مجله زبان و ادبیات فارسی
پیاپی 68 (تابستان 1389)

According to Ferdinand de Sossur- the well-known linguist- the philosophical-intelectual tradition of the west from Plato and Aristotle’s age, and even before them, up to the 20th century has been influenced by a polarity approach that preferred speech to writing. Accordingly, the complete transfer of meaning was considered to be possible through speech, Meanwhile, writing was considered as a branch and a substitute for speech. A brief look at Islamic Iranian history and culture may indicate that despite the differences in the basics and methods, we find a clear preference for speech in the discourse of thoughts of the classcal languge and literature. More specifically, Nasser khosroo established and organized the important theoreical principles so that the dominant mechanism of speech prevailed in the fields of Islamic rhetorics in general and Persian rhetorics in particular for many centuries. This article will elaborate on this issue.

It generally seems impossible to neglect the role of myths and mythical concepts due to the fact that poets are unconsciously inspred by their ethical and contents. However, in contemporary poetry, especially in those of the poets with special philosophical, social, intellectual and cultural attitudes, the poets have widely tried to adapt mythical elements to modern situations and to create new myths from contemporary concepts or realities. Akhavan sales is one of the poets who has used a wide range of elements of ancient Iranian myths in his poems and under contemporary historical-social situation, has created myths based on the social concepts and realities. This paper attempts to investigate the underlying reasons as well as the quality of the creation of myth of defeat in Gheseh Shahre Sangesstan and the quality of the reproduction of some old elements utilized by the poet to depict 'defeat'.

Critics’ includingVimsat, Brooks, Pen Waren and Renewelek, in their evaluation of poems have focused on differentiating features of classical poetry and modern poetry.Compared with the North branch of literary criticism, the South branch of New criticism has explored the formalistic and structural features of poems. Brooks in his book entitled modern and classical poetry maintains that the formalistic nature of poem stems from an array of intricacies of the corresponding society. Further, he adds that critics should delve into literary works in order to capture the details. Brooks in juxtaposition with narrative system of classical poem tries to establish four categories of formalistic system including categorical, rhetorical, abstract, and associational in the modern poetry. Brooks assumes that non- narrative systems are more complex than narrative ones and sometimes they can be integrated. This results in more density and difficulty in poems. This article probes the possibility of criticizing the contemporary poetry of Persian literature accoding to non- narrative forms.

In verse 172, Aaraf Sura, God covenants with its thrall (servants); but this verse expressed a general concept and did not discuss the details. This resulted in suggesting different views and comments by mystics, scholars, theologians, commentators and jurists. They explicitly pointed to some of the cases of this eternal covenant, such as testament of Adam, confession of people to God and saying "yes" by Adam to God; but commentators and mystics had different and contradictory perceptions. This study analyzed the process of concept formation and different thoughts of "eternity" from the first commentator to the books of Persian literature mystics, and offers a comprehensive and detailed discussion of the issue.

The French speakers’ acquaintance with Iranian culture and literature took place later than that of speakers of Latin and Greek. The history of French language should be distinguished from the history of French literature. The French language developed gradually from the 5th century and after the independence from the Roman Empire. That is why the history of French literature was first realized as epic literature in the 12th century corresponding with Crusades. French Christian priests who had an essential role in creating the French language and literature were familiar with Zoroaster via translated Greek or Latin history books. However, more generally, via Bible and Torah, they regarded ancient Iran as the savior of Jews and Jesus Christ. During the Crusades, Iran was constantly regarded as an Arab country. Parallel with movement of Christian priests in the Mongolian period and the Christians’ influence in the royal palace, Iran’s name became well-known. However, we should regard the influential translations as a production of Christians’ long residence and learning of Persian language during and after the Safavieh period. One may consider two significant periods in the reputation of the name of Iran: The18th Century whose literary works embrace a collection of manuscripts influenced by translations, interpretations, and reproductions. These works were criticized from Renaissance to the end of the 17th century, mostly by monarch messengers, especially Christian missioners, in the form of analytical dictionaries, oriental novels, dramatic subjects, fables and myths. These sources dramatically influenced the woks of such elites as Montesquieu, Voltaire, and the authors of the Diderot encyclopedia who marked the thought crisis period of the Great French Revolution. Although the translations were considered as Platonic, paratextual, and racial due to lack of Persian literacy, they had a drastic effect on the intellectuality of the French society and resulted in the foundation of a significant field named Orientalism in the 19th century. In this era, translation of Persian works was done by trained diplomatic agents in a more organized way. Its influence was realized not only in politics but also in the Romanticism school; specifically, in the works of Victor Hugo and other literary schools such as Symbolism and Surrealism. In ideology and anthropology, Gobineau, who was under the influence of Aryan race, provoked a number of argumentations which, in turn, led to racism in the 20th century.

Longing is one of mystical states that appeares in the absence of the beloved and must vanish at meeting the beloved. In mystical texts, longing at the joining moment is elaborated on. Some mystics believe that after joining and at the presence of the beloved, longing increases and converts to a state of desire. The continuity of longing or converting caused by the presence of the beloved, in turn, lead to an unending journey to God. The beloved has a myriad of manifestations and the lover in each stage reaches one of the beauties of the beloved. So, the lover has reached one manifestation of the beloved’s beauty and is still striving for understanding and uncovering the other aspects. The beloved’s unconditional enthusiasm and presence is stimulated by the lover’s continuous need to love the beloved. Once the journey to God is over, another journey in God starts. This journey never ends because of the the beloved’s unlimited beauty and glory; hence, the lover remains longing and loving the beloved forever.

This study attempts to indicate that ‘exclusivity’ is not organized adequately in semantic books. In these books, there is not a clear- cut boundary between different kinds of literary exclusivity; moreover its categorizations are based on the reader,s’ mastery over the speakers or the addressees’ intentions. After analyzing and categorizing the three groups cited in semantic books, the author concludes that the real non- claiming exclusive sentences should be analyzed in the realm of language studies, and unreal daiming sentences in the realm of literature. Furthermore, a change in the tone of reading or the stress in pronunciation determines the adjective and noun or the noun and adjective. In order to clarify exclusivity of ‘singularity, metamorphosis and identification’, accurate identification of the addressee is highly necessary. Finally, the position of exclusive sentences and implications is not clarified. It is suggested that when teaching or analyzing ‘exclusivity’, the five fields of discourse analysis, literature, knowing the addressee, sentence recognition and implicatures must be taken into account.