The Epistemological Background of the Impossibility of Literary Sociology and Historiography in the Middle Ages: An Archaeological Analysis of Tazkireh Writing

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Candidate in Sociology, University of Yasuj

2 Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Shiraz

3 Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Yasuj

Abstract

Until the advent of literary historiography during the previous century, the tradition of biography writing was devoted to the subject of poets’ life and works. This article, adopting an archaeological approach, seeks to describe the rules of knowledge of biography writing in the Middle Ages in Persian literature. The present study shows that biography writing, according to discursive traits of Middle Ages, does not pay attention to the presentation of the details of the life of the poets, and uses the principle of similarity to classify them. This tradition, with a god-like definition of the poet, considers poetry independent of socio-historical conditions and results from the consciousness and intention of the poet. The belief in the consciousness and willfulness of the poem contains a religious basis and an attempt to emphasize its distinction with divine revelation. In both the latter cases, the literary text is depicted as something that contains an unknowing aspect that enters the text through the socio-historical conditions. The belief to consciousness in poetry can be regarded as an epistemological obstacle to the emergence of literary historiography and sociology of literature which could be removed merely through the departure from the tradition of tazkireh writing and the emergence of a new discourse.
 
Extended Abstract
 
1. Introduction
For both literary historiography and sociology of literature, literary texts are influenced by historical and social conditions, and from this point of view, they have common rules. Before its emergence, tazkireh (admonitory biography) was mainly about the life and works of poets. Tazkireh means “reminding” and refers to works that deal with the lives of poets and their poems. This tradition began in the 5th century A.H. and lasted until the Constitutional Revolution. With the advent of the modern era, writing tazkireh was replaced by new disciplines of knowledge. The present article focuses on this tradition and tries to answer the following questions: What are the rules of tazkireh writing? Why did literary historiography and sociology of literature not appear in the Middle Ages? Was there an epistemological obstacle in this regard?
 
2. Theoretical Framework
Adopting an archaeological approach, this article seeks to describe the rules of tazkireh writing in the Middle Ages in Persian literature. Archaeology, developed in the second half of the twentieth century through the work of Foucault, is a method for studying systems of knowledge. It is a theory-method that tries to remove the subject from its central position and write the history of thought based on discontinuities and displacements, without the assumption of evolution or continuity.
 
3. Methodology
Unlike structural and hermeneutic methods, archeology does not look for a deep structure or hidden meanings for the subject in question, but is rather a method that focuses on the surface. The approach in this study is descriptive and does not seek to investigate the reasons for the emergence of a discourse or the factors changing it. In the archeology of knowledge, the network of serious ideas, i.e. the words of experts, is examined. But the analysis does not start with a topic that has already existed, and the subject of a discourse appears only through the same discourse.
 
4. Findings
The present study shows that in tazkireh writing, due to discursive characteristics of the Middle Ages, the details of the lives of poets are not provided and the principle of similarity is utilized to classify the poets. It considers poetry to be independent from the socio-historical conditions and the consciousness and intention of the poet, which is clearly in contrast to historiography and sociology of literature.
 
5. Conclusion
A study of the rules of tazkireh writing indicates that poets and poetry, as the subject matter of tazkireh, were not objective phenomena, but were rather produced within tazkireh and according to its rules. These concepts made it impossible for literary historiography and sociology of literature to be developed in the Middle Ages because these disciplines focused on a different concept, which had a fundamental relationship with the socio-historical factors and were based on the unconsciousness of the author. Thus, the transition from tazkireh writing to literary historiography was a departure from previous rules and development of new rules based on which the literary text was closely linked to the socio-historical conditions of the poet's life. This transition could not have been the result of some kind of evolution or continuity since the literary historiographical definition of poets and of poetry, its relation to the socio-historical conditions, and the unconscious aspect of the literary text had no background in the tradition of biography writing so that literary historiography could be developed through their evolution.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Arezou, S. 1383 [2004]. Tazkireh-ye Majma’-ul-Nafayes. Z. Ali Khan (ed.). Islamabad: Persian Research Center of Iran and Pakistan.
Azar Begdeli, L. 1337 [1958]. Atashkadeh-ye Azar. J. Shahidi (ed.). Tehran: Mo’sseseh-ye Nashr-e Ketab.
Davar, S. 1371 [1992]. Tazkireh-ye Mera’t ul-Safa. M. Tavoussi (ed.). Shiraz: Navid.
Dolatshahi Samarqandi. 1318 [1939]. Tazkireh al-Shoa’ra. E. G. Browne (ed.). Leiden: Birll.
Dreyfus, H. & Rabinow, P. 1379 [2000]. Michel Foucault: Farasu-ye Sakhtgarayi va Hermeneutic. H. Bashiriyeh (trans.). Tehran: Ney.
Farahmand, M. 1389 [2010]. “She’r va Mansha’-e an dar Adabyat-e Jahan.” Motale’at-e Adabyat-e Tatbighi. 14 (4): 101-119.
Farivar, H. 1341 [1962]. Tarikh-e Adabyat va Tarikh-e Sho’ara. Tehran: Ettela’at.
Fotouhi, M. (2008) Nazaryeh-ye Tarikh-e Adabyat. Tehran: Sokhan.
Foucault, M. 1389 [2010]. Teatr-e Falsafeh. N. Sarkhosh & A Jahandideh (trans.). Tehran: Ney.
_____. 1392 [2013]. Dirineh Shenasi-e Danesh. N. Sarkhosh & Jahandideh (trans.). Tehran: Ney.
Garrousi, F. 1376 [1997]. Anjoman-eKhaqan. T. Sobhan (trans.). Tehran: Rowzan.
Goupamoy, M. 1387 [2008]. Tazkireh-ye Natayej ul-Afkar. Y. Beyg Babapour (ed.). Qom: Majma’ Zakhayer Eslami.
Heravi, S. 1968. Tazkireh Rowzat al-Salatin & Javaher al-Ajayeb. H. Rashedi (ed.). Karachi: Vafayi.
Hashemi Sendlivi, Sh. 1968. Makhzan al-Gharayeb. M. Bagher (ed.). Lahore:  University College.
Hazin, M. 1333 [1954]. Tazkireh-ye Hazin. Isfehan: Taeed.
Hedayat, R. 1381 [2002]. Majma’ al-Fosaha. M. Mosaffa (ed.). Tehran: Amirkabir.
Hegel, G. 1356 [1977]. Aql dar Tarikh. H. Enayat (trans.). Tehran: Sharif University Press.
Kendall, G. & Wickham, G. 1999. Using Foucault’s Methods. London: Sage.
Khanbahador, N. 1385 [2006]. Tazkireh-ye Sham-e Anjoman. M. K. Kahdoui. Yazd: Entesharat-e Daneshgah-e Yazd.
Lahiji, M. 1375 [1996]. Tazkireh al-Moa’serin. M. Salek (ed.). Tehran: Sayeh.
Loudi, Sh. 1377 [1998]. Tazkireh-ye Merat al-Khiyal. Hamid Hosseini (ed.). Tehran: Rowzaneh.
Lukács, G. 1377 [1998]. Tarikh va Agahi-e Tabaqati. M. J. Pouyandeh (trans.). Tehran: Tajrobeh.
_____. 1388 [2009]. Motale’ati Darbareh-ye Faust. O. Mehregan (trans.). Tehran: Sales.
Marx, K & Engels, F. 1377 [1998]. Ideolozhi-e Almani. T. Niki (trans.). Tehran: Payam-e Pirouz.
Mirbagheri, et al. 1383 [2004]. Tarikh-e Aabyat-e Iran. Tehran: Samt.
Mosahebi Naeini, M. 1376 [1997]. Tazkireh-ye Madinat al-Adab. Tehran: Markaz-e Asnad-e Majles-e Eslami.
Naqavi, A. 1343 [1964]. Tazkireh Nevisi-e Farsi dar Pakestan va Hend. Tehran: Entesharat-e Elmi.
Nasrabadi, M. 1317 [1938]. Tazkireh-ye Nasrabadi. V. Dastgerdi (ed.). Tehran: Armaghan.
Oufi, M. 1906. Lubab al-Albab. E. G. Browne (ed.). Leiden: Birll.
Plato 1372 (1993). “Resaleh-ye Ion.” R. Seyyd Hosseini (trans.). Kelk. 40: 9-24.
Qane Tatavi, M. 1957. Tazkireh Maghalat ul-Shoa’ra. H. Rashedi (ed.). Karachi: Sendhi Adabi Board.
Qazvini, M. 1340 [1961]. Tazkireh-ye Meykhaneh. A. Golchin Ma’ani (ed.). Tehran: Sepehr.
Razi, Sh. 1335 (1956]. Al-Mojma’. M. Qazvini (ed.). Tehran: Majles.
Safa, Z. 1369 [1990]. Tarikh-e Adabyat-e Iran. Tehran: Ferdows.
Safavi, S. 1314 [1935]. Tohfeh-ye Sami. Vahid Dastgerdi (ed.). Tehran: Armaghan.
Shirazi, M. n.d. Tazkireh-ye Delgosha. Manuscript: No. 3819-f. Tehran: Daneshgah-e Tehran.
Shoa’ ul-Molk. 1380 (2001). Tazkireh-ye Shoa’iyeh. M. Tavousi (ed.). Shiraz: Bonyad-e Motale’at.
Shoushtari, D. n.d. Chaman-e Sarv. Manuscript: No. 4672 & 2482-f. Tehran: Daneshgah-e Tehran.
Sobhani, T. 1387 [2008]. Tarikh-e Adabyat-e Farsi. Tehran: Zovvar.
Soltani, M. 1380 [2001]. “Barresi Tazkireh Nevisi va Tarikh-e Adabyat-e Farsi.” Majaleh-ye Daneshkadeh-ye Adabyat va Olum-e Ensani-ye Daneshgah-e Tehran 157: 403-420.
Zarghani. S. 1390 [2011]. Tarikh-e Adabyat-e Iran va Zaban-e Farsi. Tehran: Sokhan.
Zarqandi, S. 1390 [2011]- Boutiqa-ye Kelasik. Tehran: Sokhan.
Literary Theory and Criticism
Volume 3, Issue 2 - Serial Number 6
Serial 6
June 2019
Pages 53-74

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics