العناية فـي تحقيق الاستعارة بالكناية للمولـى طاشكبري زاده تعريفًا وتحقيقًا

Abstract

The underlying tractate, namely al-ʿInāyah fī taḥqīq al-istiʿārah bil-ki­nāyah, was penned by the great Ottoman scholar Ṭāshköprüzāde (d. 968/1561). It is another one of the several works that he wrote in the field of ʿilm al-balāġah (i.e. rhetoric). As can be concluded from its title, this very tractate is dedicated to the so-called istiʿārah bil-kināyah or “allusive metaphor” in speech and writ. Even though earlier Muslim rhetoricians acknowledged the istiʿārah bil-kināyah, in principal, their opinions diffe­red with regard to its definition and requirements, in order to distinguish it from another stylistic element, i.e. taḫyīl or “false pretence”. Seeking to resolve the ongoing dispute, Ṭāshköprüzāde presents his argument in two steps. In the first part, he provides the reader with a thorough analysis of the rhetorical phenomenon itself, mainly by reiterating the three predo­minant methodological approaches, namely, (1) the classical teachings on the one hand and the more recently formulated methods of (2) al-Qazwīnī (d. 739/1338) and (3) al-Sakkākī (d. 626/1229) on the other. As a result, he points out the weakness of the first two concepts, while advocating the third approach. As far as the second part is con­cerned, Ṭāshköprüzāde intends to tackle two different issues: Firstly, he talks about the different opinions with regard to the classification and the criteria of istiʿārah bil-kināyah and taḫyīl, as well. Thereby he men­tions both the standpoint of the traditional Islamic scholars and the opini­ons of those who disagreed with them in that matter; secondly, he elaborates on another controversy among Arab-Muslim rhetoricians, na­mely, the quetion why and how taḫyīl needs to be distinguished from istiʿārah bil-kināyah. In this context, Ṭāshköprüzāde presents the views of several rhetoricians on both sides, i.e., he quotes the arguments of both advocates and adversaries of such a distinction by fair­ly emphasizing the merits and demerits of each view