معرفی شخصیت ادبی: شناختی تحقیقی یا برساختی گفتمانی؟

Historians and literary critics make a great contribution to the audience’s awareness of literary characters. One of the ways to introduce characters is to use nicknames and titles for them. The genealogy of naming and titling shows that such introductions have a discourse function. The representatives and followers of the discourses position characters within their preferred discursive space and introduce them in ways that stabilize meaning and extend the reach of the discourse. The study’s point of departure is the one-dimensional introduction of literary characters within discourse. The main question of the research is: What strategies do the representatives and followers of the discourses employ in constraining the one-dimensional introduction of literary characters? Another question is: How can the constraints of character introduction in literature be resolved? To answer these questions, the study employs the theoretical frameworks of discourse analysis and constructivism. The findings of this research show that the discourses are only indicative of a limited and specific dimension of literary characters and to achieve this goal they select parts of their works that are in line with the goals of the same discourse. In doing so, they introduce them in a way that comes from the chosen textual body. Considering discourse order and literary character puzzle based on various sources and a free and comprehensive approach to all the works of a poet/ writer can be a basis for originality in the research understanding of literary characters.
Introduction
This research explores the methodologies and implications of introducing literary figures within Persian literary history, focusing on the prevalent practice of assigning fixed epithets and titles. During the Classical period, when oral discourse was the dominant medium, epithets served multifaceted roles in political, religious, socio-cultural, economic, and artistic contexts. Politically, they functioned as identifiers of favored individuals, enabling rulers to capture hearts and govern with perceived legitimacy, even without physical presence. Religiously, they offered a pathway to claim spiritual authority by linking, through intermediaries, to esteemed religious figures. Socio-culturally, they clarified the relationship between the populace and their leaders, providing a clear image of the intertwined religious and political institutions. For the poet/ writer, these titles offered economic support from these institutions and potential status within the power structure, while also showcasing rhetorical and literary prowess through word choice, syntax, and stylistic devices.
This historical backdrop frames the core research question: Based on a writer’s surviving works, what kind of literary character are we encountering? Is this character monolithic and singular or do we hear diverse and multiple voices within their works? The study critiques the common historical and literary practice of presenting literary figures through singular, often stereotypical, labels. Scholars like Zarqāni (2009) have identified the flattening of characters as a methodological weakness in Persian literary historiography, while Fotuhi & Afshin-Vafāyi (2009) have shown how titles for figures like Hāfez reflect distinct literary and mystical personas. Zarqāni (2019) further employs the “cultural-literary mosaic” metaphor to describe the multifaceted nature of key literary figures during transitional periods.
The research underscores the distinction between reality (physical phenomena) and truth (discursively constructed realities). These constructed truths, through repetition and acceptance, often appear natural and objective. A unidimensional approach to literary characters inadvertently traps us within specific discourses. This study argues against such simplistic portrayals, whether naive or intentionally constructed, emphasizing that discursive constructs, despite historical reinforcement, are not absolute reflections of pre-existing truths but specific representations born through language.
The theoretical framework draws upon constructivism and discourse analysis, rooted in Foucauldian thought, which posits that “truth is a discursive construct” and that different knowledge regimes determine what is considered true or false (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2022). The central hypotheses are threefold: 1) The epithets and titles assigned to literary figures in historical and biographical sources are discursive constructs. 2) These constructs, despite historical repetition and reinforcement, are not permanently fixed. 3) These constructed labels alone are insufficient to represent the multifaceted and diverse dimensions of literary characters.
Materials & Methods
This qualitative research utilizes a critical discourse analysis approach, examining the historical and literary texts that have shaped the perception of prominent Persian literary figures. The primary materials include:

Historical Literary Criticism (Tazkerahs): Texts like those by Safā, ‘Owfi, and Nozhat al-Ansāb, which are primary sources for the epithets and titles assigned to poets.
Literary Works: The primary corpus of the poets themselves (e.g., Hāfez, Sa’di, Ferdowsi) to analyze the textual evidence of their multifaceted literary personas.
Secondary Scholarly Analyses: Works by modern scholars (e.g., Zarqāni, Fotuhi & Afshin-Vafāyi, ZarrinKub) that discuss the portrayal and interpretation of literary characters.
Theoretical Frameworks: Concepts from Foucauldian discourse analysis and constructivism to interpret how knowledge and identity are shaped within specific discursive practices.

The method involves a comparative analysis of the titles/ epithets assigned by historians and critics versus the evidence of diverse voices, themes and personas found within the poets’ own works. It also examines how specific scholars and ideologues (like Shāmlu and Motahhari regarding Hāfez) have selectively interpreted these figures to fit their own discursive agendas. The study investigates the strategies used by discourse proponents to appropriate literary figures, including selection and omission of specific works, rhetorical strategies in interpretation and the creation of transformative myths about the poets lives.
 
Research Findings
The findings reveal a significant discrepancy between the monolithic portrayals of literary figures in traditional and some modern literary histories and the complex, multi-dimensional characters evident in their works. The study identifies several key points:
1.    Prevalence of Unidimensional Portrayals: Literary historians frequently introduce poets with singular, defining epithets (e.g., “Sa’di of Hendustān”, “Shahid Balkhi”, “Master of Epic Ferdowsi”). These labels, while potentially highlighting a dominant aspect, significantly limit the readers’ understanding of the authors’ full literary persona.
2.    Discursive Construction: These epithets are shown to be discursive constructs rather than objective truths. They often originate from historical sources, tazkerahs, or the agendas of specific scholars or ideological groups, aiming to categorize and sometimes appropriate literary figures for particular narratives.
3.    Evidence of Multidimensionality: An analysis of the poets’ works reveals multiple voices and personas. For instance, Hāfez is shown not only as the “Mystic Saint” but also as a court poet engaged in panegyric, a lover expressing earthly passion, a critic of authority and a follower of Khayyam’s philosophy (Khayyāmiyyat). Similarly, Attar is not solely the “Sufi Master” but also the author of the philosophically nuanced Mokhtārnāmeh.
4.    Strategies of Discourse Appropriation: The study identifies methods used by proponents of specific discourses to maintain their narratives:
-        Selection and Omission: Choosing specific works or verses that support a particular interpretation while ignoring contradictory evidence.
-          Rhetorical Strategies: Using persuasive language and argumentation Transformative Myths: Fabricating or emphasizing biographical narratives that align with the desired discursive framework (e.g., the myth of Hāfez’s attention by Shāh Ne’matollah Wali).
5.      Limitations of Traditional Approaches: The research demonstrates that relying solely on epithets and titles derived from secondary sources leads to prejudicial and non-research based judgments, hindering a comprehensive understanding of literary characters.
Discussion of Results & Conclusions
-          The discussion emphasizes that the unidimensional introduction of literary characters is a persistent issue rooted in the historical practice of epithet assignment to reinforce a specific viewpoint and marginalize opposing interpretations (exemplified in Motahhari’s discussions of Hāfez).
-          Creation of
and perpetuated by traditional literary historiography and some contemporary scholarship. This practice, influenced by the need for respect, patronage, or adherence to dominant discourses, results in a flattened representation that fails to capture the true complexity of these figures.
The findings strongly support the hypotheses that these epithets are discursive constructs, not fixed truths, and that they inadequately represent the full spectrum of a literary character’s identity. The evidence from the poets’ own works clearly indicates the presence of multiple, sometimes conflicting, voices and themes, suggesting a “multi-faceted” or “mosaic” nature to their literary personas aligning with Zarqāni’s metaphor.
The study argues for a paradigm shift towards a “puzzle piece” model for understanding literary characters. This model acknowledges that a literary figure’s identity is composed of various interconnected pieces—influenced by lived experience (context), textual knowledge (intertextuality), and individual creativity (individuality)—which must be assembled to form a coherent and comprehensive picture. This approach recognizes the “multi-part subject” phenomenon, where a single authorial “I” can embody multiple identities (e.g., mystic, satirist, court poet, and social critic) depending on the context or discourse.
The conclusion posits that accepting the “discursive order”—acknowledging the existence of multiple, sometimes competing, discourses and interpretations—is a constructive way forward. It prevents the monopolization of a literary figure by a single discourse and fosters a more democratic and holistic approach to literary history. Introducing literary characters based solely on one dominant aspect fails to do justice to the author or provide the reader with a complete understanding.
Therefore, the recommended approach for researchers is a critical and simultaneous consultation of multiple sources: primarily the author’s own works supported by historical reports, tazkerahs and contemporary accounts. By grounding analysis in the primary texts and using other sources for validation, researchers can reveal the multiple voices and diverse dimensions within a literary character. This multifaceted introduction offers a comprehensive, multi-layered, and varied perspective, convincing the audience that the literary figure is not confined to a specific discourse, thereby preventing dogmatic and partisan views.
 
References
Fotuhi, M., & Afshin-Vafaei, M. (2009). “Mokhātabshenāsi-ye Hāfez dar sadehā-ye hashtom va nohom-e hejri bar asās-e roykard-e tārikh-e adabi-ye hermenotic”. Faslnāme-ye Naqd-e Adabi. 2(6), pp. 71–126. [in Persian]
Jorgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2022). Nazariyeh va ravesh dar tahlil-e goftemān. H. Jalili (Trans.). 11^th ed. Nashr-e Ney. (Original work published 2002). [in Persian]
Zarqani, S. M. (2009). Tārikh-e adabi-ye Irān va qalamrow-e zabān-e Fārsi: Tatavvor va degardisi-ye zhānrhā tā miyāne-ye sadeh-ye panjom. Sokhan. [in Persian]
Zarqani, S. M. (2019). Tārikh-e adabiyāt-e Irān (2) bā ruykard-e zhānri. Fātemi. [in Persian]