From the death of the author to the birth of the reader: situating reception theory in western literary criticism
From the death of the author to the birth of the reader: situating reception theory in western literary criticism
Dr. Mansour Al-Harthy, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
In Western tradition, literary text has typically been interpreted
using any one of a number of approaches drawn from such disciplines as linguistics, psychology, sociology, and history, all of which relate to the author as an
individual. Each one of these
approaches claims to reveal a specific aspect of the human experience and conceives of the author as being the
creator of a text which reflects his/her own
unique experience. In these approaches, the author is considered to be more important than the text,
and even less attention is paid to
the concept of the reader.
In his now famous essay, which announced “The Death of the Author”,
French literary critic and theorist
Roland Barthes noted the extent to which the author has tended to be viewed as being of key importance in literary
studies, dominating even the literary text itself:
The author still reigns in histories of literature, biographies of writers, interviews, magazines, as in the very
consciousness of men of letters anxious to unite their person
and their work through diaries
and memoirs. (1977: 143)
Originally published in the late 1960s, Barthes’ essay reflects the
shift in critical approaches to
literary texts which had taken place over the course of the twentieth century including the emergence of
so-called New Criticism in the West. This new
critical understanding redefined the concepts of author and reader, and
even of text itself. The author’s
claims to influence and ultimate authority over the text as its sole creator
were challenged. As the reign of the author came to an end, the text was liberated and granted autonomous
status. Freeing the text in this way also opened it up to various methods of interpretation and shifted emphasis to
the role of the reader as receiver of the text.
This paper will focus on those disciplines, movements, schools and
theories that made a major
contribution to producing this revolution in critical thinking about literary
texts which was to have a significant impact on the establishment of Reception Theory, the approach which is of
central importance in this study.
1.2
Towards Reception Theory
An approach which focused primarily on the language of texts,
placing this at the primary level of critical
understanding, was particularly influential in the establishment
of movements and philosophies such as the Russian Formalists (in particular, the Prague Linguistic School),
Structuralism, and Marxist theories. These developments
are usually most closely associated with the work of Ferdinand de Saussure
whose importance is highlighted by Harris:
No one writing about Saussure today needs to take on the task of
establishing the historical importance of Saussurean ideas; for that has already been established beyond question
and many times over. Saussure’s influence, direct
and indirect, dominates the twentieth-century development of those academic
disciplines devoted to the study of language,
languages and analysis
of text. (2001: 01)
Saussure’s impact was also felt in philosophy and in the sciences (Holdcroft, 1991: 04) but his influence
is most strongly linked to linguistics and literary criticism, more specifically critical theories, such as Structuralism and Semiotics. Both of these can
be traced to ideas originally
put forward by Saussure in his lectures published
as Cours de linguistique générale [Course in General
Linguistics] (1916).
One of the best-known passages in Saussure’s work is the analogy
which he draws between language
and the game of chess, considering them both to be systems:
As the game of chess is entirely in the combination of the different
chess pieces, language is characterized
as a system based entirely on the opposition
of its concrete units. We can neither dispense with becoming acquainted
with them nor take a single step
without coming back to them; and still, delimiting them in such a delicate problem that we may wonder at first
whether they really exist. (1983: 107)
David Holdcroft explores Saussure’s use of the chess game analogy to
illustrate the importance of language as a system:
[Saussure] does not expand on this claim, but presumably what he has
in mind is the fact that to learn how
to play chess someone has to learn what the
point of the game is, what the relative weights of the pieces are, and
what their legitimate moves are.
Moreover, none of these things would seem to be determined by external exigencies or designed to achieve an
ulterior purpose; they are internal
to the game in the sense that they
depend on the nature of the game itself and nothing else. (1991: 78)
Just like the pieces in a game of chess, each unit of language has a
specific location with its own
individual role. Any change in the place of a unit also leads to a significant change in its function. Thus,
the value of each linguistic unit depends on
its position within the text, and every word in the text is important,
subject to its position in the
context. Saussure’s idea of studying language as an independent system is a development which later influenced the ideas of Structuralism, particularly when viewing language as a
number of units which form the overall vision
of the text.
This idea led Saussure to consider the units of language which made
up the text, and to conclude that:
The statement that everything in language is negative is true only
if the signified and the signifier
are considered separately, when we consider
the
sign in its totality, we have something that is positive in its own
class. A linguistic system is a series
of differences of sound combined with a series of differences of ideas; but the pairing of a certain number of
acoustical signs with as many cuts
made from the mass of thought engenders a system of values; and this system serves as the effective link between the
phonic and psychological elements
within each sign. (1983: 120)
Saussure talks of the need for a comprehensive integrated study of
both parts of the language system,
which he refers to as the signified and the signifier. Furthermore, he recognises that the relationship
between these two elements is significant. This idea created a new critical approach which views the text as a
linguistic document composed of various elements,
each having its own value. As Jonathan
Culler explains, this
approach to reading the text entailed trying to focus on the text’s meaning
based on its language as the link that connects
all of these elements, maintaining it in isolation from its
historical and social context, or as he puts it: “The link between language and mind had to be broken for a time –
and language had to be studied as an
object itself. It had to be treated, temporarily, as a system of forms with no
special relation to mind” (1976: 59).
Here Culler encourages readers
to focus solely on discovering the language itself, not as a system which builds and gathers the text units but as
the purpose of reading the text. This
approach is beneficial in the fields of pure linguistic studies. However, critical studies have been influenced by
this linguistic knowledge which contributed to the development
of the methods of literary criticism.
In his work, Saussure discusses a broad range of issues including linguistic value, the mechanism of language, the distinction between
the linguistics of language (langue) and of
speech (parole), and language as a
system of signs. It can therefore be said that many of the principles and concepts originally outlined by Saussure
at
the start of the twentieth
century, such as diachronicity and synchronicity, entity,
unit, sign (the basis of semiotics) and phoneme had a major
influence not only on Western linguistics but also on literary criticism.
1.2.2 The Russian Formalists: Viktor Shklovsky and
Roman Jakobson
Saussure’s idea of viewing literary text as a piece of language that
could be analysed using appropriate
tools was taken up by the Russian formalists who advocated the transformation of literary theory in 1917
when Viktor Shklovsky published his essay Art as Device. Along with Shklovsky, the most prominent
thinkers of Russian
Formalism are considered to be Boris Eichenbaum, Boris Tomashkevsky, Yuri Tynyanov
and Roman Jakobson who later became a member of the Prague School. 4 Formalists’ principles and their
method of interpreting literary text were crystallised in Shklovsky’s Art as
Device, which explains how to use language in a literary way by creating “defamiliarization”. 5
Shklovsky states that the purpose
of literary language “is not to make us perceive
meaning, but to create a special perception of
the object - it creates a vision of the object instead of serving as a
means for knowing it” (Lemon and Reis, 1965: 18). According to
Shklovsky, making objects unfamiliar
enables readers to see them in a new and unexpected way. Therefore defamiliarization makes the literary text
attractive to readers as it creates an element
of surprise and encourages them to search for the causes of this in the
text. The reader is then in a position to engage with
text.
For Formalists, artistic technique is not intended to deliver
meaning as much as it is to make
readers look at the familiar in a new light. Shklovsky discussed how Leo Tolstoy
employed “defamiliarization” as an artistic
technique in his writing.
After we see an object several times, we begin to recognize
it. The object is in front of us and we know it, but we do
not see it, hence we cannot say anything
significant about it. Art removes objects from the automatism of perception in several ways […] Tolstoy
makes the familiar seem strange by not
naming the familiar objects. He describes an object as if he were seeing it for the first time, an event as if it
were happening for the first time. In describing
something, he avoids the accepted names of its part and instead names corresponding parts of other objects. (ibid: 13)
Shklovsky’s essay played a crucial role in the transformation of criticism. The relationship
between the language of the text and its process of interpretation has without a doubt been changed by defamiliarization.
Defamiliarization opens the text up to the
reader rather than the author.
Russian Formalists examined the language of the literary text in
isolation from its thematic content
in order to find out how the author had constructed the text; they became fixated on examining the
arrangement of the words in the literary text. In short, their interests lay in analysing how poets and novelists wrote, not what they wrote about. As
Peretc6 has observed: “One must always bear in mind that in literary history
the object of investigation is not what the authors
are saying but how they
are saying it” (Erlich, 1965: 56). Indeed
it could be argued that the Formalists’ method reflects
the inherent relationship between theory and practice since the formation of theories is based on collecting the phenomena of a practice
and analysing them.
More specifically, this method of reading literature opened up two
new perspectives on the text: the
first highlighted the analysis of the author’s creativity in terms of his/her use of literary language, the second placed emphasis on the
reader and his/her ability to perceive the aesthetics of the
text.
With the passage of time, the idea of looking at the impact of
craftsmanship on the literary text evolved among the Russian Formalists until they began to classify language as literary or practical, the
purpose of the latter being to enable effective communication among members of a community which is generally
understood to be the core function of language. However,
there are no words that are used exclusively
in literature, words themselves being the same in both practical and literary types of language. They argued
that the differences between literary and practical
language are implicit in the types, combinations, and arrangement of words in the
text:
One might apply this fairly easily to a writer such as Gerard Manley
Hopkins, whose language is difficult
in a way which draws attention to itself as literary, but it is also easy to show that there is no intrinsically literary language. Opening Hardy’s Under the
Greenwood Tree at random, we read the exchange “How long will you
be?”’ “Not long. Do wait and talk to me.” There is absolutely no linguistic reason to regard the words as
“literary”. We read them as literary
rather than as an act of communication only because we read them in
what we take to be a literary
work. (Selden, 1997: 32)
Thus, critical schools have tended to analyse what makes literary
language literary, which features
distinguish it from other types of expression, leading some critics to focus on the form and others on meaning. Formalist
theory adopts the former position, namely that literary
language can be distinguished from non-literary language
in terms of the quality of its construction. In this respect,
Formalists considered poetry to be: “the quintessentially literary use of language: it is speech organized in its entire phonic texture.
Its most important
constructive factor is rhythm”
(ibid: 32).
At this stage, literary criticism focused on the text as language and meaning, and was
already treating the text as having a form of independence from the author. Increasingly, critical and linguistic
studies began to concentrate on the language of the text and language functions. Together with fellow
countryman, Petr Bogatyrev, Roman
Jakobson, one of the key Russian Formalists, helped to found what later became known as the Prague School of
linguistic theory in 1926. At this stage, Jakobson
began to concentrate on the functions of language through his analysis of communication as a language system and he
identified six different communication functions that are connected
to both the sender and the recipient: referential, emotive,
conative, phatic, metalingual and poetic. According to Jakobson, these functions
vary in importance, the poetic one being of key importance:
The poetic function
is not the sole function
of verbal art but only its dominant, determining function, whereas in
all other verbal activities it acts as a subsidiary, accessory
constituent. This function,
by promoting the palpability of signs, deepens
the fundamental dichotomy
of signs and objects. Hence,
when dealing with the poetic function, linguistics cannot limit itself to the field of poetry. (cited in Sebeok, 1960:
356)
Jakobson’s identification of the poetic function of language in communication between sender and receiver also proved to be another essential step in the process of shifting the focus from the author to the reader.
Jakobson also studies
the six factors he says determine the functions of language: the addresser,
message, addressee, context, code,
and contact:
The addresser sends a message to the addressee. To be operative
the message requires
a context referred to (‘referent’ in another, somewhat
ambiguous, nomenclature), graspable
by the addressee, and either verbal or capable of being verbalized; a code fully, or at least partially,
common to the addresser and
addressee (or in other words, to the encoder and decoder of the message); and, finally, a contact,
a physical channel
and psychological connection between the addresser
and the addressee, enabling both of them to enter
into and stay in communication. (ibid: 353)
Here, Jakobson develops the idea of the speaking-circuit which was
proposed by Saussure (1983: 11-13). According to this notion, the message starts from the sender’s
brain and goes into the receiver’s ear through physiological transmission. Basing his ideas on Saussure’s
speaking-circuit, Jakobson demonstrates how the message forms inside the sender’s mind, and how it then reaches
the receiver. It can therefore be
said that, this school of thought raised awareness about authors’ ability to give meaning to a text. Using elements
of linguistic communication theory, it was
possible to consider how meaning was conveyed from the author’s mind to
that of the reader. Applying this
model to understanding literary communication prompted critics to view these factors separately, in the process
creating the three major types of
emphasis which were to persist in literary criticism for several decades. One grouping
of critics focused
on the role of the author, analysing
the individual writer’s style. A second set of critics were more interested in exploring the role of the text and examining its linguistic aspects.
This group contributed to the development of structuralism and
post-structuralism. It was not until sometime later that a new critical school would emerge which finally focused on
the role of the reader, namely, Reception Theory.
1.2.3
Barthes, Eco and
the Role of the Reader
Structuralism is one of the most influential critical theories in
the history of Western literary
criticism. Like Russian Formalism, it was influenced by the development of Saussure’s and Jakobson’s ideas,
and its main interest lies in the form of the text rather than the content. As Rice and
Waugh note: “Structuralism is not
particularly interested in meaning per se, but rather in attempting to
describe and understand the conventions
and modes of signification which make it possible to mean; that is, it seeks to
discover the conditions of meaning” (1996: 22-23).
Structuralist studies contributed greatly to reducing the author’s
authority over the text, as they
viewed interpretation in terms of reading literary text as an open document. In this way, the reader is able to engage with the text through
its language. As previously noted, one of the most prominent thinkers of structuralism is Roland Barthes whose essay, entitled “The Death of the Author”
(1968), proved to be immensely influential in the development of reader-centred thinking.
Barthes notes that he is not the first to have written about the
“death of the author”, and cites the
French poet Stéphane Mallarmé as being one of the first advocates for liberating text from its author, on the grounds that the text expresses
itself through its language,
poetics and aesthetics. In his essay, Barthes argues:
It is language which speaks, not the author: to write is to reach, through
a pre-existing impersonality – never to be confused with the castrating objectivity of the realistic novelist – that point where
language alone acts, “performs,” and not “oneself”: Mallarmé’s entire poetics
consists of suppressing the author for the sake of
the writing.(1977: 143)
Here Barthes revives Mallarmé’s concept and refines it, applying
Saussure’s idea; according to which the recipient must treat
the text as a language system.
Barthes’ essay have been interpreted in at least three ways. Some critics
have equated the death of
the author with the revival of the text; others have argued that the death of the author signifies the
birth of the reader; whilst a third group maintain that Barthes’ declaration was premature and that the author is still alive and well.
The debate among Western critics
regarding the relative
importance of reader and author-centred approaches has
lingered on, despite the influence of the ideas of structuralist theorists such as Barthes and Umberto Eco. Gough
has also ironically suggested that the critic
deserves greater attention: “If there are given rules, we might decide that the critic is given a
higher importance than the author, since the
former is more industrious in exposing the structuralist truth in texts
or narratives” (1997: 230).
Barthes’ proclamation of the Death of the Author finds its parallels
in the work of German philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche who had declared “the Death of God”, in the nineteenth century. Nietzsche was
reacting against the despotism of the Church,
which obliged people to follow
rules which it had ordained, in this sense meaning the Church suppressed the role of the receiver. Therefore, in
order to give people, the right to
question the authority of the Church, there was need for a revolution in thinking. By comparing these two concepts,
the idea of the death of the
author can be redefined as the revolution against
the authority of the author and the freeing up of
the text to multiple interpretations discovered in its own contents and
poetics. Barthes elaborated on this point:
Literature7 (it would be better from now on to say writing), by refusing to assign a secret, an ultimate meaning, to
the text (and to the world as text), liberates
an activity that may be called an anti-theological activity, that is truly revolutionary since to refuse to fix
meaning is, in the end to refuse God and his hypostases - reason, science,
the law. (Barthes,
1977: 147)
This revolution gives the reader the freedom to enter into dialogue
with the literary text.
Barthes’ comments on the importance which has typically been placed
on the role of the author in various artistic fields:
The image of literature to be found in contemporary culture is
tyrannically centred on the author,
his person, his history, his tastes, his passions; criticism still consists, most of the
time, in saying that Baudelaire’s work is the failure
of the man Baudelaire, Van Gogh’s work his madness,
Tchaikovsky’s his vice: the explanation of the work is always sought in
the man who has produced it, as if,
through the more or less transparent allegory
of fiction, it was always finally the voice of one and the same person,
the author, which delivered his confidence. (ibid: 143)
For Barthes, the authority of the author does not exceed that of the
text and the author cannot defend
his/her views or purposes because he/she has become less important than the text from the point of view of the reader.
Barthes attempts to exclude the
effect of both the author and of literary history when dealing with text, aiming to detect patterns in acoustic, morphological and stylistic structures, regardless of what was written by the author. Instead, his focus
lay in answering the question of how
it was said.
A text is made of multiple writings,
drawing from many cultures and entering
into mutual relations of dialogue, parody, contestation; but there is one place where this multiplicity is
focused, and that place is the reader, not, as
was hitherto said the author. The reader is the space on which all the citations
that make up writing are inscribed, without any of them being lost; a text’s unity lies not in its origin
but in its destination. Yet, this destination
cannot any longer be personal: the reader is without history,
biography, psychology; he is
simply that someone who holds
together in a single field all the
traces of which the written text is
constituted. (ibid: 148)
Barthes viewed the reader as an empty vessel into which all the information and experiences provided by the text are
poured. Here Barthes stresses the important role of the reader
in interpreting the text as he/she wishes.
Building on the work of Saussure and Jakobson, Barthes emphasised
the primacy of the text and the need for this
to be interpreted independently by the reader, freed from the constraints that culture’s insistence on the prime importance of the author-text relationship had traditionally imposed. Gough summarises the implications of the death of the
author for literary critics in the following terms:
The text is the bearer of its meaning. It is an object in its own
right, an entity persisting over time
separately from any person and it is open to viewing and interpretation by the eyes of all and sundry, open to the
author no more than anyone else, the
same object to anyone who understands the language in which it is written.
(Gough, 1997: 230)
These ideas also influenced the work of Italian semiotician,
literary critic and writer, Umberto
Eco, who created the concept of opera
aperta or open text, in which he envisages
the reader having direct access to interpreting the text without needing to have regard for the authority
of the writer. His critical
approach is based on semiotics and he emphasises the reader’s
response to the text. Eco’s essay “The Role
of The Reader” (1979) is one of his most influential pieces of writing,
and it is here that he coins
the term “model reader”. Eco claims that:
To make his text communicative, the author has to assume that the
ensemble of codes he relies upon is
the same as that shared by his possible reader. The author has thus to foresee a model of the possible reader
(hereafter Model Reader) supposedly
able to deal interpretively with the expressions in the same way as the author deals generatively with them. (Eco, 1979: 07)
Eco thus views the text as a collaboration between the author and
the reader, with each having their
own function. The role of the author is to generate meaning and that of the reader is to interpret this
code, but he/she is free to read or respond to the text as he/she
wishes, without viewing
the author as its sole owner. As the nextsection of this paper will show the
founders of Reception Theory in German studies were greatly influenced by Eco’s
views.
1.3
Reception Theory
(Rezeptionsasthetik)
1.3.1
Hans Robert
Jauss and the Horizon of Expectation
The late 1960s and early 1970s marked the beginning
of Rezeptionsasthetik (literally,
reception aesthetics), normally known as Reception Theory. This was a product of the University of Konstanz, and
the two German academics, Hans Robert Jauss
and Wolfgang Iser, are two of the most important founding members of this theoretical school. In 1967, Jauss
delivered his inaugural lecture entitled “What is, and to what end does one study literary history?” deliberately
echoing the title of Friedrich
Schiller’s own inaugural lecture delivered May 26 1789 “What is, and to what end does one study universal
history?” In it Jauss described the impact of
history on our understanding of the present and called for a new
approach to literary studies.
There had been other attempts at discussing this topic, most notably
an article by Harald Weinrich,
entitled ‘für eine literaturgeschichte
des lesers’ (For a Literary History
of the Reader) and Iser’s lecture, “Indeterminacy and the Reader’s Response in Prose Fiction”’. In his lecture Jauss
compared Marxist and Formalist viewpoints on the interpretation of literary texts, arguing that the former are interested in looking into the
text’s meaning, whereas the latter consider form and poetics. Jauss, however,
proposed a new method of understanding a literary text, Rezeptionsasthetik, which focuses on
the text’s impact on its recipient (Selden, 1995: 319-320).
Every theory has its roots and its precursors and, in the case of
Reception Theory, Holub notes that
these include Russian formalism, Prague school structuralism, the phenomenology of Roman Ingarden,
Hans-Georg Gadamer’s hermeneutics, as well as
approaches from the sociology of literature (1984: 14).
Holub also highlights much older connections, drawing
links between Reception
Theory and ideas expressed by Aristotle concerning audience response:
Aristotle’s Poetics, by its inclusion of catharsis as a central category of aesthetic experience, may be considered the earliest
illustration of a theory in which
audience response plays a major role. In fact, the entire tradition of rhetoric and its relationship to poetic
theory can likewise be viewed as a precursor by virtue of its focus on the impact of oral and written communication on the listener or reader.
(ibid: 12) 8
Given that Arab thought in the Abbasid era was greatly influenced by
the ideas of Aristotle, this may be one of the reasons
for the emergence of the interest in audience
reception in Arabic rhetoric. This idea is explored in greater depth in Paper Three.
Jauss created the concept of the “horizon of expectation” as the
basis of Reception Theory, and he
also draws on Gadamer’s hermeneutic concept with its focus on the three acts of the hermeneutic process:
understanding, interpretation and application
(1982: 139). Moreover, the importance of
applying historical knowledge to our understanding
of the present also forms one of the most important and influential factors
in Jauss’ ideology.
Jauss links the idea of the horizon
of expectation with the process
of text interpretation. He does this by relying on the reader’s
literary knowledge and linguistic background. This relationship adds clarity to the theory
as they provide
readers
with specific principles that aid them in their interpretation of the text.
Moreover, Jauss emphasised the importance of the reader acquiring
prior knowledge regarding the literary genre being read. Selden explains Jauss’ method thus:
Jauss suggests three ways to objectify the horizon of works that are historically less sharply delineated. First, one could employ normative
standards associated with the genre. Second, one could examine the work against
other familiar works in its literary heritage
or in historical surroundings.
Finally, one can establish a horizon by distinguishing between fiction and reality, between the poetic
and practical function of language, a distinction
that is available to the reader at any historical moment. (1995: 323)
Jauss reiterates the importance of establishing the horizon of
expectation and then assessing the
aesthetic distance between the individual work and this horizon, as this is the process which allows critical
readers to make their assessment of the quality of the text (ibid: 323). This concept of “aesthetic distance”
helps to differentiate between three reader
reactions. In the first instance, the reader finds the piece of writing is composed according
to known aesthetic
standards and conforms to his/her expectations. In
this case, inherited aesthetic norms are invoked and replicated to constitute a sort of artistic tradition, and
preserve its aesthetic heritage based
on the historical value of literature. In this case the literary reception is coupled with satisfaction and even a
sense of euphoria caused by the aesthetic pleasure
which is characteristic of texts with inherited aesthetic traditions. The result
is what Barthes (1976) refers
to as the Pleasure of the Text.
In the second case, there is a conflict between a new work of
literature and the familiar and
customary horizon of expectations. This is the reason why some new works are initially found to be
unacceptable for a while. They lack a
receptive community due to their new
style and/or themes, their altered function, or their innovation in terms of genre.
For these reasons,
they seem so odd when they first appear that the audience is disappointed and gets a feeling of dissatisfaction and dysphoria;
unlike when the work lies within the recipient’s horizon of expectations. In the third case, the new aesthetic
standards of the work manage to establish
a new horizon of expectations that acquires its own artistic
credit which is dialectically related
to contemporary questions and concerns. This can happen
when there is a group
of readers with sufficient open-mindedness and intellect to accept this new horizon
and appreciate it. Thus, their horizon of expectations as well as their literary
repertoire is gradually expanded
(Ḥamīd, 2005).
In addition, Jauss’ theory opens up the study of specific literary
readings and of reading strategies and also introduces the concept of
different types of readers, including
the super-reader who “is not only equipped with the sum total of literary historical knowledge available today, but
is also capable of consciously registering every
aesthetic impression and referring it back to the text’s structure of effect” (1982: 144).
1.3.2
Wolfgang Iser and the Role of the Reader
Iser is perhaps most associated with the concept of the implied
reader and although he does not focus on this idea in The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response (1980),
this term has gained the attention of many critics and scholars. For Iser, the purpose of the implied reader
is to bridge the gap between the text and the
reader in new ways through the interactive model of reading (Selden, 1995: 330). According to his original definition, in his book the implied reader: patterns of communication in prose fiction from Bunyan
to Beckett, this concept incorporates “both
the pre-structuring of the potential meaning by the text, and the reader’s actualization of this potential
through the reading process”
(Iser, 1974: xii).
Jauss and Iser are representatives of the two branches of the Konstanz School,
the main difference between their
works being that Jauss was greatly influenced by hermeneutics, whereas Iser was more interested in the work of Polish theorist Roman Ingarden on the role of the
reader in the production of the text’s meaning.
In his work, Ingarden distinguishes four strata or layers of meaning
within a literary work:
The phonetic stratum (2) the semantic stratum (3) the stratum of
objectivities represented by purely
intentional states of things defined by the meanings of sentences, and (4) the stratum of schematized aspects by means
of which represented objectivities of the work become manifest. (1973: 12)
The literary work is thus framed by these strata and Ingarden
views the completion of these and hence the production of meaning as being the
reader’s responsibility (Selden, 1995:
298).
According to Zhonggang:
The stratum which functions as the transition to the meaning
intention is of great importance for the aesthetic
value of the work. The stratum of meanings
makes it possible for the author/poet to infuse a literary work with his intentions and for readers to infer
the meanings of the work. In addition, understanding
a sentence means actualizing the meaning intentions in that sentence.
(2006: 48)
For Iser, Ingarden’s “interactive model” of reading, in which “the
convergence of text and reader brings the literary
work into existence” served as the basis of Reception
Theory. Iser further notes that this text-reader convergence “can never be precisely pinpointed, but must always
remain virtual, as it is not to be identified
either with reality of the text or with individual disposition of the
reader” (1974: 274).
According to Iser, the reader is able to create the meaning of the literary
text by
interacting with it without
any external influences, and through a process of filling in
the gaps (Leerstelle)9
which can take several forms. At its most basic level, this process involves merely connecting various
segments in a text. Thus, a plot will break
off at one point in a novel and resume at a later time, at which point the
reader is called upon to fill in the gap by supplying
missing information about what occurred interim (Selden, 1995:
333). Here, in Iser’s
adoption of Ingarden’s notion of gap
filling, it can be seen that each reader applies what he/she knows when supplying the missing information, and in
this sense, participates with the author in the creation of meaning.
This process of gap-filling may lead to the single meaning
originally owned by the author being
transformed into multiple meanings from various sources. Ingarden observes that literary works of art
contain a great deal of indeterminacy, and argues that this lack of determinacy is not accidental as it is
necessary for the literary text (1973: 51). Iser also highlights the need for
the author to avoid filling in all the gaps in
the text:
The author of the text may, of course, exert plenty of influences on the reader’s
imagination – he has the whole
panoply of narrative techniques at his disposal – but no author worth his
salt will ever attempt to set the whole picture before
his reader’s eyes. If he does, he will quickly
lose his reader,
for it is only by activating the reader’s imagination that the author can hope to involve him and realize the intentions of his text. (1974: 282)
According to Iser’s idea of “realization”,
the interpretation of literary text is more the
reader’s responsibility than the author’s, and this understanding opens up the literary text to multiple readings and
interpretations. Iser made use of an anology to illustrate the multiplicity of readings offered by texts which contain indeterminacy:
Two people gazing at the night sky may both be looking
at the same collection of stars, but one will see the image of a plough,
and the other will make out a
dipper. The “stars” in a literary text are fixed; the lines that join them are variable. (1974: 282)
The role of the horizon of expectations is to help limit the
indeterminacy of meaning and to create a balance between
the multiplicity of interpretations. In other words,
the horizon of expectations
can be said to help prevent the chaos of
interpretation that can occur as a result of multiple
interpretations of the text.
1.1
The
Centrality of the Literary Recipient in Classical Arabic Rhetoric
1.1.1 The Emergence of the Recipient
Since Classical Arabic rhetoricians were particularly interested in
literary reception, the role played
by the recipient in the process of literary creation was of major importance to them. Given that it can be
argued that one of the main aims of rhetoric
is to ensure discourse is compatible
with context, then rhetoric is concerned
with how meaning is communicated to
listeners or readers, and the extent to which this should be pitched at their level of understanding, taking into
account both their psychological and
ideological state. The importance of the recipient is not arbitrary, and there are logical reasons for the emergence of this concept.
Firstly, when Arabic literature was being established in the period
from the pre- Islamic era until the
early second Hijrah century, there was no codification of most Arabic knowledge. Literary works, whether
poetry or prose, took the form of oral text
communicated by the composer to the listener, who received it, memorised it, and then spread it. Thus, the role of
recipients during that early period did not consist solely in appreciating the text;
for in addition, they were assigned the role of memorising and disseminating the text. This made their role
invaluable as they were the sole
medium by which the text could be kept alive and disseminated to a broader audience.
A second factor which helps to explain the importance of the
recipient in the literary process is that consumers
of Classical Arabic literature possessed
a highly developed
level of linguistic competence and a remarkable socio-historical awareness which qualified
them to understand the poet (al-shāʿir) and to pass judgements on literary compositions. In the past, Arab poets travelled to the Quraysh (the
people of Makkah) to introduce
their poems to them. They were held to
be the arbiters of poetic quality and their approval or rejection of a poet’s
work guaranteed its popular success
or failure (Al-Aṣfahānī, 1823: 112/21). For instance, al-Aṣfahānī cites the anecdote of
al-Nābighah al-Dhubyānī who was one of the most famous poets in Makkah reproducing his critical rhetorical
comments on some of Ḥassān bin Thābit’s poetry:
For [al-Dhubyānī], it was rhetorically more effective to describe
swords with the expression بالدجى يبرقن- (they sparkle in darkness) and not by الضحى في يلمعن- (they
twinkle in the midday), because guests come more often at night-time than during the day. Similarly, the expression
دما يقطرن– (dripping with blood) is
less effective than
دما يجرين– (flowing with blood), because the former denotes
“a limited number of people killed by the fighter’s
sword”, while the latter signifies “the pouring down of
blood from the large number of people killed by the
fighter’s sword”. (cited in Ḥusayn,
2006: 32)
Most of al-Nābighah’s comments reproduced here focus on the relationship
between the signifier and
signified, and examine the social meaning of the signification. This example shows how the method of rhetorical
critique during the pre-Islamic era and up
to the early second Hijrah century depended on recipient response which was based on their own cultural, linguistic
and critical background. A further piece of evidence
which suggests the extent to which the people of Makkah were noted for their linguistic abilities as recipients
of Classical Arabic compositions is that in the Qurʾān they are challenged by Allah to produce some verses
imitating Qurʾānic style.16
At the beginning
of the Islamic era, there was a growing interest in the role played
by recipients, as Classical Arabic literature itself came under new
influences. Some of these were external, such as Greek
philosophical thought, 17 but new Islamic principles
also transformed literary criticism. Poets were expected to be mindful of the moral and religious impact that their poems might exert on the minds of recipients/hearers and as a result, were expected to include some Islamic teachings
in their work which would influence recipients to become
virtuous:
There was a clear Islamic influence on the themes conveyed by
various poetic genres such as romance, eulogy and satire.
However, this influence was most marked in the
appearance of ascetic and mystical subject
matter. This was a logical response to the virtues and noble principles being spread by Islam. Muslims
dealt with each other in an
Islamic context with the Prophet Muḥammad as their role model.18 (Al- Samarrāʾī, 1977:
213)
Indeed, these new developments created closer links than had
previously existed between the poet and the audience
in the literary communication process,
which now followed Islamic
principles. The main aim of Arabic poetry during the early Islamic period was considered to be to
guide recipients towards virtue and to extol
moral values. Poets became very careful about the subjects that they
referred to, how they composed
their works and the possible meanings which might be inferred from these, in order to avoid the threat of eternal
damnation. This is clearly shown in the following quotation since according to the prophet
Muḥammad:
“Shall I tell you of the root of the matter and of its contours and
of its top?” I said: “Certainly,
Messenger of Allah.” He said: “The root of the matter is Islam, its contours are Prayers and its top is working in the
cause of Allah (Jihad).” Then he
asked: “Shall I tell you of that with which you can control of all this?” I said: “Certainly, O
Messenger of Allah.” Then he took hold of his
tongue and said: “Keep this in control.” I said: “Shall we be called to
account in respect of that which we
say?” He answered: “May your mother lose you,
will people not be thrown face down into Hell only on account of the harvest of their tongue”. (cited in Al-Muntherī, 2000: 21/4)
This inevitably led to the emergence of new forms of Arabic
literature. This new literary
strategy was reflected in Arabic rhetoric, prompting growing interest in the role of
the recipient.
1.1.2
Rhetoric and its Recipients
This interest in the importance of the role played by the recipient
of literary texts surfaces in several
places in Classical Arabic rhetoric studies and, interestingly, it makes an appearance as attempts were being
made to define aspects of Arabic rhetoric itself. For
example, al-Jāḥiẓ defines rhetoric
as:
A concise appellation of all things, revealing and unveiling their
meaning as well as reaping their
harvest, by using whatever means, since the target and goal sought by the addresser
and the listener are understanding and explanation.
Therefore, it [rhetoric] is how you elucidate meaning. (1960: 76/1)
Al-Jāḥiẓ here specifically mentions “understanding” and “explanation” in association with the
concept of rhetoric, with the
former being the goal of the addressee,
while the former is the responsibility of the addresser. However, both are in favour of the recipient:
The addresser has to establish
the nature of meaning and balance it between the receivers’ status and the nature of
the circumstances by which each rank and
each context has its own form of speech, in order to match what is said to what is meant, and to match what is meant
to the status of the audience, as stated by Bishr
bin al-Muʿtamir. (cited in Al-Jāḥiẓ, 1960:
139/1)
It is clear that Bishr envisages a significant role for the addresser in matching the text
to the recipient. Bishr bin
al-Muʿtamir, who was the author of the earliest surviving document relating
to Arabic rhetoric, said that the addresser must be aware of the circumstances of the
recipients, and then use this knowledge in the
literary text to attract
them. Therefore, rhetoricians have decided that “the
best words are the ones with a
meaning that touches the heart faster than the sounds hit the ear” (Al-Jurjānī,
1991: 140).
According to al-Tawḥīdī “rhetoric lies in what is understood by the
populace but accepted by the elite” (1988: 241/3) and he adds elsewhere that rhetoric should focus on the audience in two ways.
Firstly, he emphasises the importance of the
meaning of the text reaching
recipients using sophisticated stylistic devices. Secondly, in order to achieve
compatibility of discourse with context, rhetoricians must think about different
types of recipients, such as the “populace” and the
“elite”,
taking
into account their
individual circumstances.
In Classical Arabic criticism there is evidence of great interest in
the role of the recipient. Al-Jurjānī emphasises the need to
engage recipients emotionally:
It is accepted that the point is to provoke a sense of wonder in the
listener at something he has never
seen. This amazement is not complete
unless the speaker is daring, like
someone who does not care about being rejected but forces others willingly or unwillingly, to picture another sun
rising from where the sun sets and their meeting
together; the place where the first sun set becomes
the place from whence the second rises. This kind of analogy usually seeks to amaze. It requires both art and
craft in order to produce this unique appeal.
Do you not see that the metaphor in
his saying “a sun to shade me from the glare of the sun” is rather
different from the metaphor in “they
never witness two suns” despite
the fact that both poets are declaring something that is uncommon and
unconventional. (Al-Jurjānī, 1991: 92)
Al-Jurjānī focuses on provoking the amazement of the recipient as
one of the most important aims of
Arabic rhetoric. There are two techniques involved in creating this sense
of wonder. Firstly,
making things strange:
this sense of strangeness is important
in order to attract an addressee to a literary composition. Thus, the literary text relies on defamiliarisation in its
structure, which makes it attractive to the recipient.19 This notion does not mean that
literary meanings should be ambiguous and
difficult for the recipient to understand, as its significance should be clear.
This clarity of meaning is required for the text to be understood in the recipient’s mind, so that it becomes
as appealing as possible. Secondly,
this inovolves using an elevated form of language to appeal to
the listener, and presenting a carefully crafted idea. al-Jurjānī claims that if the nature of things is not clearly described
and revealed, but referred to obliquely
by the addresser, this more subtle approach produces
a greater emphasis (1992: 306).
Al-ʿAskarī also focuses on the importance of using a particular type
of language when addressing
recipients. He argues that words which are easy to pronounce and crystal-clear in meaning are ordinary and
doomed to be rejected. The beauty of art is
believed to lie in the illusion that stimulates the mind and enriches
the emotions with timeless
experiences, as well as always being perceived as a coherent whole (1952: 79). This means that language has an important
role to play in the poetics of literary text
and, to a certain extent, in the creation of meaning. This issue of al-Lafẓ wa al- Maʿnā (word
versus meaning) became a key debate
in Classical Arabic criticism.
However, choosing attractive meanings also has an important role in
the production of a literary
sentence, so the poet should employ words accurately.ʿAṣfūr (1991) asserts
that a poem is a metaphorical composition which produces poetic effects. When denotation is detected by recipients,
they are forced to contemplate this and be
affected by its connotations, carrying sensory streams referring to
denotations and implicit signs, incorporating multiple meanings.
There is also evidence of interest in the role of the
recipient when Classical critics discuss
how the author maintains the attention of the recipient. Thus, ibn Ṭabāṭabā observes:
“The bard diligently develops the exordium,
heuristics, and then the conclusion, for they function as poetic
means by which pathos and attentiveness are evoked” (2010: 25).
Finally, Classical Arabic critics paid great attention to the
ability of recipients to interpret literary
text. Sophisticated literary language
is:
Like pearls in shells; you must open the shells. Those shells, like
every very precious item, must be gently opened.
Not every intellect
is granted the opportunity
to reveal the content, nor is access granted to every thought. Not everyone
succeeds in opening the shell; those who do succeed
are possessors of knowledge.
(Al-Jurjānī, 1991: 128)
A skilled recipient considers the contextual expressions, analyses
the text and pays close attention to
its stylistics in order to comprehend them. The careful recipient, therefore, has to grasp the value and
aesthetics of a text, which requires a very knowledgeable recipient
with refined tastes and a natural talent.
Ibn Ṭabāṭabā determines a criterion for poetry which is based on the judgment of the knowledgeable recipients, who have the capability to judge the poem by their critical
skills:
The proof of a poem’s quality is determined by the expert recipient.
If it is approved and accepted then it is well-crafted. If it is not approved
and rejected, then it is not. This proof is based on the recipient’s ability to distinguish between acceptable and
unacceptable poetry, to approve or reject it on this basis. (2010: 20)
This judgment of the quality of Classical Arabic poetry was based on
the criteria set by the concept of ʿamūd al-shiʿr.20 Al-Jurjānī expresses this
idea in the following terms: “each
word approved and term sought should result in a logical rationale and an accepted cause. In addition, an
approach to the sentence and authentic evidence for our thoughts should be provided.” (1992: 41)
Thus, Classical Arabic rhetoric restricted
the freedom of poetic discourse by applying certain standards and criteria which became
an important element of the expert recipient’s expectations.
1.2
Conceptualising
Literary Reception in Classical Arabic Rhetoric: From Pre-Islamic
to Abbasid Literature
Strategies for reading
Classical Arabic literature changed
many times in line with the political, religious and social
changes occurring in Arab society. This section traces the development of literary reception in Arabic rhetoric
by exploring how recipients responded
to Classical Arabic literary texts and the reading strategies they employed. It is important to note that
just two literary genres were recognised at that time: poetry and oration (khaṭābah). Since mapping the concept of literary
reception in Classical Arabic
rhetoric is a vast subject, four key issues have been chosen for in-depth
examination.
The first of these relates to how recipients responded to literary
text before the appearance of
critical methods. The second examines the method of literary text reception using the work of Classical
Arabic linguists. The third considers the work
of al-Jāḥiẓ, the founder of literary reception
and Arabic rhetoric
(al-Bayān al- 'Arabī), and the impact of his method on Arab
critics, studying his rhetorical method and
focusing on how he interpreted the literary text in terms of its poetic
function. The fourth focuses on the
rhetorical ideas of one of the most important literary scholars of the period, ʿAbdulqāhir al-Jurjānī. Building on the
work of al-Jāḥiẓ, he established the
foundations of Arabic rhetoric, influencing subsequent schools of thought concerning literary reception. It is thus possible to determine three
stages in the evolution of the
concept of literary reception in Classical Arab culture, namely, non-theoretical literary reception,
linguistic reception, and rhetorical reception.
In the pre-Islamic era and
early Islamic era, prior to the
appearance of critical methods, there
was no theory of literary
reception, meaning that recipients judged
work on the basis of their own criteria, without following any
specific approach. Although there was
no critical method in the pre-Islamic period, this was one of the most important periods of Arabic
literature. This was mainly due to the people’s reverence for poetry, and to the fact that poetry recounted Arab
history and served as a repository
of their knowledge and aphorisms (Khaldūn,
1377: 651). Ibn Sallām states
that “poetry in the pre-Islamic era was the register of the people’s learning
and the final word of their wisdom (muntahā ḥukmihim) which they adopted
and followed” (cited in Beeston, 1983: 27). Moreover, ʿUmar
ibn al-Khaṭṭāb stated: “There is no
Arab knowledge except for poetry” and in a missive to Abū Mūsā al- Ashʿarī, he advises him to “ask people
around about you to learn poetry because, it
guides them to high morals, wisdom and knowledge of Arab heritage” (cited in Al-
Qayrawānī, 1972:
10/1).
1.2.1
Pre-Islamic era
Arabs in the pre-Islamic era were more interested in poetry than any
other literary form and poets were greatly honoured.
According to al-Qayrawānī:
When there appeared
a poet in a family of the Arabs, the other tribes roundabout
would gather together to that family and wish them joy of their good luck. Feasts would be got ready, the
women of the tribe would join together
in bands, playing upon lutes, as they were wont to do at bridals, and the men and boys would congratulate one another; for a poet was a defence to the honour of them all, a weapon to
ward off insult from their good name, and
a means of perpetuating their glorious deeds and of establishing their fame forever.
(cited in Lyall,
1930: 17)
In this passage, al-Qayrawānī shows the great stature that was
accorded to poets during that
historical period. A poet was able to raise the status of his tribe by praising
it whilst at the same time denigrating another tribe by satirising it. In
addition, poetry played a significant role in warfare amongst Arab tribes since
poets spurred on combatants to defend
their tribe and satirised their enemies.
The general consensus amongst critics is that that there was no
critical doctrine during this
historical period. Ḍayf claims that Classical Arabic criticism did not begin to develop until the end of the
Umayyad period and that the criticism became
more sophisticated in the Abbasid period, particularly when Arabic
linguists started to study literary
texts. In addition, Ḍayf confirms that Classical Arabic criticism in general
was interested only in the individual issues in the pre-Islamic poetry.
Moreover, Arab recipients did not study the poem (qaṣīdah) as a whole unit
but studied each verse (bayt)
individually (1962: 30-31).
However, some modern day critics deny the existence of any critical
comments at that time. For instance,
ʿAllām claims that since recipients in the pre-Islamic era were illiterate and simply listened to
poetry being performed, they were not able to
distinguish between al-lafẓ wa al-maʿnā (word and meaning).21 ʿAllām notes that “if we had asked a poet in the
pre-Islamic era of what was the most attractive feature of a poem, the words or its meaning, he would not have been
able to understand you; for one
simple reason; he did not distinguish between them” (1979: 32). According to ʿAllām, neither poets nor those who
listened to their poetry in the pre-Islamic period
had the ability to make critical judgments which casts doubt on the validity of these
claims concerning critical
awareness.
Al-Qaṣṣāb notes that by the end of the pre-Islamic era, composing poetry
was a craft, and poets were expected to study and work hard at
becoming bards (2011: 14). Given that poetry in the pre-Islamic
period was of an exceptionally high quality, it seems unlikely that it could have been produced by poets who lacked any sense of
the literary. Ḍayf argues that “the poets in the pre-Islamic period
were interested in choosing the best
words, meanings and imagery. And they were making critical judgments which are undoubtedly the basis
of Arabic rhetoric” (1965: 13). This suggests that a pre-Islamic literary
reception movement evolved in parallel with the development of poetry,
and that the high quality
of poetry was produced by interaction between poets and their recipients.
However, modern Arabic criticism has paid scant attention to this
critical heritage of the
pre-Islamic period for two main reasons. Firstly, since discourse relating
literary reception at that time was
unwritten, none of this has survived, unlike poetic texts which were more easily memorised, disseminated
and eventually recorded in written form. The long gap between the pre-Islamic
period and the period of codification of Arabic
in the second century AH caused the loss of so much of the heritage of Classical
Arabic criticism. Secondly,
in the Islamic era, “the great majority
of Muslims had no sympathy
whatever with the ancient poetry, which represented in their eyes the unregenerate spirit of heathendom. They wanted
nothing beyond the Koran and the
Ḥadīth.” (Nicholson, 1914: 132)
However, traces of literary reception
in the pre-Islamic era do still remain
and can be found in three key forms, namely riwāyah, poetry fairs and the development of the poetic genre known
as qaṣīdah.
1.3.1.1
Riwāyah (Transmitting)
The first form of these can be found in the interaction between the poet and the rāwī
(transmitter):
The Arab poet was not a narrator. He was a master of brevity, a
magician of rhythm and words. His
transmitter or rāwī would act as a
commentator to supply detail and the
necessary background. Having already reached the hearts of his listeners
through the effect of his verses, he left the elucidation of their
meaning to be dealt with by his transmitter. Hence, from ancient
time, Arabic poetry needed its commentators-cum-transmitters. (Beeston,
1983: 29)
The rāwī thus played an
essential role in ensuring that the poem was interpreted by all the recipients, and he was the link
between poet and audience. The transmitter was
the most important resource for Arabic poetry in that he memorised the poems then disseminated them among people.
Thus, the transmitter had to have the appropriate linguistic and cultural
background; he also must be an expert in ayyām al-ʿArab,22 in order to be able to understand
the references in poems and then convey
them correctly. The most famous transmitters in Classical Arabic criticism were al-Aṣmaʿī, Abi ʿAmr bin al-ʿAlāʾ and
al-Mufaḍḍal al-Ḍabbī (Al-Jumaḥī, 1974: 46/1).
Al-Qayrawānī relates that when Ruʾbah bin al-ʿAjjāj was asked: “Who is the faḥl 23 of the
poets?’ He replied: The transmitter” (1988: 114). It is clear that riwāyah
(the act of transmitting poetry) was the first step in honing their poetic
skills for novice poets, since by memorising poems they learnt large quantities of vocabulary and how to employ a range of figures of speech, being exposed to them in the
structure of the literary
discourse:
They attached themselves to the poet as admirers and diffusers of
his verses, learning them by heart
and declaiming them after his manner or in accordance with his directions. Often a transmitter would himself be a poet
and, in turn, would also have someone
to transmit his own verses. Zuhayr stood in relation to his maternal uncle, Bashāmah b. al-Ghadīr, and to the poet
Aws b. Ḥajar, and, in turn; he had
Huṭayʾah himself, to become a poet of renown, as his transmitter. (Beeston, 1983: 29)
Thus, before poetry could be recorded in written form, pre-Islamic poets were wholly
dependent on riwāyah as a means of disseminating their work to recipients.
The central importance of the role of the rāwī is reflected in the fact that much of the work of that period has been lost
because “numbers of rāwīs perished in
the wars, or passed away in the
course of nature, without leaving any one to continue their tradition” (Nicholson, 1914: 132).
1.3.1.2
Al-aswāq al-shiʿriyyah (Poetry fairs)
The popularity of al-aswāq
al-shiʿriyyah (Poetry fairs) is another example of the existence of a tradition of literary
reception in the pre-Islamic era. Poetry fairs, such as those held at Dhu al-Majāz, Mijannah and most famous of all,
ʿUkāẓ, were the places where poets
performed for audiences during the pilgrimage season:
Plenty of excitement was provided by poetical and oratorical
displays, not by athletic sports, as
in ancient Greece and modern England. Here rival poets declaimed their verses and submitted them to the judgment of
acknowledged masters. Nowhere else
had rising talents such an opportunity to gain wide reputation: what ʿUkāẓ said today all Arabia would repeat
tomorrow. (ibid: 135)
These fairs functioned as a major means of disseminating poetry at
that time. During these events,
there were several types of recipients. Firstly, the average recipient was interested in listening to his preferred
poets and relied purely on his personal likes or dislikes in relation to poetic texts. Secondly, there were
also rāwī who were experts in the language and metre of the Arabs,
and in the style and ideas of their poets. Thirdly,
poets were in attendance, not only to recite their poems, but also to learn from the works of other poets. Finally, a
judge, a master-poet, would be chosen from
among the poets and a leather tent was pitched for him alone. The judge
was one of the most important
recipients due to the impact of his judgments on the audience, as his opinion alone determined the success
or failure of the poet’s work
The qurayshi admired this
poem just as much and said: “These are the timeless jewels (ṣimṭā al-dahar)” (Al-Aṣfahānī, 1823: 112/21). However,
no critical reasoning can be discerned in this brief
comment and the criteria being used to judge
the poem are unclear. This method of criticism emerged in the oral
culture of the pre-Islamic Arabs because such short critical
comments would be easily remembered and disseminated.
1.3.1.3 The development of the qaṣīdah
The appearance of a canonical form of poetry in the shape of the qaṣīdah (ode) is strong evidence of
agreement amongst critics and poets about an ideal form and structure for poetic text. In this sense,
the development of the qaṣīdah is one
of the most important manifestations
of Classical Arabic literary reception. According to Nicholson, the qaṣīdah
followed a set structure:
The verses (abyāt;
singular bayt) of which it is built
vary in number, but are seldom less
than twenty-five, or more than a hundred; and the arrangement of the rhymes is such that, while the two
halves of the first verse rhyme together, the same rhyme is repeated once in the second, third, and every following verse
to the end of poem. (1914: 77)
In addition, pre-Islamic poets used a standard three-section pattern:
The amatory prelude (nasīb),
“disengagement” cast in the form of a camel journey
(known as takhalluṣ), and the final
section, the body of the poem, dealing with the
motive (qaraḍ). (Beeston, 1983: 43)
This form did not develop
arbitrarily or spontaneously, but was the result of consensus
among poets and critics and all poetry was structured in the same fashion. As a result of the existence of this
consensus both poets and recipients were able to reach agreement concerning the standard of excellence to which literary
works needed to aspire. Consequently, a set of qaṣīdah, commonly referred to as al- Muʿallaqāt24 (suspended poems) became
established as the gold standard among all
poets and critics. The same poems are still revered among Arab critics
today. The preference for these odes
by the pre-Islamic recipients indicates a high level of literary discussions
and critical awareness.
Overall, these manifestations previously mentioned are clear evidence
that a significant critical movement already existed in pre-Islamic
culture despite claims to the contrary.
1.2.2
The impact of Islamic
thought
With the appearance of the Prophet
Muḥammad, and the revelation of the Qurʾān,
the form of literary reception changed as other aspects of the text
became more important. As previously
noted, in the pre-Islamic era, poetry was an important source of knowledge, but in the new Islamic culture the main
source of knowledge became the Qurʾān
and ḥadīth, because for Islamic recipients poetic texts were valued
for highlighting the inimitability (ʾiʿjāz) of the Qurʾān.25 According to ibn ʿAbbās: “if you
do not understand something in the Qurʾān, go back to poetry to find the meaning; poetry is the repository of
Arab knowledge (dīwān al-ʿArab)”(cited in Al-Qayrawānī, 1972:
10/1).
There was considerable controversy among Classical Arabic critics
concerning early Islamic attitudes
towards poetry. It has been argued
that Islam was opposed to poetry, and
encouraged Muslims to focus on the Qurʾān.26 In contrast, it has also been claimed that the Prophet Muḥammad was
aware of the impact of poetry on Arab
recipients and thus used this medium to spread his teachings amongst Arabs, and to defend Islam by satirising its
enemies.27 Moreover,
he acknowledged the importance of poetry in
forming the mind-set
of Muslims and therefore was in favour of poetry
which served to direct readers
towards good morals, and divert them
from evil-doing (Al-Ḥārthī, 1989: 53).
Thus, there was a shift in the strategy employed for reading literary texts and poetic text
became a linguistic document used by recipients
to understand the meaning of the Qurʾān.
This new focus on the linguistic aspect of Classical Arabic
literature meant that recipients
needed to pay close attention to the language used in the text in order to judge its worth by Qurʾānic standards.
This involved recipients in examining words and
their meanings, as well as everything related to the literary text including
its prosody, rhyme and parsing. This
approach was based on error analysis of the poet’s grammar, words, meanings,
rhyme and prosody
(Al-Marzubānī, 1995: 34-35).28
Linguistic reception did not stop at this point, but proceeded to
attempt to extract linguistic
principles from the literary text, analysing the text’s compatibility with the rules
of syntax.
However, many Classical
Arabic scholars criticised the linguistic method;
for instance, al-Jāḥiẓ
claimed that the linguists focused
on obscure poetry to find grammatical
errors, or unusual vocabulary without considering the essence of the literary text (1960: 349/3).
Indeed, it is clear that al-Jāḥiẓ saw linguists as exploiting poetry for their own ends; but this is not
reason enough to claim that they were uninterested
in the meaning of the poetry. In fact, al-Jāḥiẓ himself also employs poetry in his works as a source of
information, using it, for example, to provide
factual knowledge about animals
for his text Al-Ḥayawān.
Classical Arabic linguists divided
the history of Arabic poetry into two stages:
Classical and modern. By their reckoning, the Classical period covered
the pre- Islamic era (some one
hundred and fifty years before Islam) until the middle of the second century AH, while the modern period
started at the beginning of the Abbasid era
(Al-Qaṣṣāb, 1980: 25). The main reason for this
division was based on the linguists’
rejection of the techniques and language employed by the new poets, who were named al-Muwalladūn. This group of poets came after Bashshār ibn Burd and included
Muslim ibn al-Walīd,
Abū al-ʿAtāhyah, Abū Tammām and al-Buḥturī. They renewed the style of poetry
by introducing new words and literary
forms. Thus, the linguists’ approach
to reading was not a neutral method, as they openly voiced their preference for Classical poetry not necessarily for
its superior literary qualities, but because they thought this would maintain
the purity of Classical Arabic.29
1.3
Conclusion
In conclusion, Classical Arabic rhetoric paid great attention to the
recipient, who is referred to by
several terms in rhetorical studies: al-mutalaqqī,
al-qāriʾ, al-sāmiʿ and al-mukāhṭab. However, the term al-sāmiʿ is more commonly used in the
rhetoric, owing to the fact that Arab
culture was an oral culture at that time. This discussion also highlighted the importance of
recipients in Classical Arabic literature according to their multiple
functions and levels of language.
Moreover, the argument
concerning the impact of foreign cultures, particularly Greek culture,
on Arabic recipients emphasises that
the interest in recipients in both Arabic and Western criticism comes from Aristotelian thought. Analysis of Classical
Arabic rhetorical studies, such as those of al-Jāḥiẓ,
ibn Qutaybah, Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī, ʿAbdulqāhir al-Jurjānī and ibn Ṭabāṭabā,
showed evidence of the existence
of differing concepts of the
recipient. Three distinct stages of literary reception in Classical Arabic rhetoric were identified;
the impressionistic stage, the linguistic stage and the rhetorical stage. Each of these had its own characteristic principles, suited to the period in which it emerged.
The rhetorical reading
strategy, for instance, mentioned by al-Jāḥiẓ and
ʿAbdulqāhir al-Jurjānī, focused on the reader
whilst the rhetorical method encouraged recipients to focus on how the
author used his imagination to link reality and its literary representation.
Bibliography
1. Abbās, I. 1993. Tārīkh
al-naqd al-adabī ʿind al-ʿarab : naqd al-shiʿr min al-qarn al-thānī ḥattá al-qarn al-thāmin al-hijrī. Amman: Dār al-Shurūq.
2. Abdullah, I.a.-M. 1967. Kitāb al-Badīʻ. Baghdad Maktabat al-Muthanná.
3. Abdullah, M.Ḥ. 1975. Muqaddimah fī al-naqd al-adabī. Kuwait: Dār Al-Buḥūth al- ʿIlmiyyah.
4. Adunīs. 2011. Al-Thābit
wa al-mutaḥawwil: baḥth fī al-ibdāʿ
wa al-ʾittibāʿ ʿind al- ʿarab.
Beirut: Dār al-Sāqī.
5. Ajami, M.J. 1981. ʿAmūd
al-shiʿr: legitimization of tradition. Journal
of Arabic Literature. 12,
pp.30-48.
6. Al-ʿAllāq, A. 2002. Al-Shiʾr wa al-talaqqī, dirāsah naqdiyyah. Amman: Dār AL- Shurūq.
7. Al-Āmedī, A.-Ḥ.b.B. 1961.
Al-Muwāzanah bayna shiʿr Abī Tammām wa-al-Buḥturī. Cairo: Dār al-Maʿārif.
8. Al-Aṣfahānī,
A.a.-F. 1823. Al-Aghānī. Cairo: Dār al-Kutub.
9. Al-Askandarī, A. 1919. Al-Wasīṭ fī al-adab al-ʿarabī wa tārīkhuh Cairo: Al-Maʿārif Al-ʿAskarī, A.H.a.-Ḥ.i.A. 1952. Kitāb al-ṣināʿatayn: al-kitābah wa-al-shiʿr. al-Ṭabʿah 1. ed. Damascus:
Dār 'Iḥyā' al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyyah.
10. Al-ʾAthīr, Ḍ.A.-D.I. 1962. Al-Mathal al-sāʾir fī adab al-kātib. Cairo: Nahḍat Maṣr. Al-Bāzʿī, S. 2004.
Istiqbāl
al-ākhar al-gharbī fī al-naqd al-ʿarabī al-ḥadīth Beirut:
Arab Cultural Center.
11. Al-Brikī, F. 2006. Qaḍiyyat al-talaqqī fī al-naqd al-qadīm. Amman: Dār al-shurūk.
12. Al-Futūḥ, H. 2012. Qaḍiyyat
al-lafẓ wa al-maʿnā min khilāl al-muwāzanah bayna shiʿr Abī Tammām wa al-Buḥturī. [Online]. [Accessed 12/11/2015].
13. Al-Ghadhāmī, A. 1994. Al-Mushākalah wa al-ʾikhtilāf : qirāʾah fī al-naẓariyyah al- naqdiyyah al-ʿarabiyyah. Beirut:
Al-Markaz al-Thaqāfī al-ʿArabī.
14. Al-Ghadhāmī, A. 2006. Al-Khaṭiʾah wa al-takfīr min
al-bunyawiyyah ʾilā al- tashriḥiyyah naẓariyyah wa taṭbīq. Beirut: Al-Markaz al-Thaqāfī
al-ʿArabī.
15. Al-Ḥallāq, M.R. 1999. Al-Naṣṣ wa al-mumānaʿah-
muqārabāt naqdiyyah fī al- ʾadab wa al-ʾibdāʿ. Damascus: The Arabic Writers United.
16. Al-Ḥārthī, M.M. 1989. Al-Ittijāh al-ʾakhlāqī fi
al-naqd al-ʿarabī. Makkah: Nādī Makkah al-ʾAdabī.
17. Al-Ḥārthī, M.M. 1996. ʿAmūd al-shiʿr al-ʿarabī
al-nashʾah wa al-mafhūm.
18. Makkah: Nādī Makkah al-Thaqāfī.
19. Al-Ḥārthī, M.M. 2004. Al-Mutalaqqī ʿind Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn
ibn al-ʾAthīr. Unpublished Masters dissertation thesis, Umm Al-Qura University.
20. Al-Jāḥiẓ, A.ʿ.ʿ.i.B. 1938. Al-Ḥayawān.
Cairo: Muṣṭafá al-Ḥalabī.
21. Al-Jāḥiẓ, A.ʿ.ʿ.i.B. 1960. Al-Bayān wa
al-tabyīn. Cairo: Muṣṭafá al-Ḥalabī.
22. Al-Jumaḥī, M.i.S. 1974. Ṭabaqāt fuḥūl
al-shuʿarāʼ. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Madanī. Al-Jurjānī,
ʿ. 1991. ʾAsrār al-balāghah. Cairo: Al-Madanī.
23. Al-Jurjānī, ʿ. 1992. Dalāʾil al-ʾiʿjāz. Cairo:
Dār Al-Madanī.
24. Al-Jurjānī, A.-Q. 1966. Al-Wasāṭah bayna
al-Mutanabbī wa khṣūmuh Cairo Alhalaby press.
25. Al-Khafājī, I.S. 1982. Sirru al-faṣāḥah.
Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah.
26. Al-Maqdisī, A. 1977. Umarāʾ al-shiʿr al-ʿarabī
fī al-ʿaṣr al-ʿAbbāsī Beirut: Dār al- ʿIlm Li al-Malāyīn.
27. Al-Marzubānī, M.i.ʿ. 1995. Al-Muwashshaḥ fī
maʼākhidh al-ʿulamāʼ ʿalā al- shuʿarāʼ. al-Ṭabʿah 1. ed. Beirut: Dār al-Kutub
al-ʿIlmīyyah.
28. Al-Muntherī, Z.A.-D. 2000. Al-Targhīb wa
al-tarhīb. Cairo: Dār Al-fajr.
29. Al-Murtaḍā, A.-S. 1954. Al-ʾAmālī. Damascus:
Dār ʾIḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyyah. Al-Nadīm,
M.b.I.I. 1997. Al-Fihrist. Beirut: Dār Al-Ma’rifah.
30. Al-Qaṣṣāb, W. 1980. Qaḍiyyat ʿamūd al-shiʿr fī
al-naqd al-ʿarabī al-qadīm: ḍuhūrhā wa taṭawwurha. Al-Riyadh: Dār Al-ʿUlūm.
أضف تعليق