 numerous, and related meanings, summarized by Sakaki in two types (Ibid,

2 153). In addition, he divides the metaphor into six types based on its triple
3 components (tenor, vehicle, general), which were divided into five types in
4 Sakkaki (Ibid, 156). The “symmetry criteria of metaphor in verb”, which was
5 the subject and verb in Abdul Qahir and Sakaki, was increased in Khatib by
6 the addition of the genitive noun (Majrur) (Ibid, 158). He added absolute
7 metaphor to the stipulated and abstract metaphors explained in Sakkaki,
8 although they were not named (Ibid, 158). In the summary, he prefers the
9 stipulated metaphor to the other types because it does not pay attention to
10 simile but increases hyperbole (Ibid, 159). Khatib, despite being a follower of
11 Sakkaki, has criticized some of his views in pages 163-162 of Talkhis. In the
12 definition of the lexical trope, he disagrees with Sakkaki in that allegory is a
13 part of the explicit metaphor and the abstract trope; and disagrees that
14 submerged metaphor goes back to the implicit metaphor. Taftazani in
15 Mottawal, as mentioned in the preface, explains Talkhis al-Miftah Qazvini and
16 its errors (Taftazani, 1995, 4). In a comparative study of the Arabic and Persian
17 rhetoric, Taftazani can be attributed to the association of the Persian books of
18 the second period with the metaphor-research issues of Sakaki and his essays.
19 This point is mentioned in most of the books of the second Persian period
20 (Fanderski, 2002, 15; Saleh Mazandarani, 1997, 20). Therefore, the metaphor
21 research flow in the fourth and second periods of Persian literature is quite
22 adaptive, and there is no remarkable point in the Persian books except in the
23 Persian evidence and sometimes in summarizing contents. In spite of the
24 imitation in Persian books in the second period, unfortunately the main
25 framework of the metaphor in today's Persian books is a reminder of this
26 period.
27 In sum, in the context and content of the fourth Arabic and second Persian
28 studies of metaphor that goes towards useless recession, stagnation and
29 prolixity, the mainstream of Egyptian and Yemeni metaphor research in
30 Arabic and Persian trends in the Persian tend to revive the original studies of
31 metaphor-research. It is a popular trend in Persian and Arabic, and in addition
32 to its origins, it can be considered as a foundation for a new perception to
33 metaphor.
34
35 The Fifth Period
36
37 This period can be seen as an age of modernism and a new perspective at
38 the rhetorical issues in general, and metaphor in particular. Rhetorical and
39 metaphorical research in Arabic and Persian entered a new era after a long
40 period of stagnation beginning from the first half of the seventh century and
41 the rise of Sakkaki, and continued until the early years of the fourteenth
42 century. The modernist rhetoricians opposed stagnation. Understanding the
43 necessity of changing rhetorical studies, expanding educational and academic

13
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 centers, and the necessity of developing educational and comprehensible

2 textbooks to teach rhetorical topics led to the creation of critical works on
3 rhetorical topics. Therefore, the educational, research, and critical aspects of
4 metaphor are prominent in the fifth Arabic and third Persian language books.
5 A critical look at the rhetorical sciences and, consequently, the discussion of
6 metaphor, is explicitly found in the Persian books of the third period
7 (Forouzanfar, 1997, 3 and Homayi, 1995, 183). The following are some of the
8 most important features of metaphorical issues in the books of this period.
9
10 Reflection on the Definition of Metaphor
11
12 Providing a comprehensive definition of metaphor is something that has
13 been addressed in Persian and Arabic books of this period. Reference to the
14 simile base of metaphor, elimination of one of the sides and attention to the
15 two main metaphors, namely implicit and explicit while defining the
16 metaphor, emphasis on the simile interest between the parts, and the need for
17 symmetry in the metaphor are among points that have perfected the definition
18 of metaphor and have prevented it from being confused with other tropes.
19 Finally, with a clear explanation of the limits of metaphors, we come to a
20 succinct definition: "Metaphor is a trope with simile interest" (Ameli, -2012,
21 142). The interesting point here is that despite the complete definition of
22 metaphor in the books of this period, following the books of the first and
23 second periods, explicit metaphor comes to mind, but the evidence shows
24 implicit metaphor (Hashemi, 2011, 295). This feature is prominent in the
25 Arabic books and can be evidenced. This is because of repetition of the
26 evidence on metaphor that have always been trending toward implicit
27 metaphor.
28 In the study of the definition of metaphor in the Arabic fifth period and the
29 Persian third period, one cannot speak from a linguistic point of view, which
30 is more prominent in Persian books and does not, of course, contain anything
31 new, but rather proposes the same definition of metaphor in the form of new
32 terms. In addition, it is rooted in Saussure, Jacobson, and Western linguists
33 and critics (Safavi, 2004, 130).
34
35 Attention to the Components of Metaphor
36
37 Attention to the components of the metaphor has been highlighted in the
38 fourth period of metaphor research and has been the basis for the formation of
39 multiple metaphorical types; however, there is a difference between the ideas
40 of Arabic and Persian rhetoricians which originates from their visions. That is
41 to say, the Arabic rhetoricians have paid attention to the difference between
42 the metaphor and the simile while introducing the components of the

14
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 metaphor, and therefore, according to the briefness of metaphor, and in

2 comparison with the simile, they spoke of the three components of tenor,
3 vehicle, and metaphor (Hashemi, 2011, 299). However, Persian rhetoricians
4 have paid attention to the relation and similarity of simile and metaphor.
5 Therefore, following the simile, they introduced four components of tenor,
6 vehicle, metaphor, and general. As a result, the existential philosophy of
7 metaphor and its difference with simile has been slightly confused in Persian
8 rhetoric.
9 Paying attention to symmetry in metaphorical structure is a common
10 feature of Arabic and Persian books. The necessity of having symmetry in
11 metaphor and dividing it into lexical and contextual symmetry has been
12 emphasized in Persian and Arabic books. The role of symmetry in the
13 formation of the stipulated, abstract, and absolute metaphor is appealing to
14 the metaphor researchers in this period. Among the rhetoricians of this period,
15 Shamisa has a different view of the symmetry role in the stipulation and
16 abstraction of metaphor, which is contemplative, and illustrates the accuracy
17 of his views (Shamisa, 1999, 160). Following the earlier rhetorical books, some
18 Arabic books divided the lexical symmetry into three parts that are in a single
19 meaning or in more than one meaning, or in related and compound meanings,
20 which have not been addressed in Persian books (Maraghi, 1993, 265). Instead,
21 in some Persian rhetorical books, the symmetry scope is expanded (Homayi,
22 1995, 174; Shamisa, 1999, 166). The Persian rhetorical books are more precise
23 on the role of the connotative symmetry (Sarifah) in the metaphor, and
24 emphasize that it only discards the mind from the true meaning, but it is not
25 sufficient to understand the intended trope meaning. Thus, connotative and
26 homonymic symmetries (Moayanah symmetry) (in common words) are then
27 used metaphorically (Homayi, 1995, 173, & Shamisa, 1999, 205). In general, it
28 can be said that the discussion of symmetry in the books of this period has a
29 considerable scope.
30
31 Attention to the Relation of Metaphor with the Similar Terms
32
33 The comparison between the simile and metaphor and the difference
34 between the two was more evident in the fifth period books, and the Arabic
35 books were often influenced by the views of Abdul Qahir Jarjani and other
36 second and third period metaphor researchers. In most of the books of this
37 period, the simile base of metaphor attracts attention; but they are not
38 unaware of the difference between the two. Maraghi considers metaphor as a
39 simile with the elimination of one of the sides, the words of comparison and
40 the medium of comparison. Regarding the difference between simile and
41 metaphor, he writes that unity does not occur in the simile mentioning the
42 sides as well, while in metaphor, unity and synthesis are claimed, to the extent
43 that one party may be named after another (Maraghi, 1993, 260). Another

15
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 point that has been noted on the relation between simile and metaphor in the
2 books of this period is that the move from simile to metaphor is seen as a
3 move from "beautiful to more beautiful" (Zubai, Halawi, 1996, 95) and such a
4 hierarchy is considered between these imaginary elements: Simile-Simile with
5 the deletion of words of comparison-simile with the deletion of words and
6 medium of comparison-metaphor. They know in short, the rhetoric of simile
7 in its hyperbole, and this hyperbole is increased by eliminating words and the
8 medium of comparison and one of the sides (Agent, 2012, 142).
9 In the hierarchy of transition from simile to metaphor, the eloquent simile
10 is in the middle of the road. Therefore, an accurate identification of the
11 boundary of eloquent simile and metaphor has been one of the concerns of
12 rhetorical books. Entering this discussion, the fifth period books have
13 attempted to illustrate the way to differentiate eloquent simile from metaphor.
14 In their view, the sides are present in the eloquent simile nonetheless, but in
15 metaphor, the simile is forgotten (Jarm, Amin, 2012, 95). The possibility or the
16 impossibility of removing words of comparison is another way of identifying
17 implicit simile and metaphor (Zubeyi, Halawi, 1996, 95).
18 Attention to the relation between the allegorical metaphor and allegory is
19 also found in the fifth period books. The relationship between the two has
20 always been the subject of controversy in Persian and Arabic books. Homayi
21 has elaborated on these issues and has described terms such as compound
22 synecdoche, compound trope to metaphor, and has resolved disagreements by
23 expressing the distinction between simile, allegory, and making "metaphorical
24 exemplum" (Homayi, 1995, 190-200). In this regard, Hashemi speaks of the
25 allegorical metaphor source of exemplum, prevalence of proverb among the
26 people, its constant form in every morphological and syntactical state, its
27 superiority over other trope types because of its allegorical simile root and its
28 compound medium of comparison (Hashemi, 2011, 316). Most of Arabic books
29 of this period have focused on this subject although it has not received much
30 attention in the Persian books.
31
32 The Types of Metaphor Criticism
33
34 What is disturbing the metaphorical subject is the formation of different
35 terms and variations. sometimes the philosophy of the type formation is
36 unclear and the formed terms overlap, and sometimes the changes in the
37 perspective forms a specific type. Finally, interest in making terms and
38 looking at details sometimes shape some types that are inconsistent with the
39 definition of metaphor. Hence, the books of this period criticized and
40 analyzed the types of metaphors. Although both the Persian and Arabic
41 rhetoricians disapproved the turmoil in this area, they took two different
42 approaches. The Arabic rhetoricians often criticized Sakkaki and his
43 commentators and knew the divisions and terminology as the cause for the

16
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 loss of the value and validity of the rhetorical issues, and in turn, they praised
2 the views of Abdul Qahir Jarjani, Abul Hilal Askari, and generally the second
3 and third period rhetoricians who favored briefness and analyzed aesthetics
4 of metaphor (Maraghi, 1993, 8 and 10; Sheikhun, 1994, 60 and 68; Zubai,
5 Halawi, 1996, 5, 93, 96). As a result, they liked briefness in introducing the
6 types of metaphor. For instance, there is nothing about the types that cause the
7 disturbance of the metaphor in Balaghah al-Wahdah. These rhetoricians only
8 explain and provide evidence for the explicit, implicit, and allegorical
9 metaphor. They know explicit and implicit metaphors as the most important
10 types of metaphor and avoid the types that "distract the mind of the rhetoric
11 and aesthetic implications of the metaphor” (Zubai, Halawi, 1996, 101).
12 However, the Persian rhetoricians still recognize Sakkaki and his followers as
13 excelling in this field and attempt to highlight the similarities and differences
14 by discussing various types. Perhaps the Arabic origin of these types
15 persuades the Arab rhetoricians to modify the term, and urges them to
16 eliminate unnecessary items. However, the fifth period's early books such as
17 Jawahar-e-Balagheh, Balagheh al-Wahdah, and the Ulum Balagheh are still bound
18 by the relations and differences of the implicit, submerged, and imaginary
19 metaphors (Hashemi, 2011, 304; Jarm, Amin, 2012, 74; Maraghi, 1993, 272).
20 They also attempt to reduce the severity of the differences by specifying the
21 appellation and the philosophy of naming the types under discussion and
22 thus defend these divisions (Hashemi, 2011, 303, 306, 307). But the process of
23 metaphorical transformation towards eliminating disparate types is
24 unnecessary.
25
26 A Critique of the Logical, Theological, and Philosophical Views
27
28 The fusion of rhetorical debates with other scholars culminated in al-
29 Sakati's Miftah al-'Ulum and continued by his followers and commentators
30 (Sheikhun, 1994 AD, 67); while some of the former rhetoricians were reluctant
31 to get into non-rhetorical debates. As it is written about Abu Hulal Askari: "He
32 explicitly says that he did not compose his work in the manner of theologians,
33 but rather it was written in the style of poets and writers who are cultivators
34 of speech" (Atiq, Beta, 198). The result of abundant non-rhetorical tendencies
35 is the formation of critical sentences like this: "Rhetoric has changed to barren
36 arduous rules which are laid down in a rational dry form" (Ibid: 268). So, in
37 the preface to the rhetorical books of this period, "the book being empty of
38 margins" (Ameli, 2012, 13) and the rhetorical discussion in a "scientific-
39 literary" manner (Ibid, 14) are emphasized. This moderate approach liberated
40 the metaphor discussion from unnecessary divisions, simplified its teaching
41 by its simple and brief introduction, and freed it from complex and arduous
42 arguments.

17
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 In the third period of metaphor research, Foruzanfar is the beginner of this

2 view (Forouzanfar, 1997, 5) Shafi'I Kadkani also criticizes the verbal view in
3 the relational trope and denounces it in all the rhetoric fields (Shafi'i Kadkani,
4 1993, 104).
5
6 Comparing and Contrasting Arabic and Persian Metaphor with the
7 Western Studies
8
9 The rhetoric of Western rhetorical research in the Islamic world can be
10 traced back to the first periods of metaphorical research, and even Sakkaky
11 has been criticized in later periods for his attention to Greek practices
12 (Maraghi, 1993, 9). Although such a look at the works of Sakaki is a new one,
13 the relation between the works by Khawaja Nasir al-Din Tusi and Aristotle's
14 works in the seventh century also imposes a link between Sakaki’s and the
15 Greek’s viewpoints.
16 The precedent of metaphor over the simile, the importance of the implicit
17 metaphor and the personification and abundance of their evidence, the
18 prominence of the analytical and aesthetic point of view in some rhetorical
19 books, the tendency to eliminate unnecessary terms, the attention to new
20 Western schools and perspectives in the research on metaphor all point to the
21 link between the research on metaphor in the Islamic and Western worlds.
22 Dozens of books translated from Western languages into Persian and Arabic
23 in the last period of research on metaphor and the modern era show that the
24 adaptation of the rhetoric of Islam with the rhetoric of the West in this period
25 influenced the course of research on metaphor. Of course, if this path is not
26 investigated seriously, the prospect will not be promising.
27 Alongside the aforementioned common features between the metaphors of
28 the fifth Arabic and the third Persian periods, there are some differences
29 between the two as well.
30
31 An Analytical look at metaphor
32
33 The aesthetic aspects of metaphor and its analytical perspectives are more
34 evident in the Arabic books of the fifth period. This view is often influenced
35 by the second and third periods of Arabic metaphor- research, but the Persian
36 books had no serious regard for these two periods. The natural tendency to
37 trope, the power of its imagination, the amplification of the word, the
38 multiplication of meanings and the accuracy of expression, creating
39 happiness (Hashemi, 2011, 281), bringing meaning to the mind, arousing the
40 imagination, the power of persuasion (Maraghi, 1993, 281), good imagery,
41 enlightenment (Sheikhun, 1994, 80), a new interpretation, along with illusions,
42 contemplation, and the conversion of spiritual affairs to sensual ones (Zubai,

18
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 Halawi, 1996, 92) are all among the most important benefits of metaphor.
2 Sheikhon points to the benefits of Qur'anic metaphors, which can, of course,
3 be extended to literary texts and their metaphors as well (Sheikhun, 1994, 83).
4 The rhetorical position of metaphor in most of the books in the fifth period
5 has gained an independent place (Jarm, Amin, 2012, 94; Maraghi, 1993, 281;
6 Sheikhun, 1994, 93). Ways and means of identifying rhetoric of metaphor
7 (Zubai, Halawi, 1996, 103), paying attention to the metaphor evaluation,
8 providing the criteria for good metaphors, and paying attention to the
9 eccentricity of metaphor and its factors are among the other points originated
10 from the analytical view of the metaphor researchers of the fifth period. The
11 superiority of the allegorical metaphor due to its basis of allegorical simile,
12 and its medium of comparison is abstracted from different issues, and it is
13 difficult and contemplative (Maraghi, 1993, 288; Hashemi, 2011, 316). A
14 hierarchical expression of metaphorical types, namely, the metaphorical
15 metaphor, implicit metaphor, and explicit metaphor (Sheikhun, 1994, 80), the
16 superiority of stipulation over abstraction because of ignoring simile and
17 enforcing hyperbole (Ameli, 2012, 146) are some of the points in the books of
18 this period. The books of this period regard the moderation in eccentricity and
19 proximity to the mind as the criterion of good metaphor (Ibid, 147). Finally, in
20 line with the analytic view of metaphor, the eccentricity of metaphor and its
21 causes are discussed in the fifth period books, whereas it has received little
22 attention in the earlier periods (Maraghi, 1993, 268). In the third period of
23 Farsi metaphor-research, there is not much analytical view in the books except
24 in Sovar e-Khial by Shafi'I Kadkani, and somehow in Balaghah Taswir written
25 by Fotuhi being influenced by the Western rhetoric and Bayan written by
26 Kazazi and Bayan written by Shamisa. Referring to the terms and conditions of
27 applying the meaning of trope in the forms of Shafi'I's Sovar e-Khial (Shafi'i
28 Kadkani, 1993, 120), which is influenced by the rhetoric books of the second
29 and third Arabic periods, indicating the reasons for superiority stipulation
30 over abstraction in Bayan written by Kazazi, mentioning some points
31 regarding the value of metaphor in this book , and finally, the dispersed
32 analytical and aesthetic look at Shamisa's Bayan are some of the most
33 important points in line with the analytical approach to metaphor reflected in
34 Persian books although they are weak in comparison to those in Arabic books.
35
36 A Criticism of Negligence to the Nature of the Persian Language
37
38 Nature of Persian language is the characteristic of Persian books. It should
39 be indicated that Arabic language has long been the source of rhetorical
40 debates, and except sporadic sentences that have criticized Greekism of the
41 Arabic rhetoricians, there is no mention of negligence to the nature of Arabic
42 language.

19
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 Such criticisms are found in the books of the third Persian period,
2 especially in introducing the different types of trope (Homayi, 1995, 205) and
3 submerged metaphor in letters (Ibid, footnote 186), Forouzanfar (Forouzanfar,
4 1997, 6) and Shafiei Kadkani (Shafi'i Kadkani, 1993, 102) have spoken about
5 this point more than others. In current studies, Arabic and Persian language
6 and their characteristics are lost and threatened in the face of the Western
7 dominant research so they require more serious attention.
8 Nativism in the rhetorical and metaphorical discourse of Farsi has just
9 started, and has only led to Farsiism in sub-terms of metaphor. This feature is
10 evident in Bayan written by Kazazi, and the book of Bayan in Persian poetry by
11 Behrouz Tharvatian, that does not seem to be helping the problems of rhetoric
12 and metaphor.
13
14
15 Conclusion
16
17 The rises and falls of metaphorical discussions in Arabic books preceded
18 the ones in Persian books. In the first, second, and early years of the third
19 period, a book on the subject of metaphor in Persian had not yet been
20 compiled so it is not possible to study metaphor in Arabic and Persian during
21 the same period. This possibility begins with the third period of the Arabic
22 metaphor research. The first period of Persian metaphor research is
23 comparable to the first and to some extent the second period in Arabic.
24 Likewise, the second and third period of Persian metaphor is matched with
25 the fourth and fifth period in Arabic respectively. The Persian metaphor
26 researchers have not received much benefit of the third period of the Arabic
27 metaphor research, which is the period of its glory. Generally speaking,
28 metaphor research in Farsi began with translating the Arabic subjects. Then, it
29 moved toward translation and mere imitation. Finally, over the last hundred
30 years, Persian metaphor research tried to criticize, modify, and accommodate
31 the Arabic metaphor research with the nature of Persian language using a
32 critical view. Of course, in the latter period of the Arabic and Persian
33 metaphor research, both movements were influenced by Western research,
34 and if this negligence toward native researches continues in two above
35 languages, there will not be a good perspective for the subject of metaphor
36 and other rhetorical issues. The necessity of formulating metaphorical culture,
37 examining the evolution of metaphor in literary texts, styles and types of
38 literature, reinforcing the analytical and aesthetic aspects of metaphorical
39 debate, paying attention to the nature of languages when using other nations'
40 research, and finally, preserving the imaginary aspects of the metaphor in
41 contrast to the merely scientific approach of some schools and theories are
42 among areas for further study in future Arabic and Persian research.
43

20
 2020-3623-AJHA

1
2 Bibliography
3
4 Abuhelal Askari, Hassan bin Abdullah bin Soheil. 1993. Me’yar al Balagheh.
5 Translation of the Book of Sana’atain translated by Mohammad Javad
6 Nasiri. Tehran: University of Tehran.
7 Abbas, Muhammad. 2008. Abdul Qahir Jarjani and New Perspectives on Literary
8 Criticism. Translated by Maryam Musharraf. Tehran: Nashcheshmeh.
9 Agh Ula, Abdul Hussein. 1994. In Dorar al- Adab. Qom: Hijra.
10 Al-Ameli, al-Sheikh Moien Daghigh. 2012. Dorous Fi al- Balagheh. Beirut: Dar
11 Jawad al-A'mah.
12 Aljarm, Ali & Amin, Mustafa. 2012. Al-Balagheh al-Wahdah. Qom: Zawi-al-
13 Qirbi.
14 Al-Maraghi, al-Mustafa. 1993. Ulum al Balagheh. Lebanon-Beirut: Dar al-Kutab
15 al-Umayyah.
16 Al-Maraghi, al-Mustafa. Mahasen al-Kalam. Edited by Mohammad Fesharaki.
17 Isfahan: Isfahan Cultural Center.
18 Al-Mobarad, Abi al-Abbas Mohammed bin Yazid. 2010. Al-Kamel, Al-Jazeera
19 Al-Awl. Edited by Mohammed Abolfazl Ibrahim. Beirut: Al-Maktaba Al-
20 Assariyah.
21 Althimi al-Timi, Abi Abideh Moammar. 1981. Majaz al Quran, Al-Jazeera Al-
22 Aul. Edited by Mohammad Fad Sezkin. Beirut: al-Rasala Institute.
23 Al-Sakkaki. Miftah Al-Alum. Qom: Urmia Library Publications.
24 Al-Sayyed Sheikhun, Muhammad. 1994. Metaphor, Its Genesis and Evolution.
25 2nd ed. Dar al-Hidayah.
26 Al-Zuba'i, Talib Mohammed and Halawi, Nasser. 1996. Al-Bayyan and al-
27 Badieh. Beirut: Dar al-Nazeja al-Arabiya and Al-Jawrah.
28 Amarati Moqaddam, David. 2016. Rhetoric from Athens to Medina. Tehran:
29 Hermes.
30 Atftazani. 1995. Al-Matool. Qom: Dawari School.
31 Attiq, Abdulaziz. 2016. The history of the Arabic rhetoric. Beirut: Dar al-Nahda
32 al-Arabia.
33 Fouruzanfar, Badi Alzaman. 1997. Ma’a:ni and Bayan. Edited by Seyyed
34 Mohammad dabir Siaghi. Tehran: Academy of Persian Language and
35 Literature, Letter of the Academy, Annex 3.
36 Fundersky, Mirza Abutaleb. 2002. Excerpts of the exquisite Bayan, Corrected by
37 Seyedeh Maryam Ravatian, First Edition. Isfahan: Islamic Propaganda
38 Office of Isfahan Branch.
39 Haghshenas, Ali Mohammed. 1991. Literary, Linguistic Papers, "The
40 Classification of Jarjani Metaphor, Special Reference to the Classification of
41 Aristotle's Metaphor". 1st ed. Tehran: Niloufar.

21
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 Hashimi, Ahmad. 2011. Jawahir al-Balagheh. Edited, Translated and

2 Transcribed by Mahmoud Khorsandi, Hamid Masjidarai. Tehran: Payam
3 Noavar Publications (Former Islamic Law).
4 Hawks, Trance. 2001. Metaphor. 2nd ed. Translated by Farzaneh Taheri.
5 Tehran: Center Publishing.
6 Hedayat, Reza Gholi Khan. 2004. Madarij al-Balagheh. 1st ed. Edited by Hamid
7 Hassani, Contribution by Behrouz Safarzadeh. Tehran: Academy of
8 Persian Language and Literature.
9 Homai, Jalaluddin. 1995. Meanings and figurative language. 3rd ed. Tehran:
10 Homa Publishing.
11 Hosseini Nishaburi, Burhanuddin Attaullah Mahmoud. 2005. Badia-al-Sanayah,
12 1st ed. Correction of Rahim Muslim Ghobadiani. Tehran: Mahmoud
13 Afshar Endowment Foundation.
14 Ibn Mu'tazid, Abdullah bin Mohammed. 2016. Al-Badi. Translated and Edited
15 by Yahya Kardgar & Bahauddin Eskandari. Qom: Bustan e Ketab
16 Institute.
17 Ibn Nadim, Muhammad bin Isaac. 1967. Al- Fihrist. 2nd ed. Translated by M.
18 Reza Tajadod, Tehran: Iran Commercial Bank Printing House.
19 Ibn Rashiq al-Qirwani, Abi Ali al-Hasan. 2000. Al-Umda. (Vol. 1), Edited by
20 Salah al-Din al-Hawari, A. Hoda Oudah. Beirut: Dar al-Hilal.
21 Jahiz. 1926. Albian and al-Tabin. Edited by Hasan al-Sandoubi. Qom: Urmia
22 Library Publications.
23 Jarjani, Abdul Qahir. 1926. Dalail Al-Ijaz Fi al- Quran. Translated by Seyyed
24 Mohammad Radmanesh. Mashhad: Astan Quds Razavi.
25 Jarjani, Abdul Qahir. Asrar Balagheh. 4th ed. Translated by Jalil Tajliz. Tehran:
26 University of Tehran, 1995.
27 Kazazi, Mir Jalaluddin. 1991. Bayan. 2nd ed. Tehran: Center Publishing.
28 Khattib al-Qawzwini. 2008. Talkhis al-Miftah. Edited by Yassin Al-Aubi. Beirut:
29 Al-Maktabah al-Assariyah.
30 Moqimizadeh, Mohammad Mehdi. 2015. Metaphor in Islamic Rhetoric. Tehran:
31 Tahora.
32 Qodamah ibn Ja’afar. 1884. Naqd al- Shi’r. 1st ed. Constantinople: Javanib
33 Publication.
34 Taftazani, Sa’daldin. 2003. Mokhtasar al Ma’ani. Qom: Dar al-Fakr Publications.
35 Taj al-Halawi, Ali bin Mohammed. 2004. Daghaigh al Shi’r. Edited by
36 Mohammad Kazem Imam. Tehran: University of Tehran.
37 Tharwatian, Behrouz. 1999. Bayan in Persian Poetry. Tehran: Barg Publishing.
38 Thaqlab. 1995. Qawaid al Shi’r. Edited by Ramadan Abdul Tawab. Cairo:
39 Maktabah al-Khanji.
40 Radavian, Mohammad bin Omar. 2001. Tarjoman al-Balagha. 1st ed. Edited by
41 Ahmad Atash, with the effort and translation of the introduction by
42 Tofigh. H. Sobhani - Esmaeil Hakami. Tehran: Association of Cultural
43 Works.

22
 2020-3623-AJHA

1 Rajaie, Mohammad Khalil. 1993. Ma’alim al- Balagheh. 3rd ed. Shiraz: Shiraz
2 University.
3 Rami Tabrizi, Sharafuddin Hassan bin Mohammed. 1962. Haqqaiq al-Hadeq. 1st
4 ed. Edited by Seyyed Mohammad Kazem Imam. Tehran: University of
5 Tehran.
6 Sadeq Saeed, Ehsan. 2000. Rhetorical Sciences in Arabic and Persian. Damascus:
7 Islamic Republic of Iran Cultural Consultation, Iranian-Arabic Cultural
8 Research Unit.
9 Saleh Mazandarani, Mohammad Hadi bin Mohammad. 1997. Anwar al-
10 Balagheh. 1st ed. Edited by Mohammad Ali Gholaminejad. Tehran: Qibla
11 Cultural Center, and Heritage Publishing Office.
12 Safavi, Kuroush. 2004. From Linguistics to Literature. Volume 2: Poetry, 1st ed.
13 Tehran: Surah Mehr.
14 Safavi, Kuroush. 2017. Metaphor. 1st ed. Tehran: Scientific Publication.
15 Shafie Kadkani, Mohammad Reza. 1993. Sowarr e- khiyal in Persian Poetry. 5th
16 ed. Tehran: Agah.
17 Shafie Mostofi, Raziyeddin Mohammad bin Mohammad. 2010. Mat’lah, MSc
18 Thesis. Qom: Qom University.
19 Shams al-Alma'i Garkani, Haj Mohammad Hussein. 1998. Abda’ al Badayah. 1st
20 ed. by Hossein Jafari, with introduction of Jalil Tajliz. Tabriz: Aharar.
21 Shams Fakhri Isfahani. 2010. Me’yar Jamali. 1st ed. Edited by Yahya Kardgar.
22 Tehran: Library, Museum and Document Center of the Majlis.
23 Shams Razi, Razi. 1994. Al-Mujamm fi Ma’ayar Asha’r al-Ajam. Edited by the
24 efforts of Sirus Shamisa, First Edition. Tehran: Ferdows.
25 Shemisa, Sirus. 1999. Bayan. 7th ed. Tehran: Ferdows.
26 Waiz Kashefi Sabzevari, Kamaluddin Hussein. 1990. Badayah al- Afkar fi
27 Sanayah al-Asha’r. Edited by Mir Jalaleddin Kazazi. 1st ed. Tehran: Center
28 Publishing.
29 Watwat. 1983. Hedayegh al-Sahar fi Daqayaq al-Sha'ir. 1st ed. Edited by Abbas
30 Iqbal Ashtiani. Tehran: Taheri & Sanai Library.
31 Zaif, Shoughi. 2004. History and notation of rhetorical science. Translated
32 by Mohammad Reza Torki. Tehran: Side.
33

23