آیا نهاوندی در طرزشناسی شعر شاعران عصر صفوی به خطا رفته است؟

Introduction

Abdul Baghi Nahavandi writes a preface to Diwan-e 'Orfi, which was compiled after his death. In this preface, he classifies the poets of his time based on the distinct poetical style. This classification, which is considered one of the first stylistics of Persian poetry, is essential in the studies of the history of literature and poetry of the Safavid era. In this classification, Nahavandi puts the poetry of Sanayi Mashhadi, Mili Mashhadi, Dasht-e Bayazi, and some other poets in the same category. Some researchers believe that Nahavandi mistakenly placed these three poets in the same category and made a mistake in recognizing the style of these poets. This essay proves the accuracy of Nahavandi's stylistics based on literary history sources.

Literature Review

Among the contemporary research, special attention has been paid to this introduction in two books: History of Literature in Iran (1369 SH) and One Hundred Years of Real Love (1395 SH). In both researches, after quoting the speech of Abdul Baghi Nahavandi, his style of knowledge has been criticized and evaluated. Safa and Fotoohi believe that Nahavandi was not accurate in the stylistics of the poets' poetry and its classification and did not distinguish the poets' styles from each other properly. In this article, we have evaluated the views of these two researchers.

Methodology

In the first stage, we collected various reports about the life and poetry of these three poets from literary history sources in order to find out how the literary historians of the Safavid era evaluated their poetry. Then, we continued through the Diwan poetry of these poets and analyzed their poems.

Discussion

Critics do not consider Nahavandi's stylistics correct for three reasons:
1) The existence of disagreement and conflict between Vali Dasht-e Bayazi and Hossein Sanayi
2) Considering the styles of Sanayi and Voqu’iyan as equal
3) The combination of Tarze-taze (new style) and Voqu’ style in Mili, Vali, and Sanayi's poetry
Regarding the first problem, it should be known that the story of the dispute between Vali Dasht-e Bayazi and Hossein Sanayi was reported only in some Tazkirehs and it is not seen in the poets’ Diwan. It is said that Vali Dasht-e Bayazi and Sanayi wrote poems in mockery of each other, but the poem attributed to Sanayi is not found in his Diwan. In addition, the name of Sanayi is not mentioned in the poem by Vali Dasht-e Bayazi.
Regarding the second case, it should be said that in addition to Nahavandi, other literary historians such as Mirtaqi al-Din Kashani also introduce these three poets as having the same style in their works and compare and evaluate their poetry; therefore, Nahavandi is not the only one who considers these three poets to be of the same style.
Regarding the third case, it should be noted that there are different reports of the poetry style of these three poets in different sources. For example, the author of Tazkareh Kheyr al-Bayan considers the style of Mili Mashhadi's poetry to be different in the form of Ghazal and Ghasideh. Furthermore, the poems of these three poets also show that they wrote poems in different styles and their poems are similar in terms of subject and imagination.

Conclusion

Sanayi's simple lyrical poems, Dasht-e Bayazi and Mili Mashhadi 's imaginary poems, along with poems with common themes, show that these three poets were not in conflict with each other. The literary dispute between Sanayi and Dasht-e Bayazi, which is famous in the history of literature, is not seen in their poems; however, by looking at their poems we realize that these poets were inspired and influenced by each other.
The fame of the phrase “contrast between the style of Sanayi and the style of Voqu’iyan” can be seen for two reasons. First, there is a common point of view in the poetry studies of the Safavid era, which divides the poetry of this period into two groups, difficult and moderate; the existence of such an attitude causes attention to be paid to only one aspect of the poet's style. Secondly, in the stylistic analysis of the poets' poetry, literary historians have generally paid attention to the outstanding and dominant aspect of each poet's poetry, while Nahavandi considers all the dimensions of the poetry of these three poets and rightly considers their poetry style to be a combination of Tarze-Taze (new style) and Voqu’ style.