Search published articles
Farzad Baloo, ,
Volume 14, Issue 56 (12-2021)
Volume 14, Issue 56 (12-2021)
Abstract
The concept of "silence" in Rumi's works and poems has been one of the concepts that has attracted the attention of scholars. Books and articles which have tried to explain the concept of silence from different mystical, theological, linguistic, etc. points of view have been analysed. In this research, with a critical-analytical perspective, while classifying and describing the various approaches that researchers have focused on the subject of silence in the works of Rumi. We will discuss the missing link in these studies, that is, the lack of hermeneutic reading of silence in the works and poems of Rumi. The hermeneutic silence by which the word of truth is reflected in the language of the mystic, has been scrutinized.
Introduction
In the field of literary, mystical, philosophical studies, etc., Rumi's research has a large and fruitful and extensive record. It is very clear that the works of Rumi, both poetic and prose, are in the field of mystical literature. The capacities and capabilities of Rumi's works have made it possible to open the door to many reflections and research from different perspectives. One of the concepts and topics that have occupied the minds of researchers in recent years is the category of silence in the works and thought of Rumi. Research on the subject of silence have explained and analysed this concept in Rumi's sphere of thought with various approaches. Accurate classification of books and articles written on this subject is difficult due to the entanglement of concepts and approaches. In order to. We have tried to classify these studies thematically, including: the study of Rumi's silence in the moral-mystical field, study of Rumi's silence from a philosophical perspective, study of Rumi's silence from a psychological perspective, Study of Rumi's Silence from a linguistic perspective, investigation of Rumi's silence based on prosodic weights, comparative study of Rumi's silence. We will briefly outline and describe each of these studies, and then, we will point out the missing link.
Discussion
What is presented in the general conclusion, is that there are different approaches to silence. The focal point in the studies is that they refer to silence as the unspoken. In other words, it is the silence from which the words of truth emerge and the mystic becomes the language of truth and in this mystical experience, existence is seen as a language fifes and serenades. Rumi in his works, has referred to this type of silence and most scholars, despite its description and expansion, have not gone beyond the limits of Rumi's references and in this case, have not been the designer of a new perception of silence in Rumi's mind and language. Therefore, it could be said that the fundamental aspect of Rumi's silence and eloquence has been neglected in these studies. This original and fundamental feature is the hermeneutic reading and interpretation of silence in Rumi's works. That is the most important feature of silence. It should be noted that hermeneutics is a term coined by the authors of the present study under the influence of the philosophical ideas of the German philosopher Martin Heidegger. To further explain this term, it can be said that the meaning of the word hermeneutics in this interpretation has served the word silence and its content. Because silence itself, due to its fundamental nature, has an opening and revealing aspect and creates an opportunity for openings and manifestations. A trait that can also be attributed to the term hermeneutics according to its function.
Conclusion
In many studies, including articles and books on the concept of silence in Rumi's works and poems, not even the slightest hint of the hermeneutic nature of Rumi's silence has been mentioned, and in most cases Rumi's words about silence have been repeated. While showing the hermeneutic analytical absence of the concept of silence in Rumi's works and poems, we explained the hermeneutic dimension and revelation of silence, including annihilation and its relation to the hermeneutics of silence, the hermeneutic relation of silence to language and the hermeneutics of silence and receiving original speech. And in this way, we highlighted the missing link in the named research.
Esmaeel Golrokh Masuleh, Ebrahim Khodayar, Seyyed Ali Ghasemzadeh,
Volume 14, Issue 56 (12-2021)
Volume 14, Issue 56 (12-2021)
Abstract
In this article, the critical works of Poornamdarian are analyzed and read with a philosophical hermeneutic approach. The question is whether hermeneutic philosophy has been the basis for the interpretation of literary works in this author's critical works. And if so, what hermeneutic concepts and themes form the basis of his work? Hermeneutic philosophy has penetrated in literary criticism with many of its themes and concepts. It seems that Poornamdarian has also used many of these concepts in his works, and many of the manifestations and ideas derived from this philosophy have been the basis of his works in the critique and analysis of literary works. But in utilizing these concepts, however, he has not merely placed himself in the realm of an imitative critic who has been influenced by one of the thought approaches related to philosophical hermeneutics, but, in addition to, his knowledge of the universal knowledge of critique in the field of hermeneutics, relying on the legacy of interpretation, introduces the audience to a new perspective on methodical literary criticism. The titles and layers of this article that are influenced by these concepts are: interpretation, semantic pluralism, symbol and allegory, demythologization in symbolic texts, deconstruction, grammatology, author death theory, intertextuality, ambiguity and meaninglessness (ambiguity), apostrophe and multifaceted, deconstructive and multifaceted connection with didactic and theological poetry, multifaceted and social commitment in poetry and literature. In his critical works, he has sometimes directly analyzed and studied these issues, and sometimes, as a special approach, he has absorbed and digested these concepts in his works that it could be said that .zhe has appropriated them as a discourse.
Extended abstract
Problem statement: The theoretical foundations of this research are based on "philosophical hermeneutics". Hermeneutics has a history of analyzing and interpreting the holy books of religions, including Christianity, Islam, and even surviving writings in the Persian language. Hence, interpretation, as an ancient ritual, is rooted in the belief in the "sanctity of the text." Influenced by the philosophical theories of Heidegger and Gadamer and their followers, Poornamdarian have created works in the field of literary criticism and interpretation of classical and contemporary Persian texts. One question is whether the opinions and ideas of literary criticism of critics such as the Poornamdarian, which are evident or hidden in his works, can be explained on the basis of philosophical hermeneutics. Another question is that in what fields and subjects does hermeneutics have the capacity to analyze and recognize in his system of thought - by digesting and absorbing their opinions in his works and not by following and mechanically imitating them? And can it be said that in this way he has tried to include some hermeneutical approaches in his critiques "through self-appropriation"?
Research findings
Poornamdarian considers interpretation (hermeneutics) as the search for truth to reveal the coherence of the text. The goal he pursues in interpreting the works of the Persian poems is to harmonize and create an agreement between traditional interpretation and modern hermeneutics. In this alignment, he combines three approaches of traditional and hermeneutic interpretation of Gadamerian and Eric Hersh's thinking, that is, the semantic validity of the text, and thus demonstrates his belief in the coherence of the text; However, he does not believe in a single meaning for the text; Because it does not find consistency and single inference with the situational context of multiple individuals and readers. Through the combination of these three fields of thought, he has "adopted" the hermeneutic critique approach and adopted a pluralistic approach. This discourse requires a kind of moderation in interpretation. It has an influence on the deconstruction of the text as well as on the issue of the author's death. He also equates the former with polysemy and the latter with uniqueness in terms of meaninglessness and meaning. He considers texts such as theological and didactic texts to be single-meaning or meaningful, and cryptographic texts to be meaningless and to imply a plurality of meanings. The issues of hermeneutics in his critical works have, in some cases, been directly analyzed and studied, and are sometimes so absorbed in his works that it shows that he regarded them as discourse. Another issue is that he has undergone a kind of transformation from cryptography to deconstruction in the production of his critical works; But the truth is that this metamorphosis does not have a fixed and absolute process, but rather lies in deconstructions and cryptocurrencies in his works.
Conclusion
The critic in this article, Poornamdarian, to achieve a moderate and coherent interpretation, without believing in a single meaning for the text, chooses an approach of harmonization and agreement between the three areas of traditional interpretation and Gadamerian hermeneutics and Eric Hersh's thinking the semantic validity of the text. And in a relative, rather than absolute, metamorphosis that governs the process of producing his critical works, he uses this moderation in most of his works.
Extended abstract
Problem statement: The theoretical foundations of this research are based on "philosophical hermeneutics". Hermeneutics has a history of analyzing and interpreting the holy books of religions, including Christianity, Islam, and even surviving writings in the Persian language. Hence, interpretation, as an ancient ritual, is rooted in the belief in the "sanctity of the text." Influenced by the philosophical theories of Heidegger and Gadamer and their followers, Poornamdarian have created works in the field of literary criticism and interpretation of classical and contemporary Persian texts. One question is whether the opinions and ideas of literary criticism of critics such as the Poornamdarian, which are evident or hidden in his works, can be explained on the basis of philosophical hermeneutics. Another question is that in what fields and subjects does hermeneutics have the capacity to analyze and recognize in his system of thought - by digesting and absorbing their opinions in his works and not by following and mechanically imitating them? And can it be said that in this way he has tried to include some hermeneutical approaches in his critiques "through self-appropriation"?
Research findings
Poornamdarian considers interpretation (hermeneutics) as the search for truth to reveal the coherence of the text. The goal he pursues in interpreting the works of the Persian poems is to harmonize and create an agreement between traditional interpretation and modern hermeneutics. In this alignment, he combines three approaches of traditional and hermeneutic interpretation of Gadamerian and Eric Hersh's thinking, that is, the semantic validity of the text, and thus demonstrates his belief in the coherence of the text; However, he does not believe in a single meaning for the text; Because it does not find consistency and single inference with the situational context of multiple individuals and readers. Through the combination of these three fields of thought, he has "adopted" the hermeneutic critique approach and adopted a pluralistic approach. This discourse requires a kind of moderation in interpretation. It has an influence on the deconstruction of the text as well as on the issue of the author's death. He also equates the former with polysemy and the latter with uniqueness in terms of meaninglessness and meaning. He considers texts such as theological and didactic texts to be single-meaning or meaningful, and cryptographic texts to be meaningless and to imply a plurality of meanings. The issues of hermeneutics in his critical works have, in some cases, been directly analyzed and studied, and are sometimes so absorbed in his works that it shows that he regarded them as discourse. Another issue is that he has undergone a kind of transformation from cryptography to deconstruction in the production of his critical works; But the truth is that this metamorphosis does not have a fixed and absolute process, but rather lies in deconstructions and cryptocurrencies in his works.
Conclusion
The critic in this article, Poornamdarian, to achieve a moderate and coherent interpretation, without believing in a single meaning for the text, chooses an approach of harmonization and agreement between the three areas of traditional interpretation and Gadamerian hermeneutics and Eric Hersh's thinking the semantic validity of the text. And in a relative, rather than absolute, metamorphosis that governs the process of producing his critical works, he uses this moderation in most of his works.
Mostafa Hosseini,
Volume 17, Issue 66 (8-2024)
Volume 17, Issue 66 (8-2024)
Abstract
Over two hundred and fifty years ago, Sir William Jones first translated a ghazal by Hafiz into English, both in prose and verse. Since then, various translators have employed prose, verse, and creative translations to render Hafiz’s poems, either in full or in part. Among these, verse translation—whether in prosodic or non-prosodic poetry—has been the most prevalent. However, only a few translations have successfully conveyed the formal and thematic subtleties of Hafiz’s ghazals. One notable example is Gertrude Bell’s 1897 work, Poems from the Divan of Hafiz. This translation, which includes forty-two ghazals and an additional piece, is widely regarded by both Iranian and non-Iranian specialists as one of the most successful and acclaimed translations of Hafiz’s poetry. Bell’s translation is considered a somewhat free rendition of Hafiz’s ghazals and is complemented by an Introduction and Notes. Esteemed orientalists, including Edward Brown, have praised the Introduction as one of the most informative English writings on Hafiz and his era. However, this Introduction contains several historical inaccuracies. This paper aims to identify and correct these historical errors using authentic historical sources related to Hafiz’s time. Furthermore, it seeks to demonstrate, with evidence, the origins and pathways of these inaccuracies in Bell’s Introduction.
Extended abstract
Over two hundred and fifty years ago, Sir William Jones first translated a ghazal by Hafiz into English, both in prose and verse. Since then, various translators have employed prose, verse, and creative translations to render Hafiz’s poems, either in full or in part. Over the past 250 years, English translations of Hafiz’s poetry can be categorized into three types: a) prose translations, b) verse translations, and c) creative translations or adaptations. Notably, most translations have been in verse. Translators across different eras have attempted to render Hafiz’s poetry into free verse and English prose poetry. Additionally, some have endeavored to replicate the meter and rhyme of Hafiz’s ghazals. Upon meticulous analysis, only a few translations stand the test of time. Many existing translations of Hafiz in English are subpar, with some being particularly disappointing. The most respected translations include Gertrude Bell’s (1897), Elizabeth Gray’s prose translation (1995), Richard Le Gallienne’s translation (1905), and Dick Davis’ translation (2013). Among these, verse translation—whether in prosodic or non-prosodic poetry—has been the most prevalent. However, only a few translations have successfully conveyed the formal and thematic subtleties of Hafiz’s ghazals.
One such translation is Gertrude Bell’s Poems from the Divan of Hafiz (1897). This translation, which includes forty-two ghazals and one additional piece, is widely regarded by both Iranian and non-Iranian specialists as one of the most successful and acclaimed translations of Hafiz’s poetry. . Poems from Diwan Hafez consist of three parts: introduction, sonnets, and notes. This brilliant and readable introduction shows that his translation was not only the result of traveling to Iran and mastering the Persian language, but also the result of hours of study and research in London libraries and examination of oriental sources and the works of orientalists. In her “Introduction”, Gertrude Bell has tried to compile Hafez's life and times in the form of a captivating and attractive story and tie it to his poetry. Putting together the various facts related to Hafez's praises in such a way in the form of a narrative story is nothing short of a literary masterpiece. In addition, the information that she painstakingly collected and compiled from general histories about The Muzaffarid dynasty, which was mainly in manuscript form at that time, is a proof of his diligence and importance of his work. It goes without saying that her detailed “Introduction” was the most comprehensive source on Hafez in English at the time. According to E. G. Brown we English readers owe Gertrude Bell the best critical, admirable and thoughtful study of Hafez. The third part of Bell's book, i.e. the translator's notes, complements the detailed “Introduction” of the book and helps to better and fully understand the poems, and should not be ignored in any way. These “notes”, according to Ross, are another clear evidence of Gertrude Bell's extensive studies and opinions.
All in all, Gertrude Bell's valuable effort should be counted among the best efforts in translating Hafez's poetry into English, in 125 years ago, because in addition to the laudatory introduction about Hafez's circumstances, times, and personality, it also includes the translation of 43 Ghazal poems. This translation, although relatively free, is, I believe, the most artistic, and as far as the substance of Hafez's poetry is concerned, the most faithful rendering of his poetry into English.
Undoubtedly, the importance of this work is in presenting a relatively comprehensive picture of Hafez's poetry and era in England at that time. It is true that great orientalists such as E. G. Brown, A. J. Arberry, and Ross have praised the work, but this does not mean that we should accept it without critical reading. However, twenty historical (and non-historical) mistakes found their way into Bell's “Introduction”, which the present author identified first and then tried to correct them based on authentic historical sources of Hafez's era and with presenting documents to show from what source or sources these historical (and sometimes non-historical) mistakes made their way to his “Introduction”. Since most of the chronicles of The Muzaffarids were mainly in handwritten form at that time, this seems natural to an orientalist at that time. However, I must add that in addition to the occasional inaccuracy, most of the historical (and sometimes non-historical) mistakes are made through Soudi's description of Hafez and some of them through the entry “Hafez” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Lives of Persian Poets by Sir Gore Ouseley is included in her “Introduction”.
Extended abstract
Over two hundred and fifty years ago, Sir William Jones first translated a ghazal by Hafiz into English, both in prose and verse. Since then, various translators have employed prose, verse, and creative translations to render Hafiz’s poems, either in full or in part. Over the past 250 years, English translations of Hafiz’s poetry can be categorized into three types: a) prose translations, b) verse translations, and c) creative translations or adaptations. Notably, most translations have been in verse. Translators across different eras have attempted to render Hafiz’s poetry into free verse and English prose poetry. Additionally, some have endeavored to replicate the meter and rhyme of Hafiz’s ghazals. Upon meticulous analysis, only a few translations stand the test of time. Many existing translations of Hafiz in English are subpar, with some being particularly disappointing. The most respected translations include Gertrude Bell’s (1897), Elizabeth Gray’s prose translation (1995), Richard Le Gallienne’s translation (1905), and Dick Davis’ translation (2013). Among these, verse translation—whether in prosodic or non-prosodic poetry—has been the most prevalent. However, only a few translations have successfully conveyed the formal and thematic subtleties of Hafiz’s ghazals.
One such translation is Gertrude Bell’s Poems from the Divan of Hafiz (1897). This translation, which includes forty-two ghazals and one additional piece, is widely regarded by both Iranian and non-Iranian specialists as one of the most successful and acclaimed translations of Hafiz’s poetry. . Poems from Diwan Hafez consist of three parts: introduction, sonnets, and notes. This brilliant and readable introduction shows that his translation was not only the result of traveling to Iran and mastering the Persian language, but also the result of hours of study and research in London libraries and examination of oriental sources and the works of orientalists. In her “Introduction”, Gertrude Bell has tried to compile Hafez's life and times in the form of a captivating and attractive story and tie it to his poetry. Putting together the various facts related to Hafez's praises in such a way in the form of a narrative story is nothing short of a literary masterpiece. In addition, the information that she painstakingly collected and compiled from general histories about The Muzaffarid dynasty, which was mainly in manuscript form at that time, is a proof of his diligence and importance of his work. It goes without saying that her detailed “Introduction” was the most comprehensive source on Hafez in English at the time. According to E. G. Brown we English readers owe Gertrude Bell the best critical, admirable and thoughtful study of Hafez. The third part of Bell's book, i.e. the translator's notes, complements the detailed “Introduction” of the book and helps to better and fully understand the poems, and should not be ignored in any way. These “notes”, according to Ross, are another clear evidence of Gertrude Bell's extensive studies and opinions.
All in all, Gertrude Bell's valuable effort should be counted among the best efforts in translating Hafez's poetry into English, in 125 years ago, because in addition to the laudatory introduction about Hafez's circumstances, times, and personality, it also includes the translation of 43 Ghazal poems. This translation, although relatively free, is, I believe, the most artistic, and as far as the substance of Hafez's poetry is concerned, the most faithful rendering of his poetry into English.
Undoubtedly, the importance of this work is in presenting a relatively comprehensive picture of Hafez's poetry and era in England at that time. It is true that great orientalists such as E. G. Brown, A. J. Arberry, and Ross have praised the work, but this does not mean that we should accept it without critical reading. However, twenty historical (and non-historical) mistakes found their way into Bell's “Introduction”, which the present author identified first and then tried to correct them based on authentic historical sources of Hafez's era and with presenting documents to show from what source or sources these historical (and sometimes non-historical) mistakes made their way to his “Introduction”. Since most of the chronicles of The Muzaffarids were mainly in handwritten form at that time, this seems natural to an orientalist at that time. However, I must add that in addition to the occasional inaccuracy, most of the historical (and sometimes non-historical) mistakes are made through Soudi's description of Hafez and some of them through the entry “Hafez” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica and the Lives of Persian Poets by Sir Gore Ouseley is included in her “Introduction”.
| Page 1 from 1 |