عنوان مقاله [English]
At the beginning of its genesis in the third century, rhetoric was expanded. It was called “Badi”, “Bayan” and in later centuries it was introduced as “Balaghat”. However, this process did not last long and the pure light of rhetoric becomes multiple like the shadows of knurl. According to the reports of rhetoric contemporary historians from the late sixth century and at the beginning of the seventh century, we see the branching of this knowledge until we access what we call “Badi’, Bayan, Maa’ni”.
The main subject of this article is about the independence date of “Badi”. Many contemporary historians believe that this branch of knowledge with its current meaning was made by Sakkaki and after that it became popular as a technique developed by Badraldinebne Malek (Matlub, 2010).
This belief is so famous among rhetoric researchers and students that many articles, books or entries written about “Badi” introduce the independence of this knowledge from the seventh century by Sakkaki or Badraldinebne Malek (see Matlub, 2010; Maraghi, 1990).
What we will present here is a new narrative about the independence date of this knowledge. The novelty in this method is rooted in the difference of writers' attitude towards famous rhetoric historians about the nature of history, especially intellectual history.
Textual studies show this fact that the independence of “Badi” with its current concept was not something suddenly, and it began slowly at least two centuries before Sakkaki. Our research shows that this continuum has at least five chains that Sakkaki and Badraldinebne Malek are only their fourth and fifth chains. In the following sections we introduce and describe the individuals in this Continuum.
In this article we assume that intellectual- historical phenomena were gradual and connected; therefore, the independence of “Badi’” was not an accident but a process. Thus, the beginning of this process was followed in the historical texts of rhetoric. Moreover, in research like this we cannot rely on the information of just one specific knowledge or mainstream; in fact, referring to simultaneous changes in other knowledge and mainstreams and finding a cause and effect relationship between different changes is one the most important responsibility of a historian who is supposed to narrate the history of a thought. So in this article after a precise analysis of rhetoric texts, we enter another territory called logic and attempt to highlight the changes occurred in this field related to metonymy and metaphor and consider them as a background for the changes in “Badi”.
Results and Discussion
There is a very considerable criterion for old rhetoricians and contemporary researchers to rely on for considering the independence of “Badi’”. This criterion is the absence of simile and metaphor and generally metonymy in “Badi” (for example see Sobki, 1332). They generally believe that Sakkaki was the cause of this separation. According to a rather unknown source, we will prove that the date of this separation is at least two hundred years before him. Mavadol Bayan by Ali ebne Khalaf Katib (1036) is one of the important resources that we may see the separation of metaphor from the subject of “Badi” for the first time. At first we consider the reasons of the author to separate these two, and then we present our own analysis about this subject.
Rhetoric contemporary researchers explain that before Sakkaki the term of “Badi” meant “Baligh” and “Hasan”. This is almost correct. One of the meanings that Ali ebneKhalad Katib uses for this word is this. For instance, when he aims to show the distinction between simple prose and rhetorical prose he confesses thatthe way he chooses in writing his prose to prevent vain prose speech that people use in ordinary writings and conversations, and that way is decorating the text with the ornaments of rhetoric and “Badi” like metaphor and simile and rhyme and “Taghsim” and “Moghabele”, etc. (Katib, 1036).
In the above phrase, rhetoric and “Badi” have been used with the same meaning. Katib (1036), like previous rhetoricians, reminded that metaphor is a part of “Badi”; however, he does an amazing job in introducing this technique. Mavadol Bayan like other books such as Alsaaatein and Alomda fe-Sanaate Sheer has a part called “Badi” in which he starts to introduce its chapters. By analyzing this part, we realize that he has omitted the metaphor from it (Katib, 1036).
Since IbneMotaz to Jorjani, metaphor was a part of “Badi”. According to this subject, Katib did not choose an opposite way to the previous rhetoricians by separating “Badi” from rhetoric and metaphor from “Badi”. In fact, it seems that Katib (1036) transfers metaphor and simile to the topic of metonymy in the chapter of rhetoric and not “Badi”.
If we want to show the process of changes about metonymy and metaphor before the beginning of the sixth century, in the first step we should say that from the fourth century the topic of metonymy found its way to rhetoric books. In the second step, metaphor has been presented in two chapters called metonymy and “Badi” that makes a kind of dichotomy or at its best way a kind of repetition. Finally, in the third step the separation of metaphor and simile from “Badi” and its transfer to a new section called metonymy or reality and metonymy took place. This process was almost finished before the end of the fifth century. There is no doubt that the most progressive person in this period was Aliebne Khalaf Katib. After that, individuals such asMatrazi and then Sakkaki and Badroldinebne Malik helped this process.
The importance of Avicenna in influencing the transfer of metaphor and in shaping “Badi” is in his two innovations in Esharat and alTanbihat. (Aristotle's logics became popular among Muslims in nine part but Avicenna, in Esharat and Manteqol-Mashreqain, divides logic into two main parts based on “tasavvorat” and “tasdighat” and reduced Aristotle's chapters from nine to two (Faideei, 1865); he does this by being inspired from Farabi's classification of science to “tasavvor” and “tasdigh” which was expressed in Oyoon-alMasael and by considering the distinction between “tasavvor” and “tasdigh” methods. Avicenna mentions the subject of “Alfaz” in the “Tasavvorat” chapter. This subject includes another innovational part which is the division of all kinds of implications to “Motabeghe” and “Tazammon” and “ltezam”.
In this article we attempted to define the real contribution of Sakkaki or Ibne Malik in the division of “Badi” from “Bayan”, which is mentioned a lot in contemporary rhetoric research. In fact, we can comprehend that rhetoricians and logicians before these two almost figures provided backgrounds for this division. The garden of rhetoric only needed a farmer to pick the yield of this nurture.