نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه پیام نور
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Comparison is one way of developing meanings, and critics use this method to support their claims, much like literature. A balanced critique has emerged from this method, as rhetoricians compare the achievements of one poet with another and express preferences. One common criticism in the history of Iranian classical criticism is the comparison of Ferdowsi with Nizami. Preferring Nizami over Ferdowsi has been done for various reasons such as Nizami imitation, religious prejudice, stylistic differences, ethnic ties, affection towards Nizami, thematic similarities and political interests. Nizami himself was the first to consider his work superior to Ferdowsi, perhaps out of a sense of pride. Scholars like Roholamin Shahrashtani, Ashob Torani, Vale Daghestani, Shibli Nomani and in the contemporary era Hassan Vahid Dastgerdi, Nima Yoshij, Yevgeny Eduardovich Bertles and Seyyed Ziauddin Sadr al-Ashrafi believed in the superiority of Nizami over Ferdowsi. However, over the past centuries, many critics have recognized Ferdowsi's position as more than just poet. This assumption has been reinforced in recent times due to the alignment of Shahnameh with nationalist ideologies. Nevertheless, some critics have introduced such a comparison as unreasonable, pointless and unscientific, although this type of criticism is common in the literature of some cultures. The positions of Ferdowsi and Nizami in the history of literature are unique and choosing one does not necessarily mean rejecting the other. This article is written with a descriptive-analytical approach with the goal of examining the delicate balance between Ferdowsi and Nizami's poetry.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)