Volume 16, Issue 62 (2023)
LCQ 2023, 16(62): 89-126 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
rahimpoor M. Poetry Criticism Among Critics of the Subcontinent. LCQ 2023; 16 (62) :89-126
URL: http://lcq.modares.ac.ir/article-29-67430-en.html
URL: http://lcq.modares.ac.ir/article-29-67430-en.html
Assistant professor of Persian language and literature culture , mahdi_rahimpoor@yahoo.com
Abstract: (652 Views)
The subject of literary criticism has been of great importance in the subcontinent, and many critics have written criticism on both poetry and prose. Many critics and their works have been introduced or even published, but some are still preserved in manuscript form in various libraries. Generally, the written reviews are in prose, but among the existing works, reviews are also written in poetry, which is interesting in its own way. Sheyda Fathpouri, Munir Lahori and Abdul Baghi Sahbai are among the prominent critics of the subcontinent who have tried to experience criticism in the form of order, which seems to have been remarkably successful. Although the regularity of their criticism has caused some limitations. Despite the very valuable works that have been written in the field of literary criticism in the subcontinent, with the identification and discovery of different and innovative works in this field, the scope of literary criticism in the subcontinent becomes wider and more obvious every day, and it shows that this category is of great importance among writers, scholars and writers of that country have been blessed. In this article, we have first introduced the critical accounts of the poem, and then we have pointed out the motives of some of these critics in writing their criticisms, and then we have examined and analyzed these criticisms.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Although the knowledge of literary criticism is new and belongs to the last century, but by searching and identifying the past sources, we can see its traces in the ancient works and some writers and critics who professionally dealt with literary criticism. The history of literary criticism in the history of Persian literature has been more or less investigated and books have been written in this field. But what is very important in this context is that this topic enjoyed a lot of prosperity and prestige in the subcontinent, and there were great critics in that land who gave credibility to the topic of literary criticism in Persian literature by writing important works in this context. One of the wonders of literary criticism in the subcontinent is that, in addition to numerous works of criticism, which are written in prose, in a few cases we also come across criticism in verse, which is interesting in its own way. In the subcontinent, some critics have criticized poems or works that have useful points and, in addition to the content of the criticism, are also interesting in terms of structure and appearance.
History of criticism and literary theory of poetry in Persian literature
Literary criticism and theory of poetry in a broad and independent way does not exist in Persian literature. Perhaps some literary debates and controversies in the form of poetry, which has a long history in Persian literature, can be related to the category of criticism to some extent. The most famous of these literary controversies took place between Onsori and Ghazayeri Razi. In addition, some poets have made a general comment about the whole poem, the poetry of other poets, as well as praising their own poems, from a single verse to a complete poem. Even if these can be defined under criticism, they are still completely different from what some critics of the subcontinent have written. The critics of the subcontinent used to criticize poems in a professional manner and pointed out important points in the correction of verses.
Poetry criticism among critics of the subcontinent
As mentioned, some critics of the subcontinent, who are also Persian-speaking poets of that land, have presented their criticism in verse based on their own taste. The story begins when Haji Mohammadjan Qudsi Mashhadi (990-1056 AH), a famous poet of the Indian style, sang an ode in the memory of Imam Reza (PBUH). Sheyda Fathpouri, who was one of the well-known poets of that era, wrote a poetic criticism in the same weight and rhyme of the Qudsi ode and raised objections to some of its verses. After him, Munir Lahori, one of the famous Indian writers, poets and critics, gave a brilliant answer in the same weight and rhyme. Abdul Baqi Sahbai, one of the poets and critics of that period, once again attacked Sheyda with the same weight and rhyme and defended Qudsi. After them, Arzoo wrote the treatise Dad-e Sokhan based on these criticisms and as a "trial" between these critics in prose, and to a large extent he took the side of Qudsi and sometimes Munir. Of course, due to the fact that the critics have restricted themselves to respect the weight and rhyme, in some cases there is a weakness in the verses or filling, but in general they have achieved their purpose and at least they have been able to create a new wave in literary criticism.
Values of systematic criticism format
Perhaps, the main reason for choosing "order" for criticism is a kind of complicity. Because it is very difficult to write a review in verse and in a specific weight and rhyme. In other words, the critics criticized the poem in verse form in order to show off their knowledge and grace to the poets or other scientific rivals. Dealing with poem criticism from another aspect is also noteworthy, and that is the category of defamiliarization. This means that usually the written criticism of an artistic work is usually in prose, but the critics of the subcontinent, like the poets of that land, whose poems we have often witnessed defamiliarization in matters related to the aesthetics of poetry, have welcomed a kind of deconstruction or defamiliarization, which consists of the same criticism is the poem.
The Critics
Sheyda Fathpouri is one of the poets and critics of the 11th century, who is especially famous for his criticism of Qudsi's ode. Sheyda liked the old style in poetry and did not believe in the new style in poetry. He criticized 20 verses of Qudsi's ode in the form of 43 verses.
Munir Lahori (1054-1019) is a well-known poet, writer and critic of the subcontinent who was born in Lahore. Munir was also among the critics who, although he wrote poetry in the "new way" at first, but later changed his style and wrote poetry in the old way. He was one of the fans of the old style, and for this reason, he attacked four Persian-speaking poets of the new style in Siraj Munir and defended several advanced poets. Munir is the first person who responded to Sheyda's criticism of Qudsi and in the form of about 90 verses, he rushed to Sheyda in defense of Qudsi. His criticisms, which in some cases had a sharp and biting tone, were centered on rhetorical and grammatical points, of course Arzoo answered a significant number of them.
Mir Abd al-Baghi Sahbai (died 1094 AH), a poet and writer of the subcontinent, who is less famous than the previous critics. He is also one of Sheyda's critics, but Sahbai's criticism does not have a high analytical power compared to Mounir's and Sheyda's criticisms, as well as Arzoo's, however, new points can also be found in his criticism. Also, the criticism of Sahbai's poems is of great importance in the study of the tradition of literary criticism in the subcontinent.
Arzoo (1169-1099 AH), the most famous critic of the subcontinent, who has many works in various fields of rhetoric, linguistics, tazkira, description of literary texts, etc., has three very important books in the field of literary criticism; Tanbieh al-Ghafilin, Siraj Munir and Dad-e Sokhan said that the subject of the recent treatise is a response to these criticisms of the poem and in a way a defense of Mashhad's sacredness. While quoting these poetic criticisms, Arzoo has tried to answer them in a scientific, precise and fair manner.
The main motivations of Sheyda from Qudsi criticism
The root of Sheyda's criticism can be found in several other cases. One is his poetic taste and style; In such a way that Sheyda, contrary to the common style of his contemporaries, was inclined to the old style and simplicity and moderation of their poetry in terms of the use of metaphors. Another important issue is that Sheyda is the leader of a literary movement in India that believes that the Persian language and literature are not only for Iranians, and that Indian-origin professors of Persian literature are experts in this field and have the right to occupy it. Also, Sheyda believed that Iranians do not believe and pay attention to Indian poets and do not value the poets of this region in terms of poetry and literature. These factors can be seen as an introduction to his enmity with a poet like Qudsi who was Iranian. The majority of Sheyda's criticisms in this criticism are related to lexical, rhetorical and "everyday language" or colloquial issues, and sometimes legal and philosophical issues, which are often not free of mistakes. From this criticism of Sheyda and also the responses of the protestors, it can be seen that his criticisms were not without bias and mostly because of the lack of attention of Iranian poets to him. It is also clear from Arzoo's reviews of Sheyda that, due to Sheyda's strong relationship with the old style and lack of belief in the new style, he is not very familiar with the stylistic characteristics of the poetry of this period, especially in terms of the use of metaphors, or at least he is not interested in this style.
Some axes of critical criticism Sheyda
Sheyda has paid attention to many minor and major issues in his criticism of Qudsi verses. From the lack of meaning in the verse to dealing with legal and philosophical issues. Here we only discuss the main and most important points of Sheyda's criticism of Mashhadi's Qudsi ode: Lack of semantic connection in the structure of holy poetry, ignoring everyday language, failure to pay attention to grammar and language points, incorrect combinations in Qudsi poetry and not having a document and history in using some phrases and combinations.
Conclusion
Poetry criticism in the subcontinent has been successful with all its structural limitations, and critics have presented their criticisms regardless of poetic limitations. Another issue is that by carefully detailing the content of the reviews, it can be concluded that critics have attached more importance to formalism in poetry. If we pay attention to the axes of Sheyda's criticism and other people's answers, we can clearly see this approach to structure and form. Also, based on these reviews, we can see that people like Sheyda and Munir had no belief or interest in the new way or the basics of Indian style, but people like Arzoo and to some extent Sahbai believed and were interested in this style. Another thing is that since the vast majority of written criticisms in the subcontinent are in prose, writing poetry criticism is a kind of norm avoidance and highlighting, which is one of the characteristics of Indian poets in poetry. Another issue is that although compared to the prose criticisms written in the subcontinent, the poetry criticisms have occupied a much smaller volume (perhaps ten percent), but those criticisms cannot be ignored, and certainly in the review of the history of literary criticism in the Persian language and literature, these systematic reviews should also be evaluated.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Although the knowledge of literary criticism is new and belongs to the last century, but by searching and identifying the past sources, we can see its traces in the ancient works and some writers and critics who professionally dealt with literary criticism. The history of literary criticism in the history of Persian literature has been more or less investigated and books have been written in this field. But what is very important in this context is that this topic enjoyed a lot of prosperity and prestige in the subcontinent, and there were great critics in that land who gave credibility to the topic of literary criticism in Persian literature by writing important works in this context. One of the wonders of literary criticism in the subcontinent is that, in addition to numerous works of criticism, which are written in prose, in a few cases we also come across criticism in verse, which is interesting in its own way. In the subcontinent, some critics have criticized poems or works that have useful points and, in addition to the content of the criticism, are also interesting in terms of structure and appearance.
History of criticism and literary theory of poetry in Persian literature
Literary criticism and theory of poetry in a broad and independent way does not exist in Persian literature. Perhaps some literary debates and controversies in the form of poetry, which has a long history in Persian literature, can be related to the category of criticism to some extent. The most famous of these literary controversies took place between Onsori and Ghazayeri Razi. In addition, some poets have made a general comment about the whole poem, the poetry of other poets, as well as praising their own poems, from a single verse to a complete poem. Even if these can be defined under criticism, they are still completely different from what some critics of the subcontinent have written. The critics of the subcontinent used to criticize poems in a professional manner and pointed out important points in the correction of verses.
Poetry criticism among critics of the subcontinent
As mentioned, some critics of the subcontinent, who are also Persian-speaking poets of that land, have presented their criticism in verse based on their own taste. The story begins when Haji Mohammadjan Qudsi Mashhadi (990-1056 AH), a famous poet of the Indian style, sang an ode in the memory of Imam Reza (PBUH). Sheyda Fathpouri, who was one of the well-known poets of that era, wrote a poetic criticism in the same weight and rhyme of the Qudsi ode and raised objections to some of its verses. After him, Munir Lahori, one of the famous Indian writers, poets and critics, gave a brilliant answer in the same weight and rhyme. Abdul Baqi Sahbai, one of the poets and critics of that period, once again attacked Sheyda with the same weight and rhyme and defended Qudsi. After them, Arzoo wrote the treatise Dad-e Sokhan based on these criticisms and as a "trial" between these critics in prose, and to a large extent he took the side of Qudsi and sometimes Munir. Of course, due to the fact that the critics have restricted themselves to respect the weight and rhyme, in some cases there is a weakness in the verses or filling, but in general they have achieved their purpose and at least they have been able to create a new wave in literary criticism.
Values of systematic criticism format
Perhaps, the main reason for choosing "order" for criticism is a kind of complicity. Because it is very difficult to write a review in verse and in a specific weight and rhyme. In other words, the critics criticized the poem in verse form in order to show off their knowledge and grace to the poets or other scientific rivals. Dealing with poem criticism from another aspect is also noteworthy, and that is the category of defamiliarization. This means that usually the written criticism of an artistic work is usually in prose, but the critics of the subcontinent, like the poets of that land, whose poems we have often witnessed defamiliarization in matters related to the aesthetics of poetry, have welcomed a kind of deconstruction or defamiliarization, which consists of the same criticism is the poem.
The Critics
Sheyda Fathpouri is one of the poets and critics of the 11th century, who is especially famous for his criticism of Qudsi's ode. Sheyda liked the old style in poetry and did not believe in the new style in poetry. He criticized 20 verses of Qudsi's ode in the form of 43 verses.
Munir Lahori (1054-1019) is a well-known poet, writer and critic of the subcontinent who was born in Lahore. Munir was also among the critics who, although he wrote poetry in the "new way" at first, but later changed his style and wrote poetry in the old way. He was one of the fans of the old style, and for this reason, he attacked four Persian-speaking poets of the new style in Siraj Munir and defended several advanced poets. Munir is the first person who responded to Sheyda's criticism of Qudsi and in the form of about 90 verses, he rushed to Sheyda in defense of Qudsi. His criticisms, which in some cases had a sharp and biting tone, were centered on rhetorical and grammatical points, of course Arzoo answered a significant number of them.
Mir Abd al-Baghi Sahbai (died 1094 AH), a poet and writer of the subcontinent, who is less famous than the previous critics. He is also one of Sheyda's critics, but Sahbai's criticism does not have a high analytical power compared to Mounir's and Sheyda's criticisms, as well as Arzoo's, however, new points can also be found in his criticism. Also, the criticism of Sahbai's poems is of great importance in the study of the tradition of literary criticism in the subcontinent.
Arzoo (1169-1099 AH), the most famous critic of the subcontinent, who has many works in various fields of rhetoric, linguistics, tazkira, description of literary texts, etc., has three very important books in the field of literary criticism; Tanbieh al-Ghafilin, Siraj Munir and Dad-e Sokhan said that the subject of the recent treatise is a response to these criticisms of the poem and in a way a defense of Mashhad's sacredness. While quoting these poetic criticisms, Arzoo has tried to answer them in a scientific, precise and fair manner.
The main motivations of Sheyda from Qudsi criticism
The root of Sheyda's criticism can be found in several other cases. One is his poetic taste and style; In such a way that Sheyda, contrary to the common style of his contemporaries, was inclined to the old style and simplicity and moderation of their poetry in terms of the use of metaphors. Another important issue is that Sheyda is the leader of a literary movement in India that believes that the Persian language and literature are not only for Iranians, and that Indian-origin professors of Persian literature are experts in this field and have the right to occupy it. Also, Sheyda believed that Iranians do not believe and pay attention to Indian poets and do not value the poets of this region in terms of poetry and literature. These factors can be seen as an introduction to his enmity with a poet like Qudsi who was Iranian. The majority of Sheyda's criticisms in this criticism are related to lexical, rhetorical and "everyday language" or colloquial issues, and sometimes legal and philosophical issues, which are often not free of mistakes. From this criticism of Sheyda and also the responses of the protestors, it can be seen that his criticisms were not without bias and mostly because of the lack of attention of Iranian poets to him. It is also clear from Arzoo's reviews of Sheyda that, due to Sheyda's strong relationship with the old style and lack of belief in the new style, he is not very familiar with the stylistic characteristics of the poetry of this period, especially in terms of the use of metaphors, or at least he is not interested in this style.
Some axes of critical criticism Sheyda
Sheyda has paid attention to many minor and major issues in his criticism of Qudsi verses. From the lack of meaning in the verse to dealing with legal and philosophical issues. Here we only discuss the main and most important points of Sheyda's criticism of Mashhadi's Qudsi ode: Lack of semantic connection in the structure of holy poetry, ignoring everyday language, failure to pay attention to grammar and language points, incorrect combinations in Qudsi poetry and not having a document and history in using some phrases and combinations.
Conclusion
Poetry criticism in the subcontinent has been successful with all its structural limitations, and critics have presented their criticisms regardless of poetic limitations. Another issue is that by carefully detailing the content of the reviews, it can be concluded that critics have attached more importance to formalism in poetry. If we pay attention to the axes of Sheyda's criticism and other people's answers, we can clearly see this approach to structure and form. Also, based on these reviews, we can see that people like Sheyda and Munir had no belief or interest in the new way or the basics of Indian style, but people like Arzoo and to some extent Sahbai believed and were interested in this style. Another thing is that since the vast majority of written criticisms in the subcontinent are in prose, writing poetry criticism is a kind of norm avoidance and highlighting, which is one of the characteristics of Indian poets in poetry. Another issue is that although compared to the prose criticisms written in the subcontinent, the poetry criticisms have occupied a much smaller volume (perhaps ten percent), but those criticisms cannot be ignored, and certainly in the review of the history of literary criticism in the Persian language and literature, these systematic reviews should also be evaluated.
Article Type: Original Research |
Subject:
Rumor
Received: 2023/02/10 | Accepted: 2023/10/2 | Published: 2023/10/2
Received: 2023/02/10 | Accepted: 2023/10/2 | Published: 2023/10/2
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |