گزارش اشکالات خطیب قزوینی بر آراء دانشمندان متقدّم و معاصر خود در علم معانی با تکیه بر رُبع اوّل کتاب ‌الایضاح فی شرح تلخیص‌المفتاح

کتاب الایضاح فی شرح تلخیص‌المفتاح اثر طبع «خطیب قزوینی» از معارف قرن 7 و 8 هجری قمری از معمول‌ترین متون تعلیمی و تحقیقی در علم بلاغت است که بیش از هفت قرن بر فراز قلل رفیع این دانش هَل مِن مُبارز می‌زند. در این نوشتار ضمن تعریفی کوتاه از خطیب قزوینی و اثر گرانقدر او، ایضاح، اشکالاتی را برمی‌شمریم که او در محدودۀ علم معانی تا ابتدای باب قصر و حصر بر متقدمان و معاصران خود مطرح می‌کند.

Khatib’s critiques of the opinions of his early and contemporary scholars in the science of Rhetoric, relying on the first quarter of the "Idhah

Abstract “AlIdah Fih šarh Talxîs alMiftâh” is one of the most authoritative educational and analytical books on rhetoric in which Jalal alDin Muhammad ibn Abd alRahman alQazvini, the renowned Muslim scientist and scholar of poetics of the 7th and 8th centuries A.H., examines various principles of semantics and provides informative reviews on the perspectives of pioneer scholars of rhetoric “as an exposé to Talxîṣ alMiftâh”.   Statement and Scope of the Problem The study addresses the level of disagreement between alQazvini and the preceding scholars, and the scope is the first quarter of AlIdah. The research questions are as follows: 1 What are the difference of opinions between alQazvini and his predecessors? 2 To what extent does alQazvini disagree with his predecessors?   Data Analysis AlQazvini critiques the preceding perspectives in 22 instances in AlIdah, where he challenges and reviews the viewpoints of asSakkaki and alJurjani when deemed unjustified. The following arguments are made in the first quarter of AlIdah, covering the chapter on “Semantics” until the beginning of “Conjunction and Disjunction”: 1 Objection to alJurjani over two of his books: He has overindulged in synonymous expressions to the point that such a level of verbosity has disrupted his main goal, i.e. expression of oratory rules and skills and instance provision from prose and poetry. 2 Objection to alSakkaki over his definition of “semantics”: The words “scholarism” and “research” are not used in a scientific sense in his definition. 3 Objection to alSakkaki over his definition of “rational truth”: alSakkaki’s definition does not exclude the exclusions, as it holds true for copular sentences whose predicates are not verbs or linked to verbs, such as in the sentence “humans are animals”, which neither can be regarded as truth, nor as an instance of literary trope. 4 Objection to alSakkaki over his definition of “rational trope”: he has raised two logical objections to this definition. 5 Objection to alSakkaki over his views on the logic behind his definition of “subject”: There is no distinction between “reference to the source of statement” and “reference to the realization of statement”; therefore, the former cannot be deemed as a means of achieving the latter. 6 Objection to alSakkaki over his viewpoint on the similarity of “veneration” with “duplication”, and “devaluation” with “reduction”: He provides two indepth reviews on this principle. 7 Objection to alSakkaki over his view on the reasons for subject preposition: According to alSakkaki, declarative sentences are merely formed for the sake of “declaration”. However, this is an inaccurate assumption, since a declaration is merely a “formal recognition’ rather than an “internalization”, whereas the latter is what is solely expected from a declaration. 8 Objection to alSakkaki and alJurjani over placing pronouns following negatory particles: The placement of pronouns after negatory particles , which is what they have proposed in the specified example, is not justified. 9 Objection to alSakkaki over the implication of preposition over specification: alSakkaki apparently argues that definite subjects are suitable for specification, with either visible pronouns or nouns, if they are not placed after negatory particles with a positive or negative declaration. In practice, however, he only gives examples containing pronouns. 10 Objection to alSakkaki over the felicity of declaration specification in a [Quranic] verse. 11 Objection to alZamakhshari over the implication of postnegation pronoun over the subject in the same verse. 12 Objection to alSakkaki over the implication of subject preposition over generalization. 13 Objection to alSakkaki and his preceding scholars over the application of “negation generalization” in a poem. 14 Objection to alZamakhshari over his retrospection on two poems. 15 Objection to alSakkaki over specifying the predicate as an expression of surprise: Expressions of surprise can be stated without specifying the predicate when there is a linguistic context in the sentence. 16 Objection to alSakkaki over expressing predicates in singular form: First, alSakkaki puts causal predicate instances in contrast to those of verb predicate, even though they have a common semantic foundation. Second, the predicate is a sentence in and of itself, leading to two attributions in the predicate that strengthen declaration based on the definition provided above. 17 Objection to alSakkaki over the inclusiveness of the word “kol” [total]. 18 Objection to alSakkaki over definite forms due to fame. 19 Objection to alZamakhshari over using coordination in a conditional clause in a Quranic expression. 20 Objection to preceding scholars over expressing the predicate as a sentence. 21 Objection to alSakkaki over his viewpoint on verb complements.   Conclusion In the first quarter of AlIdah, alQazvini expresses his disagreement with alSakkaki on 14 occasions, whereas he only raises objection to three viewpoints of alZamakhshari and alJurjani, each, and two viewpoints of the preceding scholars in total. This demonstrates alQazvini’s concurrence with alZamakhshari and alJurjani and his disagreement with alSakkaki.