نوع مقاله : مقالۀ پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد
2 دانشیار زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد
3 استاد زبان و ادبیات فارسی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد
4 دانشیار علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Extended abstract
Introduction
A large part of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh is about the kings of ancient Iran, and its central idea can also be clearly considered political. If we compare Ferdowsi's political philosophy in Shahnameh with that of Iranian thinkers, Farabi will be the best one. Because of his philosophy about Utopia, Farabi is a pioneer. Formulating his theory, he had been influenced by Plato and Aristotle's philosophy, Islamic and Shiite theories, as well as the political thoughts of ancient Iran. However, what Farabi wrote about politics is "political philosophy" and what we found about politics in Shahnameh is "political thought" and as the word "thought" contains philosophy and beliefs, in this paper, the expression "political thought" also includes Farabi's political philosophy as well as Shahnameh's political views. It is because the political discussions talked more about the "king" and what attributes he should have and how he should govern in the ancient texts.
Theoretical Framework and Method
This paper uses a comparative approach that discusses literature, including philosophy, in relation to other fields in the arts and humanities. With this method, in a specific subject, the similarities and differences between the two texts can be shown and explained, without proving to be a direct influence on one another. The utopia of Farabi and Ferdowsi's Shahnameh are two historical products, and the study of political thinking in them will recreate a portion of the history of Iranian thought and complete our interpretation of it.
The periods in which Farabi (259 / 259-339 AH) and Ferdowsi (329-411 / 416 AH) were living coincided with the ruling over Iran by Tazi and Turkish aliens. The starting point for theorizing on politics by them was to observe political crises. Farabi and Ferdowsi's strategic thinking were both formulated by witnessing the government's problem and attempting to offer a solution to it. The questions will be answered in this article: what are the qualities of an ideal ruler in the utopia of Farabi and Ferdowsi Shahnameh, and how does he govern?
To address these questions, the characteristics and functions of the first ruler of the Farabi’s utopia (madine-ye fazele) are first taken from the works comprising his political thought and then the characteristics and functions of Shahe Armani in Ferdowsi's Shahnameh are drawn from the tales of the Iranian national epics and Ferdowsi’s speeches, articulated and ultimately compared with each other, and their similarities and differences are historically studied and analyzed.
Review of Literature
There is no case that has comparatively studied the characteristics and performance of the first president in the utopia of Farabi and Shah Armani in Ferdowsi's Shahnameh, among the studies that have been performed so far and are somehow relevant to the subject of this article; however, several studies have been undertaken whose authors have separately analyzed Farabi's political thought and Ferdowsi. Moreover, there are other studies in Shahnameh that are somewhere dedicated to political concepts and issues or have discussed this subject. On the other hand, only three scholars have already made brief remarks in comparing the political theory of Farabi and Ferdowsi including Tabatabai (1367, 1383, 1395, 1397) and Rashed Mohsal (1387) and Asil (1381). The methodology of these two studies is similar to our approach in this article; Mojtabaei (1352) has tried to compare Plato's utopia with the Achaemenid Empire in Iran and Jokar (2006) has compared the utopia of Farabi in general with Saadi's utopia in Bustan.
Conclusions and Discussion
There are several contradictions between the thoughts of Farabi and the Shahnameh of Ferdowsi on the ideal prince: in a certain case, Farabi approved the rule of a council of elites, but the Shahnameh stresses the need for the Shah to be one. In Shahnameh, being Iranian requires being a ruler, but this issue has no place in Farabi's mind. In the structure of the utopia, Farabi did not consider a position for a minister or counsellor, but advisers have a very vital role in Shahnameh.
The common features and roles suggested to the ruler of Armanshahr by Farabi and Ferdowsi include 1. The development and governance of Armanshahr by an individual who is superior and more complete than others with the goal of fulfilling needs and achieving prosperity and happiness. 2. The ruler's place in utopia is like God's place in the world. 3. The ideal prince must have comprehension and knowledge and be able to know the truth of God. 4. He is selected and motivated by God, the forerunner and the guide to happiness for human beings and knows the mysteries. 5. Eloquence, strength, fitness, piety, integrity, ambition, righteousness, bravery, and understanding the proper rite of governance are his other characteristics. 6. Owing to the virtue and specialization of people, this monarch organizes a special social structure and is vigilant not to disrupt it. 7. He aims through community engagement and civic collaboration to eradicate evils and accomplish the goodness.
The picture of a desirable government, which is articulated in the language of philosophy as well the language of literature in the form of the national epic of Iran, is portrayed by these characteristics and functions and is a response to the crisis of rule in Farabi and Ferdowsi. In Farabi's ideology, the Islamic community (ummah) is the target society and the world is the idealistic version of it, and cultural Iran in the Persian language is the target society in Ferdowsi's political thought.
It is therefore not unlikely that the parallels between the two hypotheses emerge from Iranshahri's political thought and the contradictions between the two arise from the differences in other sources, given the sources of these two concepts. But the Iranian component of both hypotheses appears to triumph over the other elements, as the correlations overshadow the differences. It may also be said that the sum of the views of Farabi and Ferdowsi on the ideal ruler is the same as the ideal of government in Iranian history, which Iranian thinkers have considered in different texts from the fourth century AH to the modern period. This is a formulation of the desired imperial perfection in texts that can somehow be considered as political thought in Iran.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله