Applied Rhetoric in the Commentaries on the Dīwān of Abū al-Ṭayyib al-Mutanabbī: A Comparative Study of the Eastern (Mashriqī ) and Andalusian (Andalusī–Maghribī) Schools

Abstract

This study presents a comparative analytical reading of applied rhetoric (balāgha) as practiced by the medieval commentators on the Dīwān of Abū al-Ṭayyib al-Mutanabbī, focusing on four central issues: the theory of naẓm (syntactic-semantic order), rhetorical imagery (simile and metaphor), majāz and semantic deviation (inzīyāḥ), and lexical/conceptual badīʿ.                                                                       

 Adopting a descriptive-analytical comparative method grounded in direct reading of the commentaries themselves rather than in abstracted theoretical categories, the study juxtaposes each issue across two commentators representing two distinct geographical and intellectual traditions: the Eastern (Mashriqī) school-represented by Ibn Jinnī, Abū al-ʿAlāʾ al-Maʿarrī, al-Wāḥidī, and al-Tabrīzī-and the Andalusian-Maghribī school-represented by Ibn al-Iflīlī, Ibn Sīda, and Abū al-Ḥusayn al-Ṣiqillī al-Maghribī. The study finds that commentators from both schools were, in practice, applying the core principles of naẓm theory and rhetorical analysis well before their theoretical crystallization at the hands of ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, and that the genuine divergence between the two schools lies not in the degree of aesthetic awareness but in the methodological function each commentator assigned to his commentary, and in the disciplinary formation from which each wrote : grammatical for Ibn Jinnī, literary-compositional for Ibn al-Iflīlī, lexicographical for Ibn Sīda, philosophical-logical for al-Maʿarrī, semantic-exegetical for al-Ṣiqillī, and comparative rhetorical-critical for al-Wāḥidī and al-Tabrīzī. The study concludes that the labels " Andalusian excess " and " Eastern moderation" should be understood as differences in the function of commentary itself, not in the extent of rhetorical awareness.