arabic rhetoric and quranic exegesis (articulo)

7/27/2019 Arabic Rhetoric and Quranic Exegesis (Articulo)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arabic-rhetoric-and-quranic-exegesis-articulo 1/18

Arabic Rhetoric and Qur'anic Exegesis

Author(s): John WansbroughReviewed work(s):Source: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 31,No. 3 (1968), pp. 469-485Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/614300 .

Accessed: 08/08/2012 18:03

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 [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=soas

http://www.jstor.org/stable/614300?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/614300?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=soas

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup



ARABIC RHETORIC AND QUR'ANIC EXEGESIS

By JOHNWANSBROUGH

The evolution of technical terms in the Arabic science of rhetoric illustrates

remarkablyits gradualadaptation to the exigencies of scriptural interpretation.Proliferation of rhetorical figures in the writings of the late medieval scholiasts

appearsto be a consequencenot so much of concernfor stylistic embellishment

as of preoccupationwith the meaning of the Qur'an. In many of these figuresa 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 profanefunction of a rhetorical figure was abandoned, or at least relegated to an

inferiorposition, in favour of its applicationto Qur'anicexegesis. An illustration

of this processis provided by the figurecalled madhhabkalami,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'anby the later schoolmen.

While the result of this metamorphosisbecame firmly established in the treat-

ment of badi'by al-Qazwini(d. 738/1338) and his successors,2 t is in the earlierwork 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 presencein the Qur'an of

madhhabkalami, the Holy Book was in fact full of it; and his examples fit

perfectly the scholastic interpretation of the figure.3A 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 interpretersof the same shawshid, has been taken into account

in a recent analysis of the tawriya and istikhdam.4 Such uncritical practiceenabled mufassirin to select only those elements of a given rhetorical definition

which could be pressed into the service of their own cause, to disregardother

possibly refractory but equally important elements, and so eventually to

producewhat was practically a new figure. This procedureis, 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 originalname of the figurein question was retained, as was

so for madhhabkalam;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 laffwa-nashr,which I proposeto 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 bya development in technical terminology that rendered the original name of the

figure ambiguousand eventually obsolete.

An historical analogy may be of some value here. The madhhabkalam5

corresponds, at opposite ends of its evolution, to two separate but related

elements in the traditionof Europeanrhetoric : the conceit and the enthymeme.5Similarly, laff wa-nashr ncorporatesboth the mannerist figureversusrapportatiand 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

Mannerismas a speciesof ornatuswas derived from the recognitionof 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 Theparallelbetween this phenomenonand the Arabicpracticealluded

to above can be carried even further: the differencebetweenapplyingthe canonsof Classicalrhetoric to scriptureand regardingscriptureas 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'tazzon 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 madhhabkalami, the complex history of the rhetorical figure

generally known as laff wa-nashr ound its resolution in the writings of the late

medieval scholiasts. Because this resolution conceals two separate lines ofdevelopment it will be easier in the following description to deal separatelywith the relevant shawchid: first, with those belonging properlyto 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 inArabic 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 nvariably 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 IjHayyiisd. 473/1080) and the second anony-

mous, appear respectively in al-Khatib al-Qazwini (d. 738/1338), Talkhisal-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 classificationdeveloped by al-Qazwini these two examplesillustrate subdivisions of the kind of laffwa-nashrcalled mufassal (' separated ').sIn the first the cross-references n 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), nd reconstructionof the elements would provide :

(laff) shamsun-asadun-bahrun/(nashr) baha'an--shujd'atan--jldJ. In neitherof 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 primarilyconcerned with profane examples of the figure,drew uponthese 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-nashrmustbe grammatically isolated (mutlaq) so that disorder (gihairtartib) might not

producesemantic ambiguity; and Dasiiqi's insistence, in his supercommentary

(Shurih al-Talkhihs,oc. cit.) to the same verse, on the employment of tamy'z,in order to avoid a possibly ambiguous relative construction. The pertinenceof 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

.Hayyfisappears in the writings of other rhetoricians,with each of whom a differenceofemphasis 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 descriptionofa figureentitled tayywa-nas4r(pp. 81-5).This slight variation is apparently without significance,since the authoradopted

s See A. F. Mehren, Die Rhetorik der Araber, Kopenhagen, Wien, 1853, 108.



472 JOHNWANSBROUGH

both the definitionand the subdivisions of the figuredevised 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 andordered'). 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'sbasic criteria in judging a successful laffwa-nas.rppearto be two : the greatest numberof reference-elements n 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 suggeststhat the limits of this figurehad not yet been clearly defined,since the exampleof non-conformity adduced by the author and ascribed to the qdd~i bn

al-B~rizI (p. 83) belongs more properly to the category of simile (tashbih).As two pleasing examples of laff wa-nashrIbn H.ijjaoffers 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 nothingunder 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-Dinal-H.illi,. 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-Qazwiniand al-Taftazani cited above, is a perfect illustration

of what is commonly understood by laff wa-nashr n Arabic literature. In this

form the figure correspondsto the versusrapportatiof late Greek, Latin, andEuropean baroque poetry, e.g.'o

Pastor aratorequesPavi colui superavi

Caprasrus hostes

Frondeligonemanu

or : Die Sonn, derPfeil, der Wind

Verbrennt, erwundt,weht hin

Mit Feuer, Scharfe,Sturm

Mein Augen, Herze,Sinn

B The badi'rya to which IbnII.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.

o10The 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 figurewas common in medieval Persian poetry, e.g."

but there, according to Shams-i Qays (d. 627/1230), the figure was called not

laff wa-nashrbut tabyinu-tafsir. That the two figuresare identical is clearfrom

the examples assembled by Biichner, who, however, encountered the same

difficulties in defining the figure that we have seen in the work of IbnH.ijja.ace 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 thisrequirementis not fulfilled the figurebecomes another, called in Arabic rhetoric

Cam'wa-tafriq.1'2Further, 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, appearsto rule out enjambment and where this occurs,prefersto classifythe 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.ayyfiswith 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 laffwa-nashr,uses it to illustrate a

figure called tafsir. This he definesas the addition of an explicative to a theme

(ma'na)requiringone, but without subtracting from or adding to the qualities

(ahwail) nherent there, a definition which presupposesa reader well versed in

the lexicon of ClassicalArabic.'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.ijjacited 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 oraudiences is a very special problem in the case of the tawriya, cf. Bonebakker, op. cit., 10, 21, 42.



474 JOHNWANSBROUGH

al-'Askari's examples do conform to his definition, here not of laff wa-nashr,

but of tafsir. For most of his material al-'Askaridraws 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-'Askariand his first example is one which was retained by literarytheorists for centuries, up to and including al-Qazwini (d. 738/1338). Before

examining the problems provoked by the retention of shawahidfor apparentlydissimilar 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 figureis 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?iha-al-Talkhis).A sign of increasingstringency in defining

the figure is evident in the observation about the verse from al-Farazdaqmade

by one of Qudama'ssuccessors. In his Kitib al-'umda(Cairo,1374/1955, IX,35)

Ibn Rashiq (d. 456/1064) declares that the order of reference-elementshas 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 aboutthe 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'spreoccupation with enjambment (tadmin)was later taken up by

Ibn H.ijjaand, with reference to Persian, by Shams-i Qays, but did not affect




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 secondexample 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 thunderboltsand rain, when joined in a

mountainous cloud' (op. cit., II, 38, ascribedto al-Buhturi, d. 284/897).

Ibn Rashiq observes that the origin of this construction was to be found in

Qur'anxIII, 12--Huwa 'lladhl yurskumu'l-barqakhawfanwa-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, generallyaccepted, 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 referenceto a single antecedent, he offeredan 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 Qudamain 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 prudencebridled with prudence,and onefor recklessnesssaddled with recklessness/ For whoeverwishes me upright I am

upright, and whoever wishes me devious I am devious' (op. cit., 74, ascriptionuncertain; cf. I'jaz al-qur'aSn,. 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 conformingto Qudima's definition of tafsTir,would appear to disqualifythis example for use in illustration of the former. By means of anotherexample,

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-centurydocument,34) ; and Ibn Qutaiba, 'Uyiin al-abiisr, Cairo, 1925, I, 289.



476 JOHNWANSBROUGH

however, Qudamaelucidates a primaryrule of formulation for tafsir, which did

assume importance for later theorists concernedwith 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, brightnessand 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

correspondencethere between the first antithesis (zrulami--dfiyd'an)nd thesecond

(bagxhyunmin al-'id--bahran min al-nada);and adds that in the

second antithesis one might substitute for the first component something like

'adamorfaqr, or for the second component something in the order of nusra or

'isma or wazar,and so achieve the properbalance.

Now, in addition to al-Marzubaniand 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 n 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-fcasa•haCairo, 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) labelleda

sub-category of tctandsub' symmetry '/' harmony ') 17 he writes: 'And also

part of harmony is the orderedreference of one expression to another so that

that which refers back to the beginningcomes at the beginningand (that which

refersback) to the end comes at the end. And there is an example of this from

al-Sharifal-Radi (d. 406/1016) :

(" My heart and my eye are yours, the one (as) in summer heat, the other (as)

in springgardens"). And the "eye "precedes [sic]. Similar to this is the verseof 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 ". Andexamples of this are numerous'. AI-Khafaji does not employ the term laff

wa-nashlr,hough 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.




least closely related to that one.'8 The first example, despite the puzzlingcomment wa 'l-tarf muqaddim,conforms more to the later convention than does

the second example. But vagueness at this period, when laf wa-nashrhad notyet been finally separated from tafs;ir,is not surprising. In the scholastic

handbooks of rhetoric finer distinctions were made, by which al-Khafaji'sexamples would belong respectively to taqs~im nd to tafrgq.'9 Now these

figuresand their permutationsare all closely related and differencesdepend, as

faras I can see, upon the degreeof hypotaxis employed,which in practicemeant

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 nearlyidentical to that used by them. Indeed, they drew upon a common source, as

will be shown. Al-Nuwairi (loc. cit.) begins with laff wa-nashrwhich he defines

as mention of two or more items followed by an explanation of each, either

preservingthe same arrangementor not preservingit, but in either case relyingupon the hearer/reader to refer back each explanation (tafsir) to its properantecedent (thiqatan bi-anna 'l-sami'a yaruddu kulla shay'in ild

maud.i'hiawd'an taqaddacmaw ta'akhkhara). To illustrate this the author introduces

the traditionalline fromIbn H.ayyils(seeabove, p. 471), as well as the following :

'Are you not he at whose favour's flower and bounty's watering-place I pluckand dip ? ' (op. cit., vii, 129, anonymous).

The same example was used by Ibn Hijja (Khizanat al-adab, 81, s.v. tayywa-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-nashrand consists of providing an expression which the poet imagines requires such

with an appropriateexplanation (wa-huwaan yadhkura afzanwa-yatawahhamaannahu

yuht.ijuilU baydnihifa-yu'iduhu ma'a 'l-tafsir). In addition to several

examples borrowedfrom Qudama, includingfasad 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 JOHNWANSBROUGH

'Ask about him, speak to him, and look at him, you will get an earful, amouthful,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 writerswho chose to discuss both. With regardto

the lines from al-Farazdaq cited by so many of our authors, al-Nuwairi, whouses them to illustrate tafsir, remarks that ' the condition of laff wa-nashrhas

not been observed' (lakinnahulam yura' sharta'l-laJi wa 'l-nashri). One can

only suppose that he has adopted the objection earliervoiced by Ibn Rashiq tothe same lines (see above, p. 474), but this would appear to make nonsense of

his observationwith regardto laf wa-nashr hat the hearer/readerwas expected

to make the correct cross-referencesbetween 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 turningto 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-nashrappear togetherin 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'iqal-shi'r, Tehran, 1341/1923, 70).20

It was, indeed, at this time that the figuregained currencyin 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'sfirst example of laff wa-nashr s Qur'anxxviiI, 73 :

'And of His mercy He has given you night and day, that you may rest thereinand that you may seek of His grace '.

This is one of the two key shawahidemployed by scholastics to illustrate laffwa-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'anicexample in his detailed treatment of the figure. Because

it is unlikely, though of coursenot impossible,that al-Nuwairitook this example

from al-'Askari, we must turn to the Vorlageof 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-nashrwith Qur'anxxvIII, 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.




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/readerto refer back each of them to that towhich it belongs' (wa-hiya an taluffacbaina shay'aini fi 'l-dhikr thumma

tutbi'uhumJ kalaman mushtamilan 'ald muta'alliqin bi-whidin wa-bi-akhara

mringhairi ta'yinin thiqatanbi-anna 'l-sami'a yaruddukullan minhuma ila ma

huwa lahu). While parts of this definition were, as we have seen, employed byal-Nuwairl, he omitted at least one significant element (min ghairi ta'yinin),which probably accounts for his failure to distinguish satisfactorily between

laff wa-nashrand tafs'ir. Of such elementary oversights as this al-Qazwiniand

his successorscannot be accused. The consequencesof their investigating and

exploiting every implication of al-Sakkaki's definition of laff wa-nashr weretwo: elaboration of a systematic typology of the figure, and concentration

upon Qur'anicexamples of it.

We have seen (above, p. 475) the introduction by Ibn Rashiqof a Qur'anic

verse into his discussion of tafszrto explain the origin of a particularconstruc-tion. For the scholastics the Qur'an was the foundation for their entire

interpretation of laff wa-nashr. The system of classification elaborated byal-Qazwini and followed by his successors is this

(Talkh.sal-miftah, in Shurilh

al-Talk.his,

Iv, 329-35) : the figuremay 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' (mukhtalator mushawwash).21These 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 typeA.1 (mufassal murattab)was Qur'anxxvii, 73. It will be useful to recall that

although this example was employed by al-'Askari (d. 395/1005) to illustrate

tafszr, t was first related to laffwa-nashr n the workof 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 haveused that name for his sub-category of tandsub. Thus, the name of the figureand 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. madhhabkalami) the

former did not hesitate to depart from his Vorlage. The name laff wa-nasrbecame 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 (inShurih 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 ofdesignation ('adam al-ta'yin) and the second, completion of the laff before

beginning the nashr (ta'khiral-nashr 'an al-laff). While the meaning of thelatter 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-categoriesof mufassal was sometimes two rather than three.



480 JOHNWANSBROUGH

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'anxxviiI, 73, or semantic, likethe 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' (ascribedto Ibn al-Ruimi,d. 293/889).22

Al-Subki's objection to al-dkhiriypt,which he translates 'the last(-named ofthe three elements of the laff: Jrd'ukumwa-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 remarksfurther 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 nashrcould be related to any

one of those in the laff. Al-Subki concludes by observing that if the lines from

Ibn al-Rfilmican be called laff wa-nashr,then they must be not of type A

(mufassal)but of type B (mujmal). But beforeturningto the problemsprovoked

by type B, it must be recordedthat al-Subki does in fact accept Qur'anxxviI,73 as a valid example of type A. In so doing, however, he refers to a similar

Qur'anicconstruction, 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-nashras close

as possible to the examples of the profane tradition which, we have seen,

depend upon extended parataxis. A1-Subki'sacceptance of the verse from

IbnH.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.




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 hisacceptance of Qur'an xxvIII, 73 (since li-tabtagih~is a finite verb form). Butthe real significance of al-Zamakhshari'sappearance in this argumentation isthe employment in his exposition of Qur'anxxx, 23 of the term laff. It appearsagain in his interpretation of Qur'an xxviii, 73 (al-Kashshlf, 1064), where,however,there is no mentionof the ambiguous'&'id fihi'. Now, al-Zamakhshari

wrote nearly a century beforeal-Sakkaki, who first used the term laff wa-nashr.Since the latter's only example of the figurewas Qur'anxxvIII, 73, it seems notunreasonableto conclude that the figureowes its birth to exegetic speculation.

This hypothesis is strengthenedby examination of the scholastic discussionsabout the second type of laff wa-nashr,called mujmal (' composite '). For thisthe invariable locusprobansis Qur'an II, 111:

'And they said: none shall enter heaven except those who are Jews orChristians'.

Al-Qazwini's exposition is, as usual, straightforward if uncritical (Talkhisal-miftih, Iv, 333) : qgli is to be understoodsimply as qalati 'l-yahid wa-qglati

'l-nasJrd. Since al-Sakkaki mentioned neither mujmal nor Qur'anII, 111, wemay turn at once to al-Zamakhshari op. cit., 97). Here qaEl is interpretedqglat wa-qdlat, o which is appendedthe observation : ' And the two utterancesare wrapped up, relying on the hearer/reader to refer back to each of the

parties its utterance' (fa-laffa baina 'l-qawlaini thiqatctani-anna 'l-sdmi'a

yarudduild kullifariqqinqawlahu). And here we are confrontedwith 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 beuseful to describe briefly the vicissitudes of Qur'an II, 111 at the hands of the

scholastics. Their arguments reveal considerable discomfort at making arhetoricalfigureout of a troublesomebut very commonphenomenon of ClassicalArabic: the ambiguous

damrn.Al-Subki (op. cit., Iv, 333-4), who incidentally

introduces fresh confusioninto the development of technical terms by equatingmujmalwith mushawwashand cf. above, p. 479, n. 21), accepts al-Zamakhshari's

interpretation of qali and mentions Qur'anII, 135 as providing an analogy.23But he continues by suggesting that aw may here be equivalent to wa, in which

23 i.e. wa-q2lbkL•ni

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

'al5shai'in

wa-qdlati 'l-nagar& laisati 'l-yahidu 'alj shai'in, though he does mention II, 135 at this point(op. cit., 97).



482 JOHNWANSBROUGH

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 anexposition is permitted by the grammar of the sentence but not by common

sense. The point of the damirmust 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,v, 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 isuncertain since, as we have noted, the latter does not mention mujmal) and

al-Zamakhshari(al-Kashshsf,

127-8) on Qur'anII, 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'anII, 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 ambiguouspronoun. 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 Mawahibal-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 disqualifiesthe verse.

Now, while the concept and terminology of al-Zamakhshariare 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'anicpassage makes the idea of derivation a tempting one. Ibn Rashiq'sapparent aim was to illustrate the use of multiple references to a single

antecedent, producinga figurewhich 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'YnxxvIII, 73 is based upon his recognition that it belongs

properlyto taqsim(op. cit., Iv, 329). Ijmal is thus an exegetic figuredevised to

explain Qur'anic ambiguities, and has no proper part in the figure known as

laffwa-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-nashrknown as mufassal murattaband with

examples of this from the authors of badi'iyat, offers none the less twosimilar.

examples of ijml, of which one is the following :




'The rain came and my needs with regard to it were sevenfold as the dropsbarred us from our affairs/ Shelter and purse and brazier and cup of pleasurewith roasted meat, and tender flesh and covering' (ascribed to Ibn Sukkara,d. 385/995).

Though related to one of the figures derived fromjam'/tafriq/taqsim (Mehren,

op. cit., 108-11), this example is clearly not laff wa-nashror at least no closer

to it than was Ibn Rashiq'svariety of tafsir. Ibn IHijjadid, 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 persuadedof their relation to the mufassal murattab.

It will have become clear that, in my opinion at least, ijma~l, r propositionsof the type al-zaidani q&'imunwa-qd'idun,although they were the occasion for

which the term laff wa-nashrwas 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 oflaff

and nashr beexplicitly designated

?

'Adamal-ta'yin would appearto mean that there may be no explicit designationat all, and it could be argued that the very ambiguity offihi in Qur'anxxvIII,73 is sufficientdemonstration of 'adamal-ta'yin (thus, al-Taftazani, Mukhtasar,

Iv, 329-30). Al-Maghribion 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 pointnone the less : the formal link (qar;ina

lafz.ya)is in this propositionthe 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) s this:

'I met a friend and an enemy, and so I honouredand despised'.

The example is mufassal and the link semantic, and again there is no cause for

ambiguity. Moreover,both examples are paratactic. Oneis inclined to believe

that had these statements included subject or object pronouns (which they



484 JOHNWANSBROUGH

well might), these would have been interpreted as performingthe function of

'Y'idand thus making the designation explicit. The argument is subtle but

perhaps not entirely sound. It is, however, corroboratedby the presence inthis particularwork (as in most of the scholasticrhetoricaltreatises) of examplesof 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 shawdhidreflectsnot only confusion about the distinction between a rhetoricalfigureand

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 achapter to the figure, of which Qur'anIv, 66 is a characteristic example :

'And had We decreed that you lay down your lives or leave your homes, onlya few of them would have done so'.

Here the subordinate (imperative)clause is defined as tafsir.24 The same authordoes not discuss laff wa-nashrbut 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 s a question I am unable to answer. Al-Suyfiti (d. 911/1505),

too, includes tafs;irn 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'ancxII, 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 '.




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

tafszral-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-Zamakhshariand 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-Zamakhsharidid 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-nasrwas the product of an elaboration

by the schoolmen of an originally exegetic term; the content of the figureincluded material extracted from the tradition of profane rhetoric; rejectionof the Qur'anicshawdhidby 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 syntacticalvariation: in Classical rhetoric hyperbaton,under which had been originallysubsumed both tmesis (separation) and subnexio (gloss).27 In both traditions

badi'/ornatusemergedtriumphant.

26Mehren, 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

arabic rhetoric and quranic exegesis (articulo)

Documents