مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوری پژوهش زبان و ادبیات فارسی 1735-1030 23 78 2026 2 3 With Special Re A Typological Study of Symbolic Debate ference to Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh and Nezami’s Khamsa واکاوی گونه‌شناختی مناظرة نمادین با تأکید بر شاهنامه فردوسی و خمسة نظامی گنجوی 27 53 fa سعید کریمی قره‌بابا دانشگاه پیام نور حسن حیدرزاده سردرود دانشگاه تربیت مدرس 2025 3 20 With Special Re A Typological Study  of Symbolic Debate ference to Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh and Nezami’s Khamsa   <a href="https://liar.ui.ac.ir/?_action=article&au=211472&_au=Saeed++Karimi+Gare+Baba&lang=en">Saeed Karimi qare Baba</a><a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a> Hasan Heidarzadeh Sardarud<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">**</a> Debate is a type of literature in which a conversation is established between two parties, each trying to demonstrate their virtues and superiority. At the end of the debate, one party is persuaded and defeated, while the other claims victory. However, debate has its flaws, and symbolic debate is one of them. This article, conducted through a descriptive method and content analysis, aims to answer the question: What is symbolic debate? And how does it differ from conventional debates? And also what is its nature, structure, and function in two significant works of Persian literature, namely Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and Nizami's Khamsa? In this research, it becomes evident that in symbolic debate, the two parties use symbolic objects in addition to words, driven by various motivations. The primary evidence for this type of debate can be found in Shahnameh (Alexander's conversation with the Indian philosopher Kid) and Khamsa Nizami (the story of the Red Dome). In this form of debate, one party designs a series of symbols for the other to decipher, engaging in a back-and-forth exchange that may occur up to four times. Nizami also employs symbolic debate in Iskandarnameh. These debates are present in legends, historical narratives, and contemporary stories, blending elements of epic, symbolic, and enigmatic genres for rhetorical purposes such as visualization, emphasis, intelligence testing, and conversation softening.  Keywords: Symbolic Debate, Khamsa, Nizami Ganjavi, Shahnameh, literary genre. Introduction Debate is one of the most ancient and influential literary modes employed to represent intellectual, ethical, and ideological confrontation in Persian literature. Beyond its argumentative function, debate operates as a powerful narrative and rhetorical device that enlivens the text, deepens meaning, and actively engages the reader in the process of judgment and interpretation. From didactic and moral debates to epic, lyrical, and allegorical forms, this mode has played a crucial role in shaping the dialogic structure of classical Persian literature. However, literary debate in Persian texts does not adhere to a single fixed or homogeneous form. Over time, it has undergone significant transformations and has frequently merged with other literary genres, giving rise to hybrid and less-studied forms. One such form is symbolic debate, a mode of dialogue in which verbal argumentation is replaced or supplemented by symbolic acts, objects, or signs that convey meaning indirectly. In symbolic debate, meaning is not articulated openly but encoded in symbols that require interpretation and intellectual discernment by the opposing party. Although symbolic debate shows affinities with riddles and enigmas, it surpasses them in both scope and function. Its primary aim is not mere intellectual entertainment but the examination of wisdom, moral worth, political legitimacy, or spiritual insight. By employing symbolic mediation, this form allows authors to soften confrontation and transform conflict into a refined and multilayered exchange. For this reason, major Persian poets such as Ferdowsi and Nezami Ganjavi have consciously employed symbolic debate to enrich epic and narrative discourse. Despite its notable presence in classical texts, symbolic debate has rarely been examined as an independent literary genre. Previous studies have either mentioned it briefly or subsumed it under broader categories such as riddles, allegory, or question-and-answer structures. As a result, its typological characteristics, narrative mechanisms, and rhetorical functions have remained insufficiently explored. The present study aims to fill this scholarly gap by offering a systematic typological analysis of symbolic debate in Persian literature, with a particular focus on Shahnameh and Khamsa.   Discussion Nature and Characteristics of Symbolic Debate Symbolic debate is a dialogic form in which conventional verbal discourse is replaced or augmented by symbolic actions or objects. Ordinary items such as bowls, jewels, garments, or ritual gestures acquire communicative significance and function as vehicles of meaning within the narrative context. Symbols in symbolic debate are not decorative but operative; they structure the exchange and determine its outcome. A defining feature of symbolic debate is the active role of interpretation. The addressee must decode the symbolic message correctly, and success or failure in interpretation carries narrative, ethical, or political consequences. This interpretive demand distinguishes symbolic debate from riddles, where incorrect answers typically have limited implications. In symbolic debate, understanding becomes a test of intellect, wisdom, and legitimacy.   Symbolic Debate in Shahnameh While direct verbal debates dominate Shahnameh, Ferdowsi also presents sophisticated examples of symbolic debate. The most prominent instance is the multilayered exchange between Alexander and the Indian philosopher Kid. Here, the philosopher presents symbolic puzzles that test not only Alexander’s intelligence but also his moral insight and spiritual readiness. Alexander’s responses demonstrate his transformation from a conquering hero into a reflective and wise ruler. Another significant example is the symbolic episode involving Khosrow Parviz, who resolves objections to his marriage with Shirin not through argument but through symbolic staging. Although the exchange is one-sided, it retains the core structure of symbolic debate and highlights Ferdowsi’s mastery in employing symbolic discourse to resolve narrative tension.   Symbolic Debate in Nezami’s Khamsa Nezami Ganjavi elevates symbolic debate to a level of exceptional sophistication. In the Eskandarnama, the symbolic exchange between Darius and Alexander—conducted through the sending of objects such as a ball and a polo mallet—constitutes a subtle contest of political authority and intellectual supremacy. At times, Nezami allows the same character to act simultaneously as the designer and interpreter of symbols, a technique he justifies through the notion of auspicious insight. Another notable example is the episode of Alexander and Nushaba, where bowls filled with jewels replace food, delivering a powerful critique of human greed and ambition without direct moralizing. The most intricate example of symbolic debate appears in the tale of the Red Pavilion in Haft Peykar, where a multi-stage symbolic exchange functions as a comprehensive trial of the hero’s wisdom, ethical integrity, and emotional maturity. The sequential use of symbols gradually unveils deeper layers of meaning, intertwining love, intellect, and ascetic restraint.   Findings and Conclusion The findings of this study demonstrate that symbolic debate constitutes a distinct and identifiable literary genre in Persian literature and can not be adequately explained as a mere subtype of riddles or enigmas. It is a hybrid form that integrates elements of epic narrative, symbolic representation, and enigma-based reasoning, serving multiple rhetorical and narrative functions. Symbolic debate may occur in either unilateral or bilateral forms, and in some cases, the roles of symbol designer and interpreter converge in a single character. The complexity and semantic richness of symbolic debate increase proportionally with the number of symbolic stages involved. Moreover, this genre exhibits deep roots in Iranian symbolic culture and appears not only in classical epic and romance but also in folklore, historical narratives, and even modern Persian fiction. Ultimately, the study argues that symbolic debate opens new avenues for genre studies in Persian literature and invites a more nuanced understanding of dialogic practices in classical texts. By favoring symbolic mediation over direct confrontation, this genre reflects a distinctly Iranian mode of intellectual exchange—one grounded in subtlety, interpretation, and wisdom—and offers a multilayered and enduring literary expression.     References Ahmadnejad, Kamel. (1990) An Analysis of Nizami Ganjavi’s Works. Tehran: Elmi. Asadi Tusi, Abunasr Ali ibn Ahmad. (1975) Garshaspnameh. Edited by Habib Yaghmaei (2nd ed.), Tehran: Tahouri. Bahrangi, Samad, & Dehghani, Behrouz. (2010) Azerbaijani Folktales. Tehran: Negah. Bastani Parizi, Mohammad Ebrahim. (2004) Ya‘qub‑e Leyth. Tehran: Elm. Bayani, Shirin. (1991) Religion and State in Iran during the Mongol Period (2nd ed.), Tehran: University Publication Center. Dad, Sima. (2006) Dictionary of Literary Terms (3rd ed.), Tehran: Morvarid. Elwell-Sutton, Laurence Paul. (1997) The Tales of Mashdi Golin Khanom: 110 Iranian Folk Stories (2nd ed.), Tehran: Markaz. Esmaeilzadeh Mobarakeh, Marziyeh, & Mohammadi Fesharaki, Mohsen. (2021) “A Comparison of the Effect of Dialogue on Narrative Action in Nizami’s Khosrow and Shirin and Layli and Majnun.” Journal of Lyric Literature, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, 19 (37), pp 37–58. Etesami, Parvin. (2002) Collected Poems. Edited by Hassan Ahmadi Givi (6th ed.), Tehran: Ghatreh. Fakhr al-Din As‘ad Gorgani. (n.d.) Vis and Ramin. Edited by Mojtaba Minovi. Tehran: Fakhr Razi Bookstore. Fallah, Gholam-Ali. (2008) “The Status of Debate as a Literary Technique in Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh.” Journal of Mystical Literature Studies, 2 (1), pp 151–164. Ferdowsi, Abolqasem. (1992) Shahnameh (Vol. 3), Edited by Jalal Khaleghi‑Motlagh. New York: Iran Heritage Foundation. Ferdowsi, Abolqasem. (1996) Shahnameh (Vol. 5), Edited by Jalal Khaleghi‑Motlagh. California: Mazda Publishers in cooperation with the Iran Heritage Foundation. Ferdowsi, Abolqasem. (2005) Shahnameh (Vol. 6), Edited by Jalal Khaleghi‑Motlagh & Mahmoud Omidsalar. New York: Iran Heritage Foundation. Ferdowsi, Abolqasem. (2007a) Shahnameh (Vol. 7), Edited by Jalal Khaleghi‑Motlagh & Abolfazl Khatibi. Tehran: Encyclopaedia Islamica Foundation. Ferdowsi, Abolqasem. (2007b) Shahnameh (Vol. 8), Edited by Jalal Khaleghi‑Motlagh. Tehran: Encyclopaedia Islamica Foundation. Forster, E. M. (1973) Aspects of the Novel. Translated by Ebrahim Younesi. Tehran: Amir Kabir. Forouzandeh, Masoud. (2013) “Narrative Chains, Elements, and Propositions in the Story of the Lady of the Fortress from Haft Peykar.” Journal of Lyric Literature, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, 11 (20), pp 197–216. Gary, Jane, & Al‑Shami, Hasan. (2023) Archetypes and Motifs in Folklore and Literature. Translated by Artemis & Afshin Rezaei‑Pour. Tehran: Agah. Golboo, Farideh. (2000) Haft Peykar: A Narrative Adaptation of Nizami Ganjavi’s Masnavi. Tehran: Roshangaran & Women’s Studies. Hasanzadeh, Farhad. (2019) Scorpions of the Bambak Ship (2nd ed.), Tehran: Ofogh. Ibn Abi al‑Barakat, Abd al‑Kafi. (1964) Eskandarnameh (Persian Version of Pseudo‑Callisthenes), Edited by Iraj Afshar. Tehran: Translation and Publication Bureau. Kashefi Sabzevari, Kamal al‑Din Hossein Va‘ez. (1990) Bada‘i‘ al‑Afkar fi Sana‘i‘ al‑Ash‘ar. Edited and paraphrased by Mir Jalal al‑Din Kazazi. Tehran: Markaz. Keyvani, Majd al‑Din. (2017) “Debate.” In Encyclopedia of Persian Language and Literature (Vol. 6), edited by Esmail Sa‘adat. Tehran: Academy of Persian Language and Literature. Khaleghi‑Motlagh, Jalal. (2002) Ancient Discourses: Thirty Essays on Ferdowsi and the Shahnameh. Edited by Ali Dehbashi. Tehran: Afkar. Molavi (Rumi), Jalal al-Din Mohammad. (1996) Masnavi‑ye Ma‘navi (Vol. 6), Tehran: Tous. Nezami, Elyas ibn Yusuf. (2022) The Khamsa of Nezami (Based on the Moscow–Baku Edition, 5th ed.), Tehran: Hermes. Nezam al‑Molk, Hasan ibn Ali. (2004) Siyasatnameh (Book of Government), Edited by Hubert Darke (7th ed.), Tehran: Elmi & Farhangi. Norouzi, Zeynab. (2009) “A Structural Analysis of the Debate between Khosrow and Farhad in Nizami’s Khosrow and Shirin.” Journal of Lyric Literature, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, 7 (12), pp 159–178. Rahmani, Rouhollah. (2023) Debate in Persian Literature. Tehran: Giva. Riazi, Heshmatollah. (2006) Stories and Messages of Nizami Ganjavi. Edited by Habibollah Pakgohar. Tehran: Haghighat. Rashid al‑Din Fazlollah Hamedani. (1940) Tarikh‑e Mobarak‑e Ghazani (The Story of Ghazan Khan), Edited by Karl Jahn. Hereford: Stephen Austin & Sons. Sarami, Ghodrat‑Ali. (1994) From the Color of the Flower to the Pain of the Thorn: A Morphology of Shahnameh Narratives (2nd ed.), Tehran: Elmi‑Farhangi. Sattari, Jalal. (1989) The Enchantment of Scheherazade: A Study of One Thousand Tales. Tehran: Tous. Sajjadi, Seyyed Ja‘far. (2000) Encyclopedic Dictionary of Islamic Knowledge (Vol. 3, 4th ed.), Tehran: Koumesh. Shamisa, Sirus. (1995) Literary Genres (3rd ed.), Tehran: Ferdows. Sarfi, Mohammad Reza, et al. (2008) “Literary Genres in Iran’s National Epics.” Gohar‑e Gooya, 2 (8), pp 1–30. Tafazzoli, Ahmad. (1999) History of Persian Literature before Islam. Edited by Zhaleh Amoozgar (3rd ed.), Tehran: Sokhan. The Thousand and One Nights. (2004) Translated by Abdollatif Tasouji Tabrizi (2 vols.), Tehran: Hermes. Zarrinkoub, Abdolhossein. (2010) The Sage of Ganja in Search of Utopia (8th ed.), Tehran: Sokhan.   <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Corresponding Author: Associate Professor, Department of Persian Language and Literature, Payam-e Noor University, Tehran, Iran. <a href="mailto:karimisaeed58@pnu.ac.ir">karimisaeed58@pnu.ac.ir</a> 0000-0002-6559-0262 <a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">**</a> Assistant Professor of Persian Language and Literature, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran. hasanheidarzadeh@pnu.ac.ir 0000-0001-9977-7968 مناظره، یکی از انواع و شیوه&zwnj;های بیان ادبی است که در آن مکالمه&zwnj;ای میان دو طرف برقرار می&zwnj;شود و هر یک از طرفین در روندِ هم&zwnj;سخنی سعی می&zwnj;&zwnj;کنند تا فضیلت&zwnj;ها و برتری&zwnj;های خود را به رخ دیگری بکشند. در آخِر مناظره، یکی از دو طرف، مجاب و مغلوب می&zwnj;شود و پیروزی طرف دیگر اعلام می&zwnj;گردد. مناظره، اشکال و شقوقی دارد که مناظرة نمادین، یکی از آنهاست. این مقاله که به روش توصیفی و تحلیل محتوا انجام گرفته، به دنبال پاسخ&zwnj; دادن به این پرسش&zwnj;هاست که مناظرة نمادین چیست؟ چه تفاوت&zwnj;هایی با مناظره&zwnj;های متعارَف دارد؟ و همچنین ماهیت، ساختار و کارکرد آن در دو اثر شاخص ادبیات فارسی یعنی شاهنامه فردوسی و خمسه نظامی چگونه است؟ بر اساس این پژوهش مشخص می&zwnj;شود که در مناظرة نمادین، دو سوی گفت&zwnj;وگو با انگیزه&zwnj;های گوناگون به جایِ یا در کنارِ کلام، از اشیای نمادین بهره می&zwnj;گیرند. شاخص&zwnj;ترینِ شواهد برای این نوع مناظره را در شاهنامه (گفت&zwnj;وگوی اسکندر با فیلسوف کید هندی) و خمسه نظامی (قصة گنبد سرخ) می&zwnj;توان سراغ گرفت. در این مناظره، یکی از دو سوی مکالمه، سلسله نمادهایی را طراحی می&zwnj;کند تا جانب دیگر، آن سمبول&zwnj;ها را رمزگشایی کند. این گفت&zwnj;وگو ممکن است یک تا چهار بار صورت گیرد. نظامی دو بار دیگر هم در اسکندرنامه از مناظرة نمادین استفاده کرده است. این نوع مناظره&zwnj;ها به افسانه&zwnj;ها، روایات تاریخی و داستانی معاصر نیز راه یافته است. مناظرة نمادین، تلفیقی از انواعِ حماسه، سمبولیک و معمّاست و با اغراض بلاغی&zwnj;ای نظیر تصویری کردن و تأکید بر محتوایِ پیام، آزمون&zwnj;گری (سنجش بهرة هوش دو طرف) و ملایم&zwnj;سازی و تلطیف گفت&zwnj;وگو ساخته می&zwnj;شود.

http://literature.ihss.ac.ir/en/Article/Download/49795