Arabic Rhetoric and Qur'anic Exegesis

Author(s): John Wansbrough

Source: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 31,
No. 3 (1968), pp. 469-485
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/614300 .
Accessed: 19/08/2011 12:02
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of
London.
http://www.jstor.org
ARABIC RHETORIC AND
QUR'ANIC
EXEGESIS
By
JOHN
WANSBROUGH
The evolution of technical terms in the Arabic science of rhetoric illustrates
remarkably
its
gradual adaptation
to the
exigencies
of
scriptural interpretation.
Proliferation of rhetorical
figures
in the
writings
of the late medieval scholiasts
appears
to be a
consequence
not so much of concern for
stylistic
embellishment
as of
preoccupation
with the
meaning
of the Qur'an. In
many
of these
figures
a
pre-exegetic
existence can be discerned; others would seem to be the inven-
tion of industrious
mufassirin.
For the former it is sometimes
possible
to
determine an
approximate
date of
adaptation
:
the
point
at which the
profane
function of a rhetorical
figure
was abandoned,
or at least
relegated
to an
inferior
position,
in favour of its
application
to Qur'anic
exegesis.
An illustration
of this
process
is
provided by
the
figure
called madhhab kalami, whose e volution
I
attempted
to describe in a recent
study.
There it was seen that the
figure
treated
by early
rhetoricians shared its name,
but neither its content nor its
function, with that examined and
applied
to the Qur'an
by
the later schoolmen.
While the result of this
metamorphosis
became
firmly
established in the treat-
ment of badi'
by
al-Qazwini
(d. 738/1338)
and his
successors,2 it is in the earlier
work of Ibn Abi
'l-Isba' (d. 654/1256)
where we find the observation that
although
Ibn al-Mu'tazz
(d. 295/908)
had denied the
presence
in the Qur'an of
madhhab
kalami,
the
Holy
Book was in fact full of
it;
and his
examples
fit
perfectly
the scholastic
interpretation
of the
figure.3
A
contributory
factor to this
process
of
adaptation
was the uncritical
collection of loci
probantes (shawdhid) by literary
theorists
eager
to illustrate
their rhetorical
figures
with
examples
drawn from the entire
range
of Arabic
literature,
but unable to
distinguish
between accident and intention on the
part
of the authors cited. This
phenomenon,
which
provided
considerable
latitude to later
interpreters
of the same
shawshid,
has been taken into account
in a recent
analysis
of the
tawriya
and
istikhdam.4
Such uncritical
practice
enabled
mufassirin
to select
only
those elements of a
given
rhetorical definition
which could be
pressed
into the service of their own
cause, to
disregard
other
possibly refractory
but
equally important elements,
and so
eventually
to
produce
what was
practically
a new
figure.
This
procedure is,
of
course,
easier
1 '
A note on Arabic
rhetoric',
in H. Meller and H. J. Zimmermann
(ed.),
Lebende Antike:
Symposion fiur Rudolf Siuhnel, Berlin, 1967, 55-63.
2
The author of their Vorlage, al-Sakk~ki (d. 626/1229), MiftJb al-'uliim, Cairo, 1356/1937,
does not in fact include
madhhab kalimi
under badi'
(pp. 200-4),
but in his discussion of
istidlSl
(pp. 207-44)
uses the
terminology
later
employed
to describe
madhhab kaltmi.
Cf. EI, second ed.,
s.v.
bayin, esp. 1115a.
Still later and, in view of the scholastic
development,
more
logically,
al-Suyfiti
(d. 911/1505), Itqan, Cairo, 1863, using
Ibn Abi
'l-Iba',
removed the
figure
from badf'
(II,
94 ff.)
and
placed
it in his section on
jadl
(II,
157 ff.).
3
Badi' al-qur'an, Cairo, 1377/1957,
37-42.
4
S. A. Bonebakker, Some early definitions of
the
tawriya
and
Safadi's
Fadd al-xitam 'an
at-tawriya wa-'l-istixdam, The
Hague, Paris, 1966, 16-18, 29, 59, 61-2, 75, 89, 103, 105.
VOL. XXXI. PART 3. 32
470 JOHN WANSBROUGH
to detect where the
original
name of the
figure
in
question
was retained, as was
so for madhhab
kalam;i.
It is more difficult where the earlier
designation
had
been
discarded,
and a new one
adopted
for
any
one of a
variety
of reasons.
Such
appears
to have been the evolution of the
figure
called
ultimately
laff
wa-nashr,
which I
propose
to examine in the
following pages. Here, adaptation
by scriptural exegetes
of an
originally profane
rhetorical
figure
was accom-
panied by
the introduction of a new name, which can
probably
be
explained by
a
development
in technical
terminology
that rendered the
original
name of the
figure ambiguous
and
eventually
obsolete.
An historical
analogy may
be of some value here. The madhhab
kalam5
corresponds,
at
opposite
ends of its
evolution,
to two
separate
but related
elements in the tradition of
European
rhetoric : the conceit and the
enthymeme.5
Similarly,
laff wa-nashr
incorporates
both the mannerist
figure
versus
rapportati
and the
exegetic
instrument
subnexio,
or
gloss.
The
pertinence
of the
analogy
rests on at least two
phenomena,
the first of which was the
adoption
of Aristo-
telian aesthetics in the formulation of both Latin and Arabic rhetoric.6
Mannerism as a
species
of ornatus was derived from the
recognition
of a
duality
of
form and content in
literary production. Second,
and
perhaps
more
important,
was the Patristic
appropriation
of Classical rhetoric to the service of Biblical
exegesis.7
The
parallel
between this
phenomenon
and the Arabic
practice
alluded
to above can be carried even further: the difference between
applying
the canons
of Classical rhetoric to
scripture
and
regarding scripture
as the
perfect
embodi-
ment,
even source,
of these canons, the difference between, say,
Jerome and
Cassiodorus,
is found
again
in the treatment of
badz' by
Ibn al-Mu'tazz on the
one hand, and Ibn Abi
'l-Isba'
on the other. Both Latin and Arabic
develop-
ments owe their
origins, though
not their
subsequent ramifications, to the same
theological impulse.
Like that of madhhab
kalami,
the
complex history
of the rhetorical
figure
generally
known as
laff wa-nashr
found its resolution in the
writings
of the late
medieval scholiasts. Because this resolution conceals two
separate
lines of
development
it will be easier in the
following description
to deal
separately
with the relevant
shawchid
:
first,
with those
belonging properly
to the
profane
tradition,
which is the older of the two and
probably represents
the
original
5
'
A note on Arabic rhetoric ', 56, 61.
6
G. E. von Grunebaum, 'Die aesthetischen Grundlagen
der arabischen Literatur', in
Kritik und Dichtkunst, Wiesbaden, 1955, esp.
134-8.
7
E. R. Curtius, Europdische Literatur
und
lateinisches Mittelalter, Bern, 1948, esp. 49-56,
79-85, 445-63. See also G. E. von Grunebaum, A
tenth-century
document
of
Arabic
literary theory
and criticism, Chicago, 1950, xv-xvi, xviii-xix, n. 24. An additional, and
complicating,
factor in
Arabic rhetoric is, of course, the
problem
of
i'jaz
al-qur'Sn,
though preoccupation
with the
meaning
of the text antedated discussion of its
inimitability
and alone could account for the
union of
baligjha
and
tafs?ir.
See I. Goldziher, Abhandlungen
zur arabischen
Philologie, Leiden,
1896, i, 151; and further, S. Bonebakker, op. cit., 25-7; M.
Khalafallah,' Qur'anic studies as
an
important
factor in the
development
of Arabic
literary criticism', Bulletin
of
the
Faculty of
Arts, Alexandria
University, 1952-3, 1-7; idem, 'Some landmarks of Arab achievement in the
field of
literary criticism', BFAA U, 1961, 3-19.
ARABIC RHETORIC AND QUR'ANIC EXEGESIS 471
form of the
figure;
and second, with those which formed the later
exegetic
tradition. Two
examples
of
laff wa-nashr
invariably
adduced
by
the schoolmen
are the
following:
'How can I
forget,
when
you
are a dune, a branch, and a sun, in
glance,
stature, and
figure
?
'
'He is a
sun,
a
lion, and a
sea,
in
generosity, beauty,
and valour'.
These, the first ascribed to
Ibn
IjHayyiis
(d. 473/1080)
and the second
anony-
mous, appear respectively
in al-Khatib al-Qazwini
(d. 738/1338), Talkhis
al-miftgh,
Iv, 332,
and in Sa'd al-Din al-Taftazini
(d. 791/1389),
Mukhtasar
al-Talkhis,
Iv,
332
(both
included in
Shurilh
al-Talkhis, Cairo, 1356/1937).
Within the
system
of classification
developed by
al-Qazwini these two
examples
illustrate subdivisions of the kind of
laff
wa-nashr called
mufassal (' separated
').s
In the first the cross-references in the nashr
(lahzan-qaddan--ridfi) appear
in
the
opposite
order
(ma'kis)
to their antecedents in the
laff (hiqfun--ghusnun-
ghazalun).
In the second the order of cross-reference between the two com-
ponents
is mixed
(mukhtalat),
and reconstruction of the elements would
provide
:
(laff)
shamsun-asadun-bahrun/(nashr)
baha'an--shujd'atan--jldJ.
In neither
of the two
examples
can there in fact be a
question
of
ambiguity,
since the
relationship
between each
pair
of elements is semantic rather than
syntactic.
Such, however,
was not
always
the case,
as will be shown
below, and the
importance
of
grammatical phenomena, particularly inflexion, increased.
Characteristically,
scholastic discussions about the
grammar
of
laff
wa-nashr,
though
not
primarily
concerned with
profane examples
of the
figure,
drew
upon
these for the formulation of convenient rules.
Thus, with reference to the
verse from
Ibn
H.ayyils,
al-Subki's
observation,
'Arls
al-afrdh, Iv,
332
(in
Shurih al-Talkhs),
that the elements of each
component
of
laff
wa-nashr must
be
grammatically
isolated
(mutlaq)
so that disorder
(gihair
tartib) might
not
produce
semantic
ambiguity;
and
Dasiiqi's insistence,
in his
supercommentary
(Shurih
al-Talkhihs,
loc. cit.)
to the same
verse,
on the
employment
of
tamy'z,
in order to avoid a
possibly ambiguous
relative construction. The
pertinence
of such observations as
these,
as of the whole scholastic scheme of
classification,
become
apparent only
when
they
are
applied
to the
exegetic development
of
laif
wa-nashr.
But to return to the
profane tradition, this same verse from Ibn
.Hayyfis
appears
in the
writings
of other
rhetoricians,
with each of whom a difference of
emphasis
and
description
is discernible. For
example,
Ibn
IHijja al-Hamawi
(d. 837/1434)
includes this
example among
28 others in his
Khizdnat
al-adab
(Cairo, 1273/1857)
in the
description
ofa
figure
entitled
tayy wa-nas4r
(pp. 81-5).
This
slight
variation is
apparently
without
significance,
since the author
adopted
s See A. F. Mehren, Die Rhetorik der Araber, Kopenhagen, Wien, 1853, 108.
472 JOHN WANSBROUGH
both the
definition
and the subdivisions of the
figure
devised
by
the schoolmen,
and
speaks throughout
of
laff
wa-nashr. But he is concerned
primarily
with
only
one of these
subdivisions, namely
the
mufassal
murattab
(' separated
and
ordered
'). This, he
claims, was the
only type
cultivated
by
the authors of
badi'iydt
and the one which offered the widest field for
linguistic ingenuity
(op. cit., 84). Ibn
HI.ijja's
basic criteria in
judging
a successful
laff
wa-nas.r
appear
to be two
:
the
greatest
number of reference-elements in each
component
of the
figure,
and the avoidance of
enjambment.9 Further,
both
components
ought
to have the same number of
elements,
an observation which
suggests
that the limits of this
figure
had not
yet
been
clearly defined, since the
example
of
non-conformity
adduced
by
the author and ascribed to the
qdd~i
Ibn
al-B~rizI (p. 83) belongs
more
properly
to the
category
of simile
(tashbih).
As two
pleasing examples
of
laff
wa-nashr
Ibn
H.ijja
offers the
following
:
'My
two
eyes
saw in
my
destitution not less than
my good
fortune and
luck/
I sold
my
slave and
my
ass and was left with
nothing
over me and
nothing
under me'
(p. 82, ascribed to
Shams al-Din
b.
Daniyal,
d.
710/1311)
'
My passion, my yearning, my lament, my care, my grief,
is for
them,
towards
them,
over them,
about
them,
in them'
(p. 84,
ascribed to
Safi 'l-Din
al-H.illi,
d.
749/1348).
Though
the two
examples appear
to have little in common, each of them
conforms to the definition of
laff
wa-nashr adopted by Ibn
H.ijja
from the
scholastic rhetoricians,
to which I shall return. The second
example, however,
like those from al-Qazwini and al-Taftazani cited
above,
is a
perfect
illustration
of what is
commonly
understood
by laff
wa-nashr in Arabic literature. In this
form the
figure corresponds
to the versus
rapportati
of late
Greek, Latin,
and
European baroque poetry, e.g.'o
Pastor arator
eques
Pavi colui
superavi
Capras
rus hostes
Fronde
ligone manu
or
:
Die Sonn,
der
Pfeil,
der Wind
Verbrennt, verwundt, weht hin
Mit
Feuer, Scharfe,
Sturm
Mein
Augen, Herze,
Sinn
B
The
badi'rya
to which Ibn
II.ijja
refers is that of Ibn
J~bir
al-Andalusi
(d. 780/1378),
entitled
Badi'Vyat
al-'umydn,
ed. Cairo, 1348/1929. Enjambment
in this
figure
is also a concern
of Ibn
Rashiq;
see below, p.
474.
o10
The
following examples
are taken from E. R. Curtius, Europdische Literatur, 288; and
idem, Gesammelte
Aufsaitze
zur
romanischen Philologie, Bern, 1960, 92,
129 n. 63.
ARABIC RHETORIC AND QURA'NIC EXEGESIS 473
or :
Aire, Water, Earth
By Fowl, Fish, Beast
Was
flown, was swum, was walkt.
In this
form, too, the
figure
was common in medieval Persian
poetry, e.g."
but
there, according
to Shams-i
Qays (d. 627/1230),
the
figure
was called not
laff
wa-nashr
but
tabyin u-tafsir.
That the two
figures
are identical is clear from
the
examples
assembled
by Biichner, who, however,
encountered the same
difficulties in
defining
the
figure
that we have seen in the work of
Ibn
H.ijja.
Pace Biichner (art. cit., p. 252,
n.
1),
both
components
of
laff
wa-nashr/tabyin
u-tafsir
must contain the same number of reference-elements. When this
requirement
is not fulfilled the
figure
becomes
another,
called in Arabic rhetoric
Cam'
wa-tafriq.1'2 Further,
it is
unlikely (Biichner,
art.
cit., 253)
that in the
construction of
laff wa-nasr/tabyin u-tafsir
the
presence
of a
conjunctive
or
comparative particle
is a matter of
indifference,
since inclusion of the latter at
least is
very likely
to
produce
a
simile.l3 Finally, Biichner, following Shams-i
Qays, appears
to rule out
enjambment
and where this
occurs, prefers
to
classify
the
figures differently (art. cit., p. 252,
n.
1).
The
significance
of these rules
delimiting
the function of the
figure
becomes clearer when examined in the
light
of the later scholastic
arguments.
Now,
the verse of
Ibn
HI.ayyfis
with which we
began appears
also in the
Kitab al-sina'atain
(Cairo, 1371/1952, 272)
of Abil
Hilll
al-'Askari
(d. 395/1005)
who, though
he
appears
to know
nothing
of
laff wa-nashr,
uses it to illustrate a
figure
called
tafsir.
This he defines as the addition of an
explicative
to a theme
(ma'na) requiring one,
but without
subtracting
from or
adding
to
the qualities
(ahwail)
inherent
there,
a definition which
presupposes
a reader well versed in
the lexicon of Classical
Arabic.'4 Among
other
examples
of this
figure
in verse
adduced
by
al-'Askari are these
:
'In him is a resemblance to the
rain,
the lion, and the full
moon,
for he is
generous, warlike, and beautiful'
(op. cit., 272, anonymous)
'Be not vexed nor succumb to
impotence,
for between weakness and
anger
perishes
success'
(op. cit., 272, ascribed to
al-Muqanna' al-Kindi,
ft.
80/700).
As in the two
examples
from
Ibn H.ijja
cited
above,
there is some
question
as to
whether both of these illustrate a
single figure,
but like those of
Ibn
HIlijja,
11 See V. F.
Biichner, 'Stilfiguren in der
panegyrischen
Poesie der Perser', Acta Orientalia,
II,
1924, 250-61. 'In battle he takes and in
assembly
he
gives,
a
kingdom
with a horseman and
a world to a
beggar.'
12
cf. al-Sakkiki, MiftVb al-'ulvim, 201; and Mehren, op. cit., 110.
1a cf. Ibn IIijja al-Hamawi, Khizanat al-adab, 83, and above, p. 472.
14
The presupposition by poets of a wide lexical familiarity on the part of their readers or
audiences is a
very special problem
in the case of the
tawriya, cf. Bonebakker, op. cit., 10, 21, 42.
474 JOHN WANSBROUGH
al-'Askari's
examples
do conform to his
definition,
here not of
laff
wa-nashr,
but of
tafsir.
For most of his material al-'Askari draws
upon
the
Naqd al-shi'r
(ed. S. A.
Bonebakker, Leiden, 1956)
of Qudama b. Ja'far
(d. 320/932).
Qudama's definition of the
figure (op. cit., 73-4)
is
clearly
the source of that
found in al-'Askari and his first
example
is one which was retained
by literary
theorists for
centuries, up
to and
including
al-Qazwini (d. 738/1338).
Before
examining
the
problems provoked by
the retention of
shawahid
for
apparently
dissimilar rhetorical
figures,
it will be useful to observe the influence
upon
his
successors of
Qudama,
to whom the
naming
if not the invention of the
figure
tafsir may surely
be ascribed. His first
example
is this one
:
'You came to a
people
with
whom,
had
you
been
seeking refuge,
exiled for
blood or burdened with
debt/
You would have found a
patron
or
protector,
prepared
to defend
you
with
upright spears' (op. cit., 74,
ascribed to al-
Farazdaq,
d.
110/728).
The
figure
is contained in the two middle hemistichs,
balanced
by repetition
of
the same
conjunctive particle:
tarida
dammin-mu'tiyan/h.amilan
thiqla
maghrami-mut.5'inan.
Though
the number of reference-elements is limited,
it is clear that this
example
would do to illustrate
laff wa-nashr.
And it is in
fact included
by
al-Qazwini in his
expanded commentary
to the
Talk.his
(Id.h,
Iv, 332,
in
Shur?ih
a-al-Talkhis).
A
sign
of
increasing stringency
in
defining
the
figure
is evident in the observation about the verse from
al-Farazdaq
made
by
one of Qudama's successors. In his Kitib al-'umda
(Cairo, 1374/1955,
IX,
35)
Ibn Rashiq (d. 456/1064)
declares that the order of reference-elements has been
reversed,
and that
according
to the
opinion
of scholars a sounder
arrangement
(in
the first hemistich of the second
line)
would have been muta'inan aw
mu'tiyan. Ibn Rashiq has, indeed,
several other
observations
to make about
the function of
tafsir,
and
appears
to be the first theorist to examine
critically
the
legacy
received from Qudima. He
prefers,
for
example,
to see the
figure
completed
in a
single line,
and adduces several illustrations of this from
al-Mutanabbi
(d. 354/965)
:
'If
they had
been written to, encountered,
or
fought against, they
would have
been found in
writing, expression,
and battle to be
champions ' (op. cit.,
1i,
38)
'A
youth
like the black cloud, object
of fear and
hope,
the sustenance of life
is there
hoped for,
while thunderbolts are feared'
(op. cit.,
11,
38).
Ibn Rashiq's preoccupation
with
enjambment (tadmin)
was later taken
up by
Ibn
H.ijja
and,
with reference to Persian, by Shams-i Qays,
but did not affect
ARABIC RHETORIC AND QUR'ANIC EXEGESIS 475
scholastic discussion of the
figure,
since there
could
be no
question
of
enjamb-
ment in the
examples
with which the schoolmen were
primarily concerned.
A curious instance of this
figure, employing
the same
imagery
as the second
example
from al-Mutanabbi cited
above, is the
following
one adduced
by
Ibn Rashiq:
'More liberal than
Tayy,
as
though
his tunic enclosed the two venerables Zaid
and
HI.tim/
In
generosity
and evil like thunderbolts and
rain,
when
joined
in a
mountainous cloud'
(op. cit.,
II,
38,
ascribed to
al-Buhturi,
d.
284/897).
Ibn Rashiq
observes that the
origin
of this construction was to be found in
Qur'an
xIII,
12--Huwa
'lladhl
yurskumu 'l-barqa
khawfan wa-tama'an
'He it is
who shows
you
the
lightning,
for fear and
hope'.
The
analogy may
be far-
fetched but is none the less instructive. In the verse from al-Buhturi both
poles
of a
triple
antithesis
(Zaidin
wa-H.timi-samah.an
wa-ba'san-ka
'l-sawd'iqi
wa
'l-hayya)
refer to the
pronoun
in
qamisahu;
in the Qur'anic
passage
the
single
antithesis
.hawfan
wa-tama'an refers to the accusative
pronoun
in
yurzikum.
While
disparity
of number between the
components
of
subject
(laff)
and
predicate
(nashr)
is not characteristic of
later, generally
accepted,
rhetorical notions of
laff wa-nashr
(see above, p. 472) Ibn Rashiq is,
it must be
recalled, talking
about
tafsir.
But in
providing
an instance of
multiple
reference to a
single antecedent,
he offered an
important precedent
to
the schoolmen for their discussion of
laf
wa-nashr.
The
simplest,
and what must be
very
like the
original,
form of
tafsir
is
given
by
Qudama in the
following example
:
'Surely
if I am in need of
prudence,
I am sometimes even more in need of
recklessness/
And I have a horse for
prudence
bridled with
prudence,
and one
for recklessness saddled with
recklessness/
For whoever wishes me
upright
I am
upright,
and whoever wishes me devious I am devious'
(op. cit., 74, ascription
uncertain;
cf. I'jaz
al-qur'aSn, p. 95,
n.
3).15
Compared
with the
paratactic
adverbial constructions characteristic of
laff
wa-nashr,
the
employment
here of
hypotaxis
and
repetition (for emphasis ?),
while
conforming
to Qudima's definition of
tafsTir,
would
appear
to
disqualify
this
example
for use in illustration of the former.
By
means of another
example,
15 The second verse appears also in al-'Askari, op. cit., 272; al-Baqillini (d. 403/1013),
I'jaz
al-qur'sn,
Cairo, 1963, 95, both under
tafsir (trans. von
Grunebaum, Tenth-century document,
34) ; and Ibn Qutaiba, 'Uyiin
al-abiisr,
Cairo, 1925, I, 289.
476 JOHN WANSBROUGH
however, Qudama elucidates a
primary
rule of formulation for
tafsir,
which did
assume
importance
for later theorists concerned with
laff wa-nashr
:
' O
you, perplexed
in the
gloom
of
darkness,
and whoever fears
encountering
iniquitous hostility/
Come to him and find in the
light
of his
face, brightness
and at his hands a sea of
generosity' (op. cit., 123,
anonymous).16
The author describes these lines as defective
(fasad al-tafsir) owing
to a lack of
correspondence
there between the first antithesis
(zrulami--dfiyd'an)
and the
second
(bagxhyun min
al-'id--bahran min
al-nada);
and adds that in the
second antithesis one
might
substitute for the first
component something
like
'adam or
faqr,
or for the second
component something
in the order of
nusra
or
'isma
or
wazar,
and so achieve the
proper
balance.
Now,
in addition to
al-Marzubani
and al-'Askari,
both of whom are con-
cerned
only
with
tafsir
and not with
laff wa-nashr,
two other writers introduce
Qudama's example
of
fasid al-tafsir
and use his
explanation
of its defects.
Moreover,
because
they
include both
tafsir
and
laff wa-nashr
in their
respective
treatment of
badi' they
are
key figures
in the
process
of transition with which
we are here concerned. The first of these is the
pre-scholastic Ibn
Sinan al-
j__afaji
(d. 466/1074) who, in his Sirr
al-fcasaha
(Cairo, 1350/1932, 254-5)
follows Qudima's definition of
tafsir
and illustrates this with the verse from
al-Farazdaq (see above, p. 474).
But in another section
(op. cit., 182)
labelled a
sub-category
of
tctandsub
(' symmetry '/' harmony ') 17
he writes: 'And also
part
of
harmony
is the ordered reference of one
expression
to another so that
that which refers back to the
beginning
comes at the
beginning
and
(that
which
refers
back)
to the end comes at the end. And there is an
example
of this from
al-Sharif
al-Radi (d. 406/1016)
:
(" My
heart and
my eye
are
yours,
the one
(as)
in summer
heat,
the other
(as)
in
spring gardens ").
And the
"eye "precedes [sic].
Similar to this is the verse
of another :
(" Shining
are
spear-heads
and countenances, strutting
are
spear-shafts
and
figures "),
since
"figures"
came at the end it was
necessary
that "coun-
tenances" also
be,
and "
spear-heads" preceded
as did
"spear-shafts
". And
examples
of this are numerous'.
AI-Khafaji
does not
employ
the term
laff
wa-nashlr,
though
it seems
fairly
certain that the
figure
he is
describing
is at
16 Also al-'Askari, op. cit., 272-3; and al-Marzubi-ni (d. 378/988), Muwashahab, Cairo,
1343/1925, 235, both
following Qudlma.
17
See Mehren, op. cit., 100.
ARABIC RHETORIC AND QUR'ANIC EXEGESIS 477
least
closely
related to that
one.'8
The first
example, despite
the
puzzling
comment wa
'l-tarf muqaddim,
conforms more to the later convention than does
the second
example.
But
vagueness
at this
period,
when
laf wa-nashr
had not
yet
been
finally separated
from
tafs;ir,
is not
surprising.
In the scholastic
handbooks of rhetoric finer distinctions were made, by
which
al-Khafaji's
examples
would
belong respectively
to
taqs~im
and to
tafrgq.'9
Now these
figures
and their
permutations
are all
closely
related and differences
depend,
as
far as I can
see, upon
the
degree
of
hypotaxis employed,
which in
practice
meant
the use of relative
pronouns
to connect elements in the two
parts
of the
proposition. By
means of these distinctions the chief characteristic of
laff
wa-nashr
could be isolated as the
employment
of a
paratactic tamyiz
con-
struction,
as has been shown above.
The second author to mention both
tafsir
and
laff wa-nashr,
and this time
unambiguously,
was al-Nuwairl
(d. 732/1332)
in his
Nihdyat
al-arab
(Cairo,
1341-62/1923-43, vii, 129-30). Though
less concerned than
they
were with
elaborating
the
system
of rhetoric devised
by al-Sakkaki, al-Nuwairi
was a
contemporary
of the scholastic
rhetoricians,
and his
terminology
is
nearly
identical to that used
by
them.
Indeed, they
drew
upon
a common
source,
as
will be shown. Al-Nuwairi
(loc. cit.) begins
with
laff
wa-nashr which
he
defines
as mention of two or more items followed
by
an
explanation
of
each, either
preserving
the same
arrangement
or not
preserving it, but in either case
relying
upon
the
hearer/reader
to refer back
each explanation (tafsir)
to its
proper
antecedent
(thiqatan
bi-anna 'l-sami'a
yaruddu
kulla
shay'in
ild
maud.i'hi sawd'an
taqaddacma
aw
ta'akhkhara).
To illustrate this the author introduces
the traditional line from Ibn
H.ayyils (see above, p. 471),
as well as the
following
:
'Are
you
not
he
at whose favour's flower and
bounty's watering-place
I
pluck
and
dip ? ' (op. cit., vii, 129, anonymous).
The same
example
was used
by
Ibn
Hijja
(Khizanat
al-adab, 81, s.v.
tayy
wa-nashr),
and it is
juxtaposed
in both works to the
syntactically simpler
example
from Ibn
Hayyils.
Al-Nuwairi then
proceeds
to the
figure
called
tafs;ir (op. cit., vii,
129-30) which,
he
observes,
is
very
close to
laff wa-nashr
and consists of
providing
an
expression
which the
poet imagines requires
such
with an
appropriate explanation (wa-huwa an yadhkura lafzan wa-yatawahhama
annahu
yuht.iju
ilU baydnihifa-yu'iduhu
ma'a
'l-tafsir).
In addition to several
examples
borrowed from
Qudama, including fasad al-tafsir (see above, p. 476),
al-Nuwairi
offers
the following:
'Rain and lion: rain when
you
ask him a
favour, and a lion
(when you
meet
him)
in
battle, fierce'
(op. cit.,
vii,
129, ascribed to Abil
Mushir,
ft.
91/710)
is Only in the index to the work (p. 318), presumably an insertion by the editor, does the
expression laff wa-nasr appear.
19 Mehren, op. cit., 109.
478 JOHN WANSBROUGH
'Ask about
him, speak
to
him,
and look at
him, you
will
get
an
earful,
a
mouthful,
and an
eyeful' (op. cit.,
vii,
130,
ascribed to Ibn
Sharaf,
d.
460/1068).
Both
of
these would,
of
course,
do to illustrate
laff wa-nashr,
as well in fact as
the
example
of that
figure given by
al-Nuwairi
above,
and we must conclude
that in
practice
at least a
satisfactory
distinction between the two
figures
had
not
yet
been
agreed,
even
by
writers
who chose
to discuss both.
With regard
to
the lines from
al-Farazdaq
cited
by
so
many
of our
authors,
al-Nuwairi,
who
uses
them
to illustrate
tafsir,
remarks that '
the
condition of
laff
wa-nashr has
not been observed'
(lakinnahu
lam
yura' sharta
'l-laJi wa
'l-nashri).
One can
only suppose
that
he has adopted
the
objection
earlier voiced
by
Ibn
Rashiq
to
the same lines
(see above, p. 474),
but this would
appear
to make nonsense of
his observation
with regard
to
laf
wa-nashr
that
the hearer/reader
was
expected
to make the correct cross-references between the two
components
of
the figure,
irrespective
of
the
order in
which they
occurred.
This
'condition
', however,
became
the key
element in
scholastic
discussion of
the figure.
Before
turning
to
that subject,
it
may
be remarked that in
the eighth/fourteenth century
the
two
figures tafs;ir (or rather, tabyin u-tafs;ir)
and
laff
wa-nashr
appear together
in a Persian
rhetorical treatise,
and
there the
author includes
among his
examples
of the latter
figure
one in Arabic
:
'Your
eyes
and
eyebrows
are arrows and
bows, (your)
forelock and
forehead
dawn and
evening'
(DaqJ'iq
al-shi'r, Tehran, 1341/1923, 70).20
It
was, indeed,
at this time that
the figure gained currency
in Arabic rhetorical
terminology, but,
as we
shall see,
not for reasons
arising
out of
the profane
tradition,
to
which
our discussion
has thus
far been confined.
Now,
al-Nuwairi's
first
example
of
laff
wa-nashr is
Qur'an
xxviiI,
73
:
'And of His
mercy
He has
given you night
and
day, that you may
rest
therein
and
that you may
seek of His
grace '.
This is one of
the
two
key
shawahid
employed by scholastics
to illustrate
laff
wa-nashr. Moreover,
it
appears
in
al-'Askari (Kitdb
al-sind'atain,
271)
under
tafsir,
and in Ibn
Hijja
(Khizinat
al-adab, 81)
under
tayy
wa-nashr,
to be sure,
but as the
only
Qur'anic
example
in his detailed treatment of
the figure.
Because
it is
unlikely, though
of course not
impossible, that
al-Nuwairi
took
this example
from al-'Askari,
we must turn to
the Vorlage
of
the scholastic rhetoricians:
al-Sakkaki's
Miftah
al-'ulim.
There,
as a subsection under badi' and
with
no
mention of
tafsir, appears the figure laff wa-nashr with
Qur'an
xxvIII,
73 as its
only
illustration
(op. cit., 200).
Al-Sakkaki's
definition runs as follows: 'It
20 I owe this reference to
my colleague
Dr. Tourkhan GandjeI,
whom I should like to thank
for his valuable observations on Persian
adaptation
of Arabic rhetorical terms.
ARABIC RHETORIC AND QUR'ANIC EXEGESIS 479
consists of
wrapping up
two elements in a
(single) utterance, succeeded
by
an
expression
which includes reference to one and the other
(but)
without
designation, relying
on the
hearer/reader
to refer back each of
them
to that to
which
it
belongs' (wa-hiya
an
taluffac
baina
shay'aini fi 'l-dhikr
thumma
tutbi'uhumJ
kalaman
mushtamilan
'ald
muta'alliqin bi-whidin
wa-bi-akhara
mrin ghairi
ta'yinin thiqatan
bi-anna 'l-sami'a
yaruddu
kullan minhuma ila ma
huwa lahu).
While
parts
of this definition
were, as we have seen, employed by
al-Nuwairl, he omitted at least one
significant
element
(min
ghairi ta'yinin),
which
probably
accounts for his failure to
distinguish satisfactorily
between
laff wa-nashr
and
tafs'ir.
Of such
elementary oversights
as this al-Qazwini and
his successors cannot be accused. The
consequences
of their
investigating
and
exploiting every implication
of
al-Sakkaki's
definition of
laff wa-nashr
were
two: elaboration of a
systematic typology
of the
figure,
and concentration
upon
Qur'anic
examples
of it.
We have seen
(above, p. 475)
the introduction
by Ibn Rashiq
of a Qur'anic
verse into his discussion of
tafszr
to
explain
the
origin
of a
particular
construc-
tion. For the scholastics the
Qur'an was the foundation for their entire
interpretation
of
laff wa-nashr.
The
system
of classification elaborated
by
al-Qazwini and followed
by
his successors is this
(Talkh.s
al-miftah,
in
Shurilh
al-Talk.his,
Iv, 329-35)
:
the
figure may
be either one of two
types
:
'
separated'
(mufassal)
or
'composite' (mujmal);
the former
may
be subdivided into
'
ordered'
(murattab),
'reversed'
('ald tartib ma'kis),
and 'mixed'
(mukhtalat
or
mushawwash).21
These are the basic
types;
in due course further and finer
distinctions became
necessary
as the rhetoricians
began
to
comprehend
the
enormous
exegetical
task before them. The
example invariably
used for
type
A.1
(mufassal murattab)
was Qur'an xxvii, 73. It will be useful to recall that
although
this
example
was
employed by al-'Askari (d. 395/1005)
to illustrate
tafszr,
it was first related to
laffwa-nashr
in the work of
al-Sakkaki
(d. 626/1229).
And it is there that the name of the
figure
first
appears,
since we cannot be
certain that
al-Khafaji (d. 466/1074,
see
above, p. 476)
could or would have
used that name for his
sub-category
of tandsub.
Thus, the name of the
figure
and Qur'an
xxviII,
73 were
adopted by
al-Qazwini
(d. 738/1338)
from al-
Sakkaki, though
in other matters
pertaining
to
bad;i' (e.g.
madhhab
kalami)
the
former did not hesitate to
depart
from his
Vorlage.
The name
laff
wa-nasr
became
quickly established,
but Qur'in
xxviii, 73, finally accepted by
all the
scholastics, did
provoke
one serious
problem. Already
Baha'
al-Din
al-Subki
(d. 774/1372),
in his
commentary
to
al-Qazwini, entitled 'Aris
al-afrah
(in
Shurih
al-Talkhis, Iv,
329
ff.), suggested
that two of the conditions laid down
for the
figure might prove
troublesome. The first of these was absence of
designation ('adam al-ta'yin)
and the
second, completion
of the
laff
before
beginning
the nashr
(ta'khir
al-nashr 'an
al-laff).
While the
meaning
of the
latter condition is more or less
self-explanatory
the former
requires
some
21 Owing to an early confusion between ma'kiis and mushawwash, the number of sub-categories
of
mufassal was sometimes two rather than three.
480 JOHN WANSBROUGH
comment.
Ta'yin appears
to mean inclusion of an element
containing
an
explicit
connexion between the
components
of
laff
wa-nashr. This
may
be
either
grammatical,
like the 'd'id
'fihi'
in Qur'an
xxviiI,
73,
or semantic,
like
the word
al-&k.hiriydt
in the
following example,
adduced
by al-Qazwini
in his
Id.h
(Shurih al-Talkhis, Iv, 330)
:
'Your
opinions, your purposes,
and
your
swords in events when stars are
overcast/
Are
posts
for
guidance
and lanterns
dispelling gloom,
and the last
are friends'
(ascribed
to Ibn
al-Ruimi,
d.
293/889).22
Al-Subki's
objection
to
al-dkhiriypt,
which he translates 'the
last(-named
of
the three elements of the
laff:
Jrd'ukum wa-wujihukum wa-suyifukum)',
is
that it is too
explicit
a connective between
suyif
and
rujim,
and thus leaves
nothing
to the
imagination
of the reader.
He
remarks further that the semantic
relationship
between all three elements of the
laff
is too close, producing
a
situation in which
any
one of the elements in the nashr could be related to
any
one of those in the
laff.
Al-Subki concludes
by observing
that if the lines from
Ibn
al-Rfilmi
can be called
laff
wa-nashr,
then
they
must be not of
type
A
(mufassal)
but of
type
B
(mujmal).
But before
turning
to the
problems provoked
by type B, it must be recorded that al-Subki does in fact
accept
Qur'an
xxviI,
73 as a valid
example
of
type
A. In so
doing, however,
he refers to a similar
Qur'anic construction, namely xxx,
23
:
4LaJ
i~ ~C3Ls ,~3] L L j
"And
among
His
signs
are
your sleep by night
and
(by) day
and
your seeking
of His
grace '.
The
importance
of this
example
is twofold: it is
semantically
identical to
Qur'an xxviii, 73,
but
grammatically opposed,
in that the construction does
not
depend upon
an '&'id. The
significance
of this
argument
lies in what
appears
to me to be the scholastic effort to
bring exegetic laff
wa-nashr as close
as
possible
to the
examples
of the
profane
tradition which,
we have seen,
depend upon
extended
parataxis.
A1-Subki's
acceptance
of the verse from
Ibn
H.Jayyfis
(see above, p. 471) supports
this
hypothesis. Now, in
introducing
Qur'an xxx, 23 al-Subki refers to a discussion of the verse
by
al-Zamakhsharl
(d. 538/1143).
In
al-Kashshaf (Calcutta, 1276/1859, 1091)
the latter makes the
following
observation: 'This
(verse) belongs
to the
category
of
laff
and its
(normal)
order would be: "And
among
His
signs
are
your sleep
and
your
seeking
of His
grace by night
and
by day (respectively)"
'. He
goes
on to
explain
that
expressions
of time are
semantically
identical to actions
taking
place
within their limits,
and that there can be no confusion about the
meaning
22
Also in al-Nuwairl, op. cit., vii, 130, but under tafsir (!),
with the observation that it is one
of the best
examples
of that
figure;
and in Ibn
HIijja,
op. cit., 82, under
tayy wa-nashr,
with
no comment.
ARABIC RHETORIC AND
QUR'ANIC EXEGESIS
481
of this verse.
Curiously,
al-Subki
(op. cit.,
Iv, 334)
does not
accept
this
argu-
ment for Qur'an
xxx,
23 (on the
grounds
that the
masdar 'ibtigha'ukum'
cannot be
preceded by
its
nomen
rectum
'al-nahr '),
but
employs
it in his
acceptance
of Qur'an
xxvIII,
73
(since li-tabtagih~i
is a finite verb
form).
But
the real
significance
of al-Zamakhshari's
appearance
in this
argumentation
is
the
employment
in his
exposition
of Qur'an
xxx, 23 of the term
laff.
It
appears
again
in his
interpretation
of Qur'an
xxviii,
73
(al-Kashshlf,
1064), where,
however, there is no mention of the
ambiguous
'&'id
'fihi'. Now, al-Zamakhshari
wrote
nearly
a
century
before
al-Sakkaki,
who
first
used the term
laff wa-nashr.
Since the latter's
only example
of the
figure
was Qur'an
xxvIII,
73,
it seems not
unreasonable to conclude that the
figure
owes its birth to
exegetic speculation.
This
hypothesis
is
strengthened by
examination of the scholastic discussions
about the second
type
of
laff wa-nashr,
called
mujmal (' composite ').
For this
the invariable locus
probans
is Qur'an
II,
111:
'And
they
said: none shall enter heaven
except
those who are Jews or
Christians '.
Al-Qazwini's
exposition is, as
usual, straightforward
if uncritical
(Talkhis
al-miftih, Iv, 333)
:
qgli
is to be understood
simply
as
qalati 'l-yahid wa-qglati
'l-nasJrd.
Since
al-Sakkaki
mentioned neither
mujmal
nor Qur'an
II,
111, we
may
turn at once to al-Zamakhshari
(op. cit., 97).
Here
qaEl
is
interpreted
qglat wa-qdlat,
to which is
appended
the observation
: '
And the two utterances
are
wrapped up, relying
on the
hearer/reader
to refer back to each of the
parties
its utterance'
(fa-laffa
baina 'l-qawlaini thiqatctan
bi-anna 'l-sdmi'a
yaruddu
ild
kullifariqqin qawlahu).
And here we are confronted with what must
surely
have been the source of
laff
wa-nashr. It is this
interpretation
of an
ambiguous
Qur'anic construction which was
reproduced, nearly verbatim, not
only by
al-Sakkaki with reference to Qur'an
xxvIII,
73, but
by
his scholastic
successors
in their
typological
elaboration of the
figure.
Before
considering
the
process by
which this
purely exegetic figure
was
married to the
profane
rhetorical tradition
(represented by tafsir)
it will be
useful to describe
briefly
the vicissitudes of Qur'an
II,
111 at the hands of the
scholastics. Their
arguments
reveal considerable discomfort at
making
a
rhetorical
figure
out of a troublesome but
very
common
phenomenon
of Classical
Arabic: the
ambiguous
damrn.
Al-Subki
(op. cit.,
Iv, 333-4),
who
incidentally
introduces fresh confusion into the
development
of technical terms
by equating
mujmal
with mushawwash (and cf.
above, p. 479,
n.
21), accepts al-Zamakhshari's
interpretation
of
qali
and mentions Qur'an
II,
135 as
providing
an
analogy.23
But he continues
by suggesting
that aw
may
here be
equivalent
to
wa,
in which
23 i.e. wa-q2lb
kLni
hi2dan aw nas&rd .... Al-Zamakhshari's interpretation of Qur'An II, 111,
however, was
very likely adopted from II, 113:
wa-qalati 'l-yahiidu
laisati 'l-nasari
'al5
shai'in
wa-qdlati
'l-nagar&
laisati
'l-yahidu 'alj shai'in, though he
does mention
II,
135 at this
point
(op. cit., 97).
482 JOHN WANSBROUGH
case
by postulating
an omission the
pronoun
in
qdli
will refer
only
to the Jews
and the
possibility
of
laff
is eliminated. On the other hand, it
may
be that the
whole statement
following qIl
was made
by
each of the two
parties.
Such an
exposition
is
permitted by
the
grammar
of the sentence but not
by
common
sense. The
point
of the
damir
must then be exclusion of Muslims from heaven
by
the
joint
assertion of the
ahl al-kitab.
In this
way
al-Subki indicates his
acceptance
of
qilat wa-qilat.
With less discomfort
al-Taftazani
(Mukhtasar
al-Talkhgis,
Iv, 333)
does the same, but
goes
into more detail in his
Mutawwal
(Tehran, 1301/1883, 348-50).
There he cites
al-Sakkaki
(to
what
purpose is
uncertain since,
as we have
noted,
the latter does not mention
mujmal)
and
al-Zamakhshari
(al-Kashshsf,
127-8)
on
Qur'an
II,
185:
~uljl"i~jj aCrj~j ei jP~Jl~I4-
j*
'So whoever of
you
is
present
in the month
(of Ramadan)
he shall fast
therein,
and whoever is sick or on a
journey...'
It is clear from this
example,
which fits rather better than Qur'an
II,
111 the
scholastic
interpretation
of
laff
wa-nashr,
that the transition was not difficult
between a
proposition
based on an
exceptive
construction
(man... wa-man)
and one
containing
an
ambiguous pronoun.
On the other hand, post-scholastic
rhetoricians
objected
to this manner of
treating pronouns.
Both
Ibn
Ya'qfib
al-Maghribi
(d. 1110/1698),
in his Mawahib al-iftdh
(Shurih
al-Talkhis,
Iv,
331)
and
Muhammad
al-Dasuiqi
(d. 1230/1815),
in his
supercommentary
to the
Shurilh (op. cit., Iv, 330) reject
even
Qur'an xxvIII,
73 on the
grounds
that
fihi (described
as
.damrr
majrir), by providing
an
explicit
connexion between
laff
and
nashr,
constitutes
'designation' (ta'y'in)
and
thereby disqualifies
the verse.
Now,
while the
concept
and
terminology
of al-Zamakhshari are
clearly
the
source of the scholastic
shawdhid,
the notion of
ijmal
itself as a
principle
of
classification
may
be earlier. The
interpretation by Ibn Rashiq (see above,
p. 475)
of
al-Buhturi's
verses and
ascription
of the construction there to a
Qur'anic
passage
makes the idea of derivation a
tempting
one.
Ibn
Rashiq's
apparent
aim was to illustrate the use of
multiple
references to a
single
antecedent, producing
a
figure
which he included under
tafsir,
but which later
came to be called
jam' wa-tafriq (see above, p. 473). Similarly,
al-Dasuiqi's
rejection
of
Qur'Yn
xxvIII,
73 is based
upon
his
recognition
that it
belongs
properly
to
taqsim
(op. cit.,
Iv,
329). Ijmal
is thus an
exegetic figure
devised to
explain Qur'anic ambiguities,
and has no
proper part
in the
figure
known as
laff
wa-nashr.
One
ought
then to
expect
that outside scholastic circles
ijmal
would not be mentioned in connexion with
laff wa-nashr.
This is
unfortunately
not so. In his
Khizhnat
al-adab
(p. 84)
Ibn
Hijja.
al-Hamawi, who,
it has been mentioned
(see above, p. 472),
was concerned
primarily
with the kind of
laff
wa-nashr
known as
mufassal
murattab and with
examples
of this from the authors of
badi'iyat,
offers none the less two
similar.
examples
of
ijml,
of which one is the
following
:
ARABIC RHETORIC AND QUR'ANIC EXEGESIS 483
'The rain came and
my
needs with
regard
to it were sevenfold as the
drops
barred us from our
affairs/
Shelter and
purse
and brazier and
cup
of
pleasure
with roasted
meat,
and tender flesh and
covering' (ascribed
to
Ibn Sukkara,
d.
385/995).
Though
related to one of the
figures
derived from
jam'/tafriq/taqsim
(Mehren,
op. cit., 108-11),
this
example
is
clearly
not
laff
wa-nashr or at least no closer
to it than was
Ibn Rashiq's variety
of
tafsir. Ibn IHijja
did,
after
all, adopt
the
system
of classification elaborated
by
the
scholastics,
and
probably
felt com-
pelled
to
provide
an illustration of each
category,
however little he
may
have
been
persuaded
of their relation to the
mufassal
murattab.
It will have become clear
that,
in
my opinion
at
least, ijma~l,
or
propositions
of the
type al-zaidani q&'imun wa-qd'idun, although they
were the occasion for
which the term
laff wa-nashr
was
invented,
are not in fact
part
of that
figure.
Whether statements of the
type
illustrated
by
Qur'an
xxvIII,
73 or
xxx, 23
do
properly belong
to
laff
wa-nashr will
depend ultimately upon
the exact
meaning
of 'adam
al-ta'yin.
To what
extent,
in other
words, may
connexion
between the reference-elements of
laff
and nashr be
explicitly designated
?
'Adam
al-ta'yin
would
appear
to mean that there
may
be no
explicit designation
at
all, and it could be
argued
that the
very ambiguity
of
fihi
in
Qur'an
xxvIII,
73 is sufficient demonstration of 'adam
al-ta'yin (thus, al-Taftazani, Mukhtasar,
Iv,
329-30).
Al-Maghribi
on the other
hand, Mawdhib,
Iv, 329, rejects
that
verse on the basis of an
interesting
and subtle
argument.
The links
(qard'in)
by
which the
hearer/reader
is intended himself to make the correct connexion
between reference-elements of the
figure
are two: formal
(lafz2iya)
and con-
ceptual (ma'nawiya).
The first
may
be illustrated
by
:
'I saw two
persons laughing
and
frowning'.
It is sad but
necessary
to note that
al-Maghribi,
who
rejected
both Qur'in
xxviii, 73 and
11,
111 on the
ground
of their
containing nothing
more than
ambiguous pronouns,
here
employs
an
ijmal
construction. He makes his
point
none the less
:
the formal link
(qar;ina
lafz.ya)
is in this
proposition
the
gender
morpheme,
and there can be no doubt as to who is
laughing
and who
frowning.
His illustration of the
conceptual
link
(qarina
ma'naw~ya)
is this:
'I met a friend and an
enemy,
and so I honoured and
despised'.
The
example
is
mufassal
and the link
semantic, and
again
there is no cause for
ambiguity. Moreover, both
examples
are
paratactic.
One is inclined to believe
that had these statements included
subject
or
object pronouns (which they
484 JOHN WANSBROUGH
well
might),
these would have been
interpreted
as
performing
the function of
'Y'id
and thus
making
the
designation explicit.
The
argument
is subtle but
perhaps
not
entirely
sound. It
is, however,
corroborated
by
the
presence
in
this
particular
work (as in most of the scholastic rhetorical
treatises)
of
examples
of the
type
with which we
began
our
investigation (see above, p. 471).
These
were,
of
course,
borrowed from the
profane
tradition
originally
called
tafshr,
but renamed
by
the scholastics
laff
wa-nasr.
The
assignment
of names to the
growing corpus
of rhetorical
shawdhid
reflects not
only
confusion about the distinction between a rhetorical
figure
and
a
grammatical necessity,
but above all
inconsistency.
For
example, tafs;r
gained
some
currency
as a rhetorical
figure
even
among scriptural exegetes.
In his Badi'
al-qur'Jn (pp. 74-7)
Ibn Abi
'l-Isba'
(d. 654/1256)
devotes a
chapter
to the
figure,
of which Qur'an
Iv,
66 is a characteristic
example
:
'And had We decreed that
you lay
down
your
lives or leave
your homes, only
a few of them would have done so'.
Here the subordinate
(imperative)
clause is defined as
tafsir.24 The same author
does not discuss
laff wa-nashr
but does have a
chapter
on a
conceptual pheno-
menon which he calls
talfif (pp. 123-6)
and which
appears
to be identical to
tadmin in the sense
of' implication'
as
employed
for
example by al-Rummani
(d. 384/994).25
Whether
talfIf
can
be
etymologically
related to the same source
as
laff
wa-nashr is a
question
I am unable to answer.
Al-Suyfiti
(d. 911/1505),
too,
includes
tafs;ir
in his
Itqdn
(II,
80), not, however,
as
part
of
bad5',
but under
jdaz ('
conciseness
').
There he
employs
it to describe inter alia
glosses
of the
asma'
h.usnd,
for
example
Qur'an II,
255:
'God,
there is no
god
but
He,
the
ever-living,
the
self-subsisting,
slumber
overtakes Him not,
nor
sleep '.
Or Qur'an cxII,
2-3:
'
God is eternal,
He
begets
not nor is He
begotten '.
But another
example
reflects the older rhetorical tradition, namely
Qur'in
LXx,
19-21
:
'
Surely
man is created
impatient,
fretful when evil afflicts him, niggardly
when
good
comes his
way '.
24
cf.
Reckendorf,
Arabische
Syntax,
? 197.3.
25
Al-Nukat ft i'jez al-qur'an, Cairo, 1959, 94-5; and cf. von Grunebaum, Tenth-century
document, p. 118, n. 1.
Tadmin
is not
commonly
used in this sense but, rather, for the
(entirely
unrelated) phenomena
of
enjambment
and ' citation '.
ARABIC RHETORIC AND QUR'ANIC EXEGESIS 485
It
appears
to have been a construction of this sort which
al-Suyiiti
had in mind
when he mentioned
tafsir al-khaff
in his
'Uqiid al-juman (Mehren, op. cit.,
Ar.
text, p. 124, no.
55).26 Whether he
meant
to distinguish
between
tafsir
and
tafszr
al-khaff
is not
clear, though
it is of some interest to note that the latter
term was used in the eleventh
century by
the Persian
Radiiyani (Tarjumin
al-balagha,
Istanbul, 1949, 85-7).
But
al-Suyiiti,
loath to omit
any
of the
received
tradition,
also included
laff wa-nashr
in his
Itqdn
(II,
106-7).
His
definition of the
figure,
which unlike
tafsir
he included under
badi', follows that
derived from al-Zamakhshari and elaborated
by
the scholastics. His seven
examples
include three of the four for which the latter had
employed
the term
laff
(i.e. Qur'in
xxvIII,
73, xxx, 23,
II,
111, but not
II,
185)
and four others for
which al-Zamakhshari did not use
laff,
but which can be made to fit the
scholastic
interpretation.
Summing up,
we could describe the results of our
investigation
in the
following
manner: the name
laff
wa-nasr
was the
product
of an elaboration
by
the schoolmen of an
originally exegetic term;
the content of the
figure
included material extracted from the tradition of
profane rhetoric; rejection
of the Qur'anic
shawdhid by post-scholastic
theorists
produced
a
figure
which
retained its
exegetic
name but which consisted of one variation of the
profane
figure,
described
(by
the
scholastics)
as
mufassal
murattab.
Interpreted thus,
the
equivalence laff wa-nashr
:
versus
rapportati
is valid. Like the Oriental
figure,
the
European
one
was, too,
a later refinement of a
simple syntactical
variation: in Classical rhetoric
hyperbaton,
under which had been
originally
subsumed both tmesis
(separation)
and subnexio
(gloss).27
In both traditions
badi'/ornatus emerged triumphant.
26
Mehren, op. cit., 135, includes tafsir al-khafi (illustrated by Qur'8n Lxx, 19-21) among the
conceptual figures
which he added to those
provided by al-Qazwini.
27 H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, Miinchen, 1960, 357-9, 428-9.
VOL. XXXI. PART 3.
33