SOURCE: "Rhetorical Criticism in Al-Jahiz's Al-Bayan Wa Al-Tabyin and Al-Hayawan," in Islamic Culture: An English Quarterly, Vol. XLI, No. 1, January, 1987, pp. 59-78.

[In the following essay, Abu 'l-'Addus explores the new rules of rhetoric which al-Jahiz presented in al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin and al-Hayawan.]

Arab writers regarded al-Jahiz as the establisher of the Arabic rhetoric. This was not because al-Jahiz formulated specific rules for rhetoric, but because in his books al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin and al-Hayawan he collected many texts and ideas about rhetorical criticism (naqd albalaghah), as we shall see below. These critical notices testify to the way in which the Arabs thought of eloquence in the third century A.H. In these two books, he discussed the dimensions of rhetoric (al-bayan), meaning and word, the idea that "every occasion has its appropriate speech," the eloquence of the Arabs (in riposte to the arguments of the Shu'ubiyah, who denied that the Arabs had any distinctive ability of speech or rhetoric), demand and statement sentences, the development of language, and poetry and its role. In this article an attempt will be made to analyze these points in al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin and al-Hayawan, and to examine whether al-Jahiz was influenced by Greek writers in these points, especially by Aristotle.

Many writers before al-Jahiz had attempted to define the meaning of rhetoric and its dimensions. The rhetorician, according to al-'Attabi (d. c. 208/823), is someone who expounds his ideas without repetition or impediment of speech. He reveals ambiguous and hidden truths and puts forward falsities as if they were correct, while expressions such as "You know," "Listen to me," "Understand me," and "Do you understand?" are little used. He also considered hesitation in speech as a defect resulting from difficulty of elocution. 'Amr b. 'Ubayd (d. c. 144/761) took the study a step further when he defined rhetoric as that which leads to the right path, showing all pitfalls. Rhetoric should be recognized in an argument by the listener, and he who cannot listen carefully to others is himself unable to speak well.¹ He supported his statement with a prophetic quotation, adding, "We, the prophets, speak in moderation."² Both these writers avoided the use of obscure and archaic words, as these, according to 'Amr, cause the listener to be led astray from the meaning of the rhetoric. Words must be carefully chosen to expound ideas and win the heart of the listener. The writer must also avoid mannerism in his speech and must use simple, expressive words and terms.³ According to al-Jahiz, rhetoric serves not only to make the hearer understand your speech, but the latter must also be free from grammatical errors; furthermore, the rhetorician must know his language well in order to avoid any defect in his speech.⁴

There is a similarity between these ideas and those of Aristotle he expressed on the correct and effective use of the Greek language. According to him, the first condition of style is purity, and this depends on five things: (1) the connection of clauses; (2) the use of terms that are special rather than general; (3) the avoidance of ambiguous language; (4) the recognition of genders in nouns, as distinguished by Protagoras into masculine, feminine, and neuter; and (5) the observance of grammatical number. In every case a composition should be easy to read, or, by analogy, easy to deliver.⁵

On examining the writings of al-Jahiz, we do find a simi larity between his view and that of Aristotle. But does the similarity imply that the Arab writer was directly influenced by his Greek predecessor? Is the opinion of al-Jahiz about purity of style and avoidance of grammatical errors definitely borrowed from Greek origins merely because Aristotle discussed these matters before him? (Post hoc ergo propter hoc?) The case is not proven, because the Arabs before al-Jahiz also took pains to avoid any grammatical or other kind of errors in their speech⁶ and did not regard any speech containing errors as elo quent. Thus, when al-Jahiz spoke about this problem he was expressing a well-known opinion of the Arabs. Nevertheless, we may assume that he was acquainted with the books of Aristotle which discussed this problem, so that Aristotle's discussion may have urged al-Jahiz to speak about this matter, without actually providing material for his own discussion.⁷

Al-Jahiz used sublime rhetoric in order to achieve his aims: He defined the good scholastic theologian as "one who tries to reform the higher classes of people and the great masses through admonition and excellent speech, to show them the right way, without leading them astray. If he can do this, he will become the idol of the masses."⁸ The Mu'tazilite theologian and literary critic Bishr b. al-Mu'tamir (d. between 210/825 and 226/840) said, "Meaning becomes noble not because it is from the meaning of common or special people. Nobility of meaning depends on correctness and Tightness, achieving the benefit and fitting in with the situation, as well as ascertaining that the speech is in its place."⁹ When al-Jahiz spoke about Bishr b. al-Mu'tamir and his Sahifah he explained that Bishr taught his pupils the origin of speech, oratory, and extempore address in the streets.¹⁰

Bishr, moreover, emphatically advised against the use of archaic words because it leads to intricacy and complexity, which in turn render the meaning unintelligible. He wrote, "Anyone who seeks expressive and eloquent meaning must choose his words carefully so as not to corrupt the flow of ideas."¹¹ The words must fit into various categories: that is, they must be lucid, have strength of meaning, and must flow coherently. The meaning should be unequivocal and manifest. Intricacy of speech entails deviation from the meaning. He who seeks clarity of expression should choose appropriate words. Bishr did not put greater emphasis on either style or content. His research into these two elements paved the way for the discussions of other rhetoricians such as al-Jahiz and Qudamah b. Ja'far.

He then proceeded to discuss another important element in rhetoric, that of "the relation between speech and the listener." He said, "The intelligent rhetorician knows whether the people he is addressing are highly educated or from the common masses and must alter his speech accordingly. It would be preferable for him to use philosophical words and expressions while speaking to theologians, as they are capable of grasping the meaning."¹²

Al-Jahiz took the study a step further, stating that words must be neither colloquial nor archaic. Certain strange and difficult words, for instance, may only be understood by the Bedouin of the desert. Speech, he asserted, may be classified into many categories, as may also the structure of society.¹³ "Technical terms," he said, "must only be used in certain instances; for example, it would be appropriate to use specialist theological vocabulary while arguing with theologians as this would convey the meaning most efficiently. Every sphere of learning has its jargon appropriate to itself."¹⁴ He agreed with Bishr's remark about philosophers, saying that they should know and use their own specialist words in writing and in speech.¹⁵

Here again we notice a similarity between the advice of al-Jahiz and that of Aristotle. The latter wrote: "One virtue of diction may be defined as clarity. This comes from the fact that if our language does not express our meaning, it will not achieve its effect. Again, diction should be neither low nor too dignified, but suitable to the subject…strange words, compound words and words coined for the occasion should be used sparingly and rarely."¹⁶

We may summarize the following points of similarity: Both Aristotle and al-Jahiz spoke about the avoidance of vulgar, unusual, or complicated words in speech. Both of them argued that speech must be neither archaic nor common and both of them advised against the use of strange words.

In the course of his investigation of communication or expression (al-bayan), al-Jahiz commented: "The word bayan comprises anything that reveals the sense and brings out the inner meaning, so that the hearer may grasp the reality of it.…The main object of both speaker and hearer is simply to understand and be understood; and any means used to make oneself clearly understood is bayan. There are just five ways, neither more nor less, of expressing ideas in speech or otherwise: the first is speech itself, then come gesticulation, counting on the fingers, writing, and finally what is known as a nisbah. The latter is a means of expression which serves for all the others and can well replace them. These five methods occur in different forms and with varying degrees of elaboration."¹⁷

Thus he does not differ with Aristotle when he investigated "the species of recognition." The latter wrote: "With respect to the species of recognition, the first indeed is the most unartificial, and that which most poets use through being at a loss, and is effected through signs.…And those recognitions rank in the second place which are invented by the poet, on which account they are inartification. But the third mode of discovery is through memory, from the sensible perception of something by sight, as in the 'Cyprii' of Dicaeogenes; for on seeing the picture a certain person weeps.…The fourth mode of discovery is derived from syllogism, as in the 'Choephorae' a person like me is ar rived—there is no person like me but Orestes,—Orestes, therefore, is arrived.…The best recognition, however, of all is that which arises from the things themselves, astonishment being excited through probable circumstances; as in the Oedipus' of Sophocles and the 'Iphigenia' (for it is probable that she would be willing to send letters); since such things alone are without fictitious signs and necklaces, but the recognitions which rank in the second place are derived from syllogism."¹⁸

Discussing the idea that "every occasion has its appropri ate speech," al-Jahiz wrote, "Just as speech should not be vulgar, incorrect, or slangy, so also it should not be uncouth or outlandish unless the speaker is a Bedouin. Uncouth language is understood only by uncouth people, just as the common people only understand their own vernacular. Language, like people, is of many types: lofty and trivial, beautiful and ugly, good and bad, grave and gay; but it is all Arabic, and all these types are spoken whether one approves of them or not."¹⁹ Also, Bishr b. al-Mu'tamir had preceded him by demonstrating that "speech must be clear, and you must know the people whom you address, whether they are cultured or not, and we must use the language which goes well with the understanding of the people."²⁰

These comments are similar to those made earlier by Aristotle in his discussion of style, where he wrote, "Style will have propriety, if it is pathetic, characteristic, and proportionate to the subject. This proportion means that important subjects shall not be treated in a random way, nor trivial subjects in a grand way, and that ornament shall not be heaped upon a common place object.…Each disposition has a style suited to it. 'Class' may represent a difference of age, as between boy, man, and old man, or the difference of sex; or the difference between Laconian and Thessalian."²¹ He then went on to note, "Jokes seem to be of some service in debate: Gorgias said that we ought to worst our opponent's earnest with mockery, and his mockery with earnest; a good saying. The various kinds of jokes have been analysed in the poetics. Some of these befit a free man and others do not: one must take care then to choose the kind of joke that suits one."²² He went on to observe, "Socrates also remarked on this issue when he asked the following questions: 'Is the soul constituted of many parts like the body? How does it work? By what is it influenced? What are the different sorts of oratory? Which oratory fits every soul? Is there any similarity between the oratories and the classes of people?'…We must study the orator himself. When must he speak, or keep silent?"²³

Parallel to this, one may note the remark of Plato when he said, "As the doctor is interested in the nature of the body, the orator must take an interest in the nature of the soul. He must know its situations and how to influence it, and what is the best time to influence it."²⁴

In al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, al-Jahiz defined the purpose of rhetoric in the following terms: "The intention of rhetoric is eloquence, i.e. spoken eloquence and that of prose, but especially spoken eloquence. Rhetoric should express meaning with good style. The Arab loves eloquence and ornamentation, but he disapproves of tautology, as this shows lack of restraint in speech. The opposite of rhetoric is clumsy and grammatically incorrect speech."²⁵

He also spoke in detail about the eloquence of the Arabs as a riposte to the arguments of the Shu'ubiyah who denied that the Arabs had any distinctive ability of speech or rhetoric, claiming themselves to be superior in the latter. The Shu'ubiyah claimed that "anyone who seeks knowledge of rhetoric, eloquent speech, or literature should refer to the books of the Persians." They also asserted that Indian proverbs and tales of wisdom, as well as Greek philosophy and literature, were good source for knowledge of rhetoric.²⁶ Al-Jahiz attempted to ascertain the bases of Arab eloquence. He then went on to rebut allegations of the Shu'ubiyah and spoke of Arab superiority in speech. "Oratory," he claimed, "was first established by the Arabs and Persians. The Indians may have great sacred literary works, but they were not written by any one person. As for the Greeks, their philosophical works show lack of eloquence, even though their discourses may be excellent." He even criticized the Persians, saying that the speech of many Persian orators is improvised and laboured, even after a good deal of preparation.²⁷ He avoided referring to Persian articles which would contradict his own statements and generally considered works by non-Arabs with suspicion.

All this led him to stipulate certain necessary requirements for rhetoric. Firstly, there is the gift. Rhetoric, according to him, is a gift from God; he who is endowed with this gift can speak fluently about anything he confronts, without hesitation or mistakes. It is, therefore, one of the most important qualities which distinguishes between ability in the ranks of men. In this light we must recognize the Qur'an as the miracle of the Prophet. Secondly, we have the relation between a word's meaning and its contextual position, carefully calculated by the orator to good effect: "The speaker must be calculated and clear in his speech."²⁸ He was further interested enough to speak about the definitions of rhetoric according to other nations. The Persians, for instance, said that rhetoric is the ability of distinguishing conjunctions from punctuation. The Greeks believed that rhetoric was the careful selection of words fitted into correct expressions, while the Romans maintained that it was the use of short, concise words or more lengthy ones, according to position and requirement. The Indians said that it is seizing an opportunity and clarification of meaning.²⁹

Al-Jahiz attempted to justify his opinion about Arabic rhetoric with quotations from the Qur'an, Hadith, and from common sayings. For instance, the Qur'an says:

"We sent not an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make things clear to them."³⁰

Moreover, the Prophet is reported to have said, "I dislike him who uses archaic speech and mannerisms."³¹

Discussing the importance of avoiding grammatical error, al-Jahiz argued that this is found mostly among urban people. Nevertheless, they did occasionally demonstrate ability in their speech. He looked closely at lisping, which frequently occurs with certain letters, such as qaf, sin, lam, and ra '. For someone who has difficulty in pronunciation, the letter qaf might sound like ta', so that the phrase qultu lahu might come out as tultu lahu. A sin is frequently pronounced like a tha'. A lam sometimes changes to a ya' or a kaf, e.g. i'tayaytu instead of i 'talaltu, and makila instead of malila. The letter ra ' changes at times to four different letters: ya ', ghayn, dhal, or za'; so, for instance, the word marra might be pronounced madhdha. Non-Arabs, however, tend to make different phonetical changes in their speech, such as changing a sin to a shin. Nor did he omit to mention the incongruity of certain letters with others, such as ajim followed immediately by a tha ', a qaf, a ta', a sin, a za ', or a dhal.³²

In spite of some partial similarities between al-Jahiz and Aristotle in discussing letters and sounds, it seems unlikely that al-Jahiz was influenced by Aristotle here. It is more probable that he inferred this material from the poetry of the Arabs and their speech, especially since he spoke about this subject after discussing the lisping of Wasil b. 'Ata'. When Aristotle spoke about letters, however, he chose to concentrate on vowels, semivowels, and mute sounds,³³ whereas al-Jahiz was primarily concerned with letters which are liable to lisping.

Our author also discussed demand and statement sentences, dividing the latter into three groups, namely, "correct statements, lying statements, and statements which are neither correct nor lying." He illustrated the third kind: "Has he invented a falsehood against God, or has a spirit against him?"³⁴

Later, the philologist al-Mubarrad (d. 285/898) spoke about the various kinds of statement sentences. He said, "Some writers claimed that the meaning of the following sentences is the same: Abd Allah qa'im, Inna 'Abd Allah qa'im and Inna Abd Allah la-qa'im. But I dare not say that the meaning is different from one sentence to another, because the structure of each sentence is different from the structure of the others. The first sentence means that the mind of the hearer is blank and we wish to tell him something. The second sentence means that someone has asked a question and we are answering him in order to dispel all doubt from his mind. The third sentence means that we emphasize the action in order to refute someone who has denied it."³⁵ Here al-Mubarrad describes a new element in the science of meaning as it relates to the different sorts of statement sentences.

Conciseness and prolixity were also discussed by al-Jahiz. According to him, conciseness does not mean the shortness of the number of letters or words. These two aspects of rhetoric depend on the situation. Sometimes the writer or orator needs to present it concisely.³⁶ He said, "The most eloquent men are those who use the simplest and most spontaneous expressions. Eloquence means conveying the meaning and aiming at lucidity without unnecessary words and with an eye to the difference between separation and reunion."³⁷

Aristotle had preceded the Arab writer in distinguishing between useful prolixity and verbosity. He stated that obscurity is caused by not stating one's meaning at the outset before entering into details. He defined prolixity as using the description (i.e. the sentence) instead of the name, and conciseness as using the name instead of description. He pointed out that prolixity and conciseness must be free of ugliness and obscurity, and the meaning must be clear.³⁸ In spite of some partial similarity between Aristotle and al-Jahiz in discussing prolixity and conciseness, we cannot say that al-Jahiz was definitely influenced by Aristotle here, because their manner of speaking and their examples are different, and their ideas were not the same. While the Greek scholar regarded prolixity as using the description instead of the name, al-Jahiz was more precise when he observed that prolixity and conciseness do not lie merely in the shortness of the number of letters or words.

The development of language and richness of vocabulary were considered in detail in al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, in which al-Jahiz noted that "the abundance of expressions, the distinction between words and syllables, and the stress on particular syllables reflect man's needs." He then discussed the differences between languages and the way in which, according to linguists, certain languages are more difficult to learn than others. These differences involve the number of syllables in word, the actual number of words, the degree of complication in word, and the idiomatic use of expressions.³⁹ He came to the conclusion that anyone who learns a second language is unable to know the precise meaning of many words which a native speaker would know, because his efforts are distributed over more than one language.⁴⁰

Noting that language is living and mutable, and can never be stationary, al-Jahiz draws a parallel with the human body, "which loses cells and gains cells, suffers disease and deterioration at times, and goes through periods of recovery." In the same way language is liable to change, with lapses and periods of recovery. During the course of centuries words become obsolete, while new expressions are evolved and become an essential part of the language.⁴¹ He noticed that the meaning of some words changes from era to era. He used the example of certain words which changed their meaning after the rise of Islam, communicating a different meaning in the pre-Islamic period, e.g. the word sarura, which since the Prophet's time came to denote one who has not made the pilgrimage to Mecca. In pre-Islamic times it was used to describe a man who held a high position in worship. Al-Jahiz observed that certain words went out of usage with the development of religious thought and that many words used in the pre-Islamic period were changed or even went obsolete after the rise of Islam.⁴²

Next, he considered the development of language in the city. Lexicographers and grammarians borrowed new expressions and terms from Persian, feeling a need to introduce new words to cover meanings which until that time had not been expressed in Arabic. Contact between Arabs and Persians helped introduce Persian words into Arabic; and with the development of philosophical discussion, new words had to be coined or borrowed, e.g. "accident," "nihilism," and "essence."⁴³

He drew to a considerable extent on poetry, and explained many poems in order to communicate scientific information.⁴⁴ He believed that poetry depended on three elements, namely, instinct, environment, and race. This theory was an attempted reply to Ibn Sallam's theory that poetry depended on war and struggle, the latter asserting that poetry abounds when there is strife between tribes. Thus the poetry of the Quraysh was not so copious because to them strife was rare.⁴⁵ Al-Jahiz argued that the Banu Hanifah possessed little poetry, despite the large numbers and frequent conflicts with other tribes.⁴⁶

Exploring sentiment and its impact on literature he said that when one of the Bedouin was asked why elegy was better than other forms of Bedouin poetry, the man replied, "We recite elegy when our hearts are ablaze."⁴⁷ Al-Jahiz did not differentiate between spontaneous and premeditated poetry when he said, "Literature which is produced through instinct is better and of greater value than that which has emerged with toil and soul searching." This seems sound enough, but he may have gone too far when he asserted, "Anyone who concentrates and searches his soul in composing poetry will fall into the error of prolixity."⁴⁸ Nor did he encourage long preparation for producing literature, for, as his theory propounds, "Poetry is a purely Arabic legacy. Other nations and communities have no poetry like that of the Arabs. There is a connection between poetry and race, poetry and natural disposition." He held the Arab race to be more poetical than other races, even those living within an Arab environment. Arab poets, he felt, were able to recite poetry spontaneously, whereas poets of other nations could only recite poetry after deep thought.⁴⁹ This opinion may be related to Mu'tazilite doctrine in general, which attempted to attack its opponents of the Shu'ubiyah for lengthy literary preparations.

It is, however, difficult to accept al-Jahiz's opinion for a number of reasons. Firstly, the process by which poetry is produced is more difficult than he imagined. To write poetry one needs sensitivity in the association of ideas, a good memory, and disciplined thinking. The poet needs time to correct and revise his poems, to choose appropriate words, and to change their positions in order to give coherence.⁵⁰ Secondly, al-Jahiz has not explained his reasoning for distinguishing the poetry produced by Arabs and that of non-Arabs. Thirdly, he is not specific about those attributes which distinguish one race from another. Fourthly, he generalizes to a large extent in his speeches, so that many exceptions may be found to the points which he makes. Fifthly, he contradicts his own statement about instinct when he gives the example of the tribe of al-Harith b. Ka'b during both the pre-Islamic and Islamic periods, showing how little poetry was produced in the former period compared with the great deal in the latter.

In this connection, he also divided poets into three classes: the great poet, the poetaster, and the versifier. He believed that certain poets have a gift for reciting poetry, but have little ability to compose poems according to metre; in this category came people like Zuhayr, al-Nabighah and al-A'sha in the pre-Islamic period, and al-Farazdaq and Jarir in the Umayyad period. He then went on to investigate the inspiring spirit of poetry, remarking that "Arabs proclaimed that every great poet has a satan within him which helps him to compose poetry."⁵¹ In fact, Bishr b. al-Mu'tamir had attempted before al-Jahiz to argue that the ability to write literature is a matter of gift and aptitude, asserting that one must seize the opportunity to recite poetry, choose an appropriate hour, and make use of the active mind, attempting to correlate the creation of poetry to man's soul and using the word tiba' to denote a moment of inspiration.⁵² After al-Jahiz, Qadi al-Jurjani (d. 392/1001) attempted further to clarify the gift by saying, "If you wish to know good poetry and the influence it has on the heart, then you should look through the poems of Jarir, al-Buhturi, Dhu al-Rummah, Kuthayyir 'Azzah, and Jamil Buthaynah."⁵³

Intelligence, according to Qadi al-Jurjani, goes with poetic gifts: "They support each other, and yet at the same time differ from each other." This statement has been taken up by modern writers, and elaborated in great detail. According to these writers, intelligence implies speed of comprehension, power of criticism, and creativity. Furthermore, intelligence may be divided into different categories, viz., (1) practical intelligence, that of workers, both in industry and in administration; (2) contemplative and revelationary intelligence, such as that which an artist, musician, or poet possesses; (3) abstract, rational intelligence, such as that of a lawyer; (4) inventive intelligence, required by engineers and scientists; (5) creative intelligence which the genius possesses; and (6) comprehensive intelligence, such as that of Michelangelo.⁵⁴

According to al-Jahiz, quality is something contained within poetry irrespective of when it is written or by whom. He proposed that critical judgement should look into the qualities of urban and Bedouin poetry alike, irrespective of the age of its composition. His belief that Arabic poetry because of its nature and special gift is better than that of non-Arabs is, on the whole, not in harmony with this criticism of poetry, nor is it consistent with his own reasoning: "This issue, which I have no fear in defending, is that most Arabs, both Bedouin and urban, are more poetic than people of other non-Arab places. This is not the general rule, but an exception to it. I have seen people who praise the poems of non-Arabs and neglect their own bards. These people are ignorant and cannot distinguish between good and bad poetry without prejudging the matter on the basis of the date of the poet and his nationality."⁵⁵ Al-Jahiz attempted to apply this theory to the works of Abu Nuwas, showing why he preferred them to the works of the Bedouins, and commenting, "If you consider the poems of Abu Nuwas with impartiality as to his origin and without bigotry, you will find them better than those of al-Muhalhil."⁵⁶

Al-Mubarrad observed shortly afterwards that "We have to look at the work of a poet as a whole and should not criticize any poet because of a single error." He added that we must be unbiased in our judgement between old and contemporary poets. He spoke about many contemporary as well as old poets, and sometimes expressed preference for the former.⁵⁷ Indeed, contemporary poets, according to Qadi al-Jurjani, deserve praise because it is hard for them to coin new words and meanings, once the old poets have almost exhausted good meanings and words.⁵⁸ In practice, he may not have adhered to this opinion completely, since he quoted many lines from al-Mutanabbi and other poets of his age, which he admired for their excellence in style and verbal inventiveness.⁵⁹

Returning to al-Jahiz, we find him stressing that the critic must be objective and impartial in his judgement.⁶⁰ A century or so afterwards, al-Sahib b. 'Abbad (d. 385/995) called for justice in judgements expressed about poems and prose.⁶¹ His contemporary Qadi al-Jurjani similarly demanded that critics should investigate the poetry of al-Mutanabbi as a whole, since it was not just to criticize defects alone neglecting all the good qualities. Later, Western critics also emphasized the necessity for objectivity in criticism; for example, Sainte-Beuve advocated his theory of neutrality of criticism stressing objectivity toward any particular methodology and the absence of specious argument.⁶²

Many writers were influenced by al-Jahiz's worksal-Bayan wa al-Tabyin and al-Hayawan, a few of whom will be briefly dealt with here in conclusion. Thus Ibn Sinan al-Khafaji adopted the opinions of al-Jahiz when he noticed that criticism was a specialist art, having its particular exponents. He wrote, "Every special subject has its proper exponents." He criticized Abu Hashim al-Jubba'i when he attempted literary criticism, commenting, "I know that Abu Hashim excels in his own subject, which is theology, but he is not so excellent in his criticisms of prose or poetry, because this is not his specialization."⁶³ Furthermore, when he spoke about nature, intelligence, and narration, indicating their importance in literature and criticism, his opinion resembles that of al-Jahiz.⁶⁴

The rhetorician Abu Hilal al-'Askari was also influenced by al-Jahiz. He discussed Kitab al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, noting that, "In Kitab al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, al-Jahiz discussed rhetoric and eloquence, but you cannot understand the varieties of rhetoric dealt with in this book without making great effort"; and he pointed out that he composed his own work in order to cover the points and subjects which were ignored by al-Jahiz.⁶⁵ Like al-Jahiz and Bishr b. al-Mu'tamir, he, too, cited the rule, "There is a particular speech appropriate to every situation," and added, "When you speak to common people, you must use their words."⁶⁶ Further, "Words must be neither colloquial nor complicated and they must strike a moderate tone."⁶⁷

The North African poet Ibn Rashiq (d. 456/1063-4 or 463/1070-1) shows the influence of al-Jahiz when he discusses the relative virtues of the modern and ancient poets. He favoured the good poet, irrespective of the period in which he lived, and said, "We cannot blame the good poets whether they belong to the old period or are contemporary."⁶⁸ He agreed with both al-Jahiz and Bishr b. al-Mu'tamir that the poet must use easy words and must not use complicated or weak expressions.⁶⁹ Ibn Rashiq further resembled al-Jahiz when he spoke about the influence of poetry on the listener. He mentioned an ode which was composed by Jalilah bint Murrah when she eulogized her husband Kulayb, who had been murdered by her brother Jassas, and said, "What beautiful and impressive words! They bear upon us and make us sad and sympathetic to her."⁷⁰

The philologist Qudamah b. Ja'far (d. in the second quarter of the 4th/10 century), important for his systematic study of figures of speech, mentioned the opinion of al-Jahiz that al-isharah (gesticulation) is prior to the sound and is more impressive and eloquent than it. He was apparently influenced by al-Jahiz when he pointed out that the poet should use easy words and avoid complicated or colloquial terms. He also mentioned al-Jahiz's opinion on al-badi', saying, "The first ones to discuss al-badi' among the contemporary poets were Bashshar and Ibn Harima. After them came al-'Attabi and Mansur al-Nimari."⁷¹

The commentator al-Wahidi (d. 466/1075) was obviously influenced by Bishr and al-Jahiz when he wrote, "Every situation has its particular speech. You must not speak to the king as you speak to the common people; you must know the words which you can use in each situation."⁷²

The official and litterateur Ibn al-Mudabbir (d. 279/892-93) discussed nature and referred to the Sahifat Bishr, especially when he said, "You must choose the appropriate time to compose poetry." He also adopted the view of al-Jahiz when he said, "You need culture and narration, because these devices will enhance the nature of the rhetorician or the poetry."⁷³

The Egyptian poet Ibn Tabataba' (d. 345/956) adopted the view of al-Jahiz when he wrote, "The poet must understand the Jahiliyah period and the art of narration, because these things are useful to him," and further discussed the rule enunciated by Bishr and al-Jahiz that "there is a special speech to every situation." He also advised critics to remain impartial in their criticism and, like al-Jahiz, noted that "Some modern poets are good. If they have made some mistakes, other poets who lived before them also made mistakes."⁷⁴

The poet and rhetorician Ibn al-Mu'tazz (d. 296/908) in his book Kitab al-Badi' confessed his indebtedness to the pioneering work of al-Jahiz in the investigation of this aspect of rhetoric.⁷⁵

The critic al-Amidi (d. 371/981) was also influenced by al-Jahiz in his discussion of special expertise. He noted, "If you want to know the difference between two good horses, you cannot make a judgement if you are not experienced. Poetry resembles this situation. Sometimes you find two good lines, but you cannot tell the difference between them if you are not a specialist in this sort of science."⁷⁶

Finally, the rhetorician vizir Diya al-Din ibn al-Athir (d. 637/1239) was undoubtedly influenced by al-Jahiz when he pointed out that the language of literature must be neither complicated nor colloquial.⁷⁷ He further discussed impartiality in criticism, without favouring the old poets, admiring Abu Tammam, al-Buhturi and al-Mutanabbi in spite of the fact that they were comtemporaries.⁷⁸ Like al-Jahiz, he discussed specialization and noted that "every sort of knowledge has its men who are experts in it."⁷⁹

Notes

¹ Al-Jahiz, al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, ed. Abd al-Salam Harun (Matba'at Lajnat al-Ta'lif wa al-Tarjamah wa al-Nashr, Cairo, 1960), vol. i, pp. 113f.

²Ibid., pp. 14, 137.

³Ibid., p. 137.

⁴Ibid., p. 173.

⁵ Aristotle, The Rhetoric of Aristotle, tr. Theodore Buckley (London, 1872), pp. 156f.

⁶ See Abu al-Tayyib 'Abd al-Wahid al-Halabi, Maratib al-Nahwiyin, ed. M. Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim (Maktabat Nahdat Misr, Cairo, 1955), p. 5.

⁷ See Majid 'Abd al-Hamid, al-Athar al-Ighriqi fi al-Balaghah al-'Arabiyah (Matba'at al-Najaf, Najaf, 1976), pp. 95 ff.

⁸Al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, vol. ii, p. 8.

⁹Ibid., vol. i, pp. 136 f.

¹⁰Ibid., p. 35.

¹¹Ibid., pp. 135-36.

¹²Ibid., p. 136.

¹³Ibid, vol. ii, p. 8.

¹⁴ Al-Jahiz, al-Hayawan, ed. 'Abd al-Salam Harun (Maktabat al-Babi al-Halabi, Cairo, 1938), vol. iii, p. 368.

¹⁵Al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, vol. i, pp. 7 f., 11, 14.

¹⁶The Rhetoric of Aristotle, p. 146.

¹⁷ C. Pellat, The Life and Works of Jahiz, tr. into English by D. M. Hawke (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1969), pp. 102-4; al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, vol. i, pp. 75 ff.

¹⁸ Aristotle, Treatise on Rhetoric, tr. Lance Cooper (New York, 1960), pp. 454 f.

¹⁹Al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, vol. i, p. 144.

²⁰Ibid., p. 151.

²¹The Rhetoric of Aristotle, pp. 159 f.

²²Ibid., p. 160.

²³ Ibrahim Salamah, Balaghat Aras atalis bayn al-'Arab wa al-Yunan (Maktabat al-Anqlu al-Misriyah, 1952), p. 22.

²⁴ Muhammad Saqr Khafaji, Ta'rikh al-Adab al-Yunani (Maktabat al-Nahdah al-Misriyah, Cairo, 1956), p. 180.

²⁵Al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, vol. i, p. 191.

²⁶Ibid., vol. ii, p. 141.

²⁷Ibid., vol. iii, pp. 12 ff.

²⁸Ibid, vol. i, pp. 115, 138.

²⁹Ibid, p. 88.

³⁰ Al-Qur'an, XIV: 4.

³¹Al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, vol. i, pp. 11 f.

³²Ibid., p. 70.

³³ See Aristotle's Treatise on Rhetoric, pp. 246 f.

³⁴ Al-Qur'an, XXXIV:8; Jalal al-Din al-Qazwini, al-Idah fi 'Ulum al-Balaghah, ed. M. 'Abd al-Mun'im Khafaji (Dar Ihya' al-Kutub al-'Arabiyah, Cairo, 1953), pp. 13 f.

³⁵ Sa'd al-Din al-Taftazani, Shuruh al-Talkhis (Maktabat 'Isa al-Babi al-Halabi, Cairo, n. d.), vol. i, p. 203.

³⁶Al-Hayawan, vol. i, p. 91.

³⁷Ibid., p. 92.

³⁸ See The Rhetoric of Aristotle, p. 158.

³⁹Al-Hayawan, vol. i, p. 63.

⁴⁰Ibid. p. 76.

⁴¹ Al-Jahiz, al-Bukhala', ed. Taha al-Hajiri (Dar al-Ma'arif, Cairo, 1948), p. 196.

⁴²Al-Hayawan, vol. i, p. 327; vol. ii, p. 332.

⁴³Ibid., vol. i, p. 128

⁴⁴Ibid., vol. iv, p. 381.

⁴⁵ Ibn Sallam al-Jumahi, Tabaqat Fuhul al-Shu'ara', ed. Mahmud Shakir (Dar al-Ma'arif, Cairo n. d.), p. 267.

⁴⁶Al-Hayawan, vol. iv, p. 38.

⁴⁷Al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, vol. iii, p. 33.

⁴⁸Ibid., pp. 328-29.

⁴⁹Al-Hayawan, vol. iii, pp. 130-32.

⁵⁰ Ibn Tabataba', 'Iyar al-Shi'r, ed. Taha al-Hajiri, and M. Zaghlul Sallam (al-Maktabah al-Tijariyah al-Kubra, Cairo, 1956), p. 135.

⁵¹Al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, vol. iv, p. 84.

⁵²Ibid., vol. i, p. 135.

⁵³ 'Ali b. 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Jurjani, al-Wasatah bayn al-Mutanabbi wa Khusumih, ed. M. Abu al-Fadi Ibrahim and 'Ali al-Bijawi (Dar Ihya' al-Kutub al-'Arabiyah, Cairo, 1945), pp. 16-23.

⁵⁴ Mahmud al-Samrah, Fi al-Naqd al-Adabi (al-Dar al-Muttahidah li al-Nashr, Beirut, 1974), pp. 70 f.

⁵⁵Al-Hayawan, vol. ii, p. 130.

⁵⁶Ibid., vol. iii, p. 128.

⁵⁷ Al-Mubarrad, al-Kamilfi al-Lughah wa al-Adab, ed. M. Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim (al-Maktabah al-Tijariyah al-Kubra, Cairo, 1950), vol. i, pp. 17f.

⁵⁸Al-Wasatah, p. 50.

⁵⁹ See ibid., pp. 50, 52.

⁶⁰Al-Bayan wa al-Tabyin, vol. i, p. 104.

⁶¹Risalat al-Sahib b. 'Abbad fi Kashf 'an Masawi al-Mutanabbi in al-Ibanah 'an Sariqat al-Mutanabbi, by M. B. Ahmad al-'Umaydi, ed. Ibrahim al-Dasuqi (Dar al-Ma'arif, Cairo, 1961), p. 222.

⁶² Ibrahim Salamah, Tayyarat Adabiyah bayn al-Sharq wa al-Gharb (Maktabat al-Anqlu al-Misriyah, Cairo, 1952), pp. 83f.

⁶³ Ibn Sinan al-Khafaji, Sirr al-Fasahah, ed. 'Abd al-Muta'al al-Sa'idi (Maktabat M. 'Ali, Cairo, 1953), p. 140.

⁶⁴Ibid., p. 275.

⁶⁵ Abu Hilal al-'Askari, al-Sina'atayn, ed. 'Ali al-Bijawi and M. Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim (Dar Ihya' al-Kutub al-'Arabiyah, Cairo, 1952), p. 10.

⁶⁶Ibid., p. 31.

⁶⁷Ibid., pp. 21, 57, 112.

⁶⁸ Ibn Rashiq, al-'Umdah, ed., M. Muhyi al-Din 'Abd al-Hamid (3rd ed., al-Maktabah al-Tijariyah al-Kubra, Cairo, 1934), vol. i, p. 175.

⁶⁹Ibid., p. 76.

⁷⁰ See Ibid., pp. 107, 146.

⁷¹ Qudamah b. Ja'far, Naqd al-Shi"r, ed. Kamal Mustafa (Maktabat al-Khaniji, 1963), p. 174).

⁷² Al-Wahidi, Sharh Diwan al-Mutanabbi (Berlin, 1861), p. 218.

⁷³ M. Kurd 'Ali, Rasa'il al-Bulagha' (Lajnat al-Ta'lif wa al-Tarjamah wa al-Nashr, Cairo, 1964), p. 24.

⁷⁴'Iyar al-Shi'r, pp. 4ff.

⁷⁵ Ibn al-Mu'tazz, al-Badi' (Maktabat Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi, Cairo, 1945), p. 53.

⁷⁶ Al-Amidi, Muwazanah bayn Shi'r Abi Tammam wa al-Buhturi, ed. Ahmad Saqr (Dar al-Ma'arif, Cairo, 1972), pp. 176ff.

⁷⁷ Ibn al-Athir, al-Mathal al-Sa'ir, ed., Ahmad al-Hufi and Badawi Tabanah (Maktabat Nahdat Misr, Cairo, 1959-62), p. 29.

⁷⁸ Diya' al-Din ibn al-Athir, al-Istidrak fi al-Radd 'ala Risalat ibn al-Dahhan, ed. Hanafi M. Sharaf (Maktabat al-Anqlu al-Misriyah, Cairo, 1958), p. 6.

⁷⁹Ibid., p. 20.