Al-Gahiz and his theory of social communication ebook

BOGDAN SKŁADANEK – iranista, studiował na Uniwersytecie Warszawskim, w Leningradzie i w Teheranie. Specjalizował się w historii Persji wczesnego średniowiecza. W 1966 roku uzyskał stopień doktora, w 1977 doktora habilitowanego, w 1987 zaś tytuł profesora. Przez wiele lat pełnił fukcję dyrektora Instytutu Orientalistycznego Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego.

Ważniejsze publikacje:

Studia nad charydżytyzmem w Persji (rozproszone);

Gramatyka języka perskiego (wyd. I, Warszawa 1970, wyd. II, 1984);

Wieki milczenia, Warszawa 1980;

Abul Fazl Bajhaki – Historia sułtana Masuda, Wybór, przekład i komentarz..., Wydawnictwo Akademickie „Dialog”, Warszawa 1996;

Wprowadzenie do gramatyki języka perskiego, Wydawnictwo Akademickie „Dialog”, Warszawa 1997.

In memory of my dear master Prof. Józef Bielawski

Word from the Author

The collection of articles presented here is a result of a research which has led me to the discovery that Al-Ǧāḥiẓ (an Arabic learned erudite and writer from Basra in the 9th century) was a creator of an original theory of communication and perception. I present it here in detail and compare it to Bakhtin’s “outline of discourse theory” of the 1980s. I also explain why Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory was not understood by his contemporary Arab scholars or by the previous and current researchers of his works, both in the Arab lands and in Europe.

The many years’ work on the scholar’s texts has allowed me to resolutely disagree with the often repeated opinions on the ineligibility of and chaos in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s works – they can only prove that the research into them was not deep enough. In his creations, he undoubtedly applies the rule of the adab authors – “teach by entertaining”, nevertheless being in perfect control of the basic idea of the communication theory, first formulated in Kitāb al-ḥayawān [‘Book of Animals’] and then further elaborated on in Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabayyun [‘Book of Communication and Perception’], with some additions to it made in later works.

By careful examination of the important analytical part of his work, I have separated it from the digressions and “variations” and I have arranged it into logical, unified whole.

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory of social communication is distinguished by broad, precise approach and clear exposition. Some of its elements appear in Europe, in the works of various authors, too much narrower extent, only in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

Due to the nature of my research I have not focused here on the general outline of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s extensive work in other areas of science such as zoology, history, ethnography, sociology.

My studies into Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s communication theory have produced articles and papers published in specialist international magazines and presented at Orientalist conferences; I have published the summary in a book in Polish, titled Pochwała sztuki słowa. Al-Ǧāḥiẓ i jego teoria komunikacji (Wydawnictwo Akademickie Dialog, Warszawa 2009).

The collection presented here includes the previously published articles (extended and amended), supplemented by selected texts from the book (in English translation). It is divided into two parts. In the first one, I present three elements of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory: theory of social communication, rhetorical theory, stylistic tropes and, additionally, his understanding of plagiarism in literature. The whole is preceded by Introduction, in which I present my research into the communication theory of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ as well as his life and work.

This part contains the following articles: 

• Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory of social communication – a fragment of the above mentioned work in Polish, presenting in detail the scholar's theory of communication,

• Some aspects of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ rhetorical theory – a paper presented at St. Andrews University and published in “Occasional Papers of the School of Abbasid Studies” No 3, 1990 (publ. 1991), amended and extended following my more recent research – discussing the Arabic concept of balāġa in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work.

• Les ornements du style selon la conception d’Al-Ǧāḥiẓ, the article published in “Rocznik Orientalistyczny”, XXXVI, fol. 1, 1974, on Arabic concept of al-badi’ – ‘stylistic tropes’. 

• Plagiarism – a chapter of the Polish book.

The second part contains three articles presenting Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s practical understanding of communication between people by ‘spoken word’ (or ‘living word’) – poetry and speech (orations) and by 'written word' (letters, books etc.). These are:

• Al-Ǧāḥiẓ on poetry and poets – a paper presented at St. Andrews University, 1992, publ. in “Occasional Papers of the School of Abbasid Studies”, No 4, 1994,

• Speech-maker and speech – another fragment of the Polish book, 

• Les opinions d’Al-Ǧāḥiẓ sur l’écrivain et l’œuvre littéraire – an article published in “Rocznik Orientalistyczny”, XXXII, fol. 2, 1969.

These present not only Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s opinions on how words should be used  but also show his extensive knowledge of authors (poets, speakers and writers) with assessment of the qualities and flaws of their works from the point of view of achieving perfect communication between the sender and the receiver.

To support his reasoning, the scholar quotes beautiful fragments of poetry and orations of the speakers of old times, a selection of which I present.

This collection of articles is basically intended for the experts in Arabic studies and, therefore, contains extensive fragments of Arabic texts. All of those (apart from the fragments of the Koran) have been translated into Polish by me, which in turn was used by the translators as the basis for translation into English and French. Unfortunately, the complexities of the Arabic syntax and grammar could not always be adequately reflected in the English translation.

Krystyna Skarżyńska-Bocheńska

Notes concerning transcription,dates and abbreviations

ISO (International Standardization Organization) system, used in scientific publications for Arabic, was used for transcription.

The dates from the Gregorian calendar are sometimes given together with the date from hiǧra – the Muslim calendar.

The abbreviations of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work, used in this book in footnotes and bibliography:

B. – Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabyīn, Al-Ǧāḥiẓ, (3 vol.), Al-Qahira 1926–1927, ed. Ḥasan As-Sandūbī 

Ḥ. – Kitāb al-ḥayawān, Al-Ǧāḥiẓ, (4 vol.), Misr, 1345 h./1926, ed. Ḥasan As-Sandūbī 

The below abbreviations are used for some works, periodicals and encyklopaedias appearing in footnotes and bibliography:

Aġ. – Kitāb al-aġānī, Al-Isfahānī, Abū al-Farağ, Bulāq, Al-Qāhira [b.r.w.]

EI – Encyclopédie de l’Islam, Leyde–Paris, vol. 1/1913, vol. 2/1927, vol. 3/1936, vol. 4/1934. E.J. Brill

EI2 – The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New edition, Leiden–London, vol. 1/1960, vol. 2/1965. vol. 3/1965. E.J. Brill

GAL – Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur, Brockelmann Carl, vol. 1–2,  Leiden 1943/1949. Suplementband I, II, III, Leiden 1937, 1938, 1942. E.J. Brill.

Ṣin. – Kitāb aṣ-ṣinā ‘atayn  al-kitāba wa aš-ši‘r, Al-‘Askarī, Abū Hilāl,  ed. ‘Alī Muḥammad Al-Baǧawī, Al-Qāhira 1971, Dār al-iḥyā al-kutub al-‘arabiyya. 

‘Umda – Kitāb al-‘umdat fī ṣinā‘at aš-ši‘r wa naqdihi, Ibn Rašīq Al-Qayrawānī,  t. 1–2, Al-Qāhira  1353h./1934. 

Introduction

My studies on rhetoric and stylisticsin Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work

The reason why I have decided to organize this book the way it is organized, is the specificity of the study I have carried out.

My intention is also to explain the differences in and the controversies around the applicable scientific terminology and to show the Readers the problems that, at the initial stage of my study of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s works, rendered it impossible to understand the exceptional talent shown by him in his ‘theory of social communication.’ I was able to present them logically and completely after making myself familiar with the doctor’s thesis of Aš-Šāhid Albūšayẖī Muṣṭalaḥāt naqdiyya wa balāġiyya fī Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabayyun li Al-Ǧāḥiẓ (Beirut 1982/1402h), and with the study of M. Bakhtin Les genres du discours, contained in his Esthétique de la création verbale (Gallimard, Paris 1984) that originated in the middle of the 80s of the past century.  

Inspired by Józef Bielawski, my Master and Promoting Professor, I began my doctoral studies in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s Approach to Rhetoric and Stylistics, while doing my scholarship work in Cairo in 1966. In my studies, I used the Cairo editions of fundamental works by Al-Ǧāḥiẓ: Kitāb al-ḥayawān (7 vol., Misr 1357 h./1938), ed. ‘Abd as-Sallām Hārūn), Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabyīn (3 vol., Al-Qāhira 1926–1927, ed. Sandūbī), and Rasā’il Al-Ǧāḥiẓ [‘treaties’] (2 vol., Cairo-Bagdad 1385h/1965, ed. M. ‘Abd as-Sallām Hārūn).  

My research task was, typically for the oriental study method, to find Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s ideas of poetics and rhetoric in the broad context of all his works and to follow them by their systematization.

It was already at the initial stage of my studies that the translation of the title of the work Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabyīn appeared to be difficult. Its sense was not clear. While making myself familiar with Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s, student of Mu‘tazili masters, logical and precise analyses, I could not understand why the first part of the title bayān, which at that time, I translated following theoretical work of S. Skwarczyńska[1] as ‘explication’, or, taking into account the scope of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s definition[2], more broadly as ‘expression’, was followed by tabyīn with its dictionary meaning being ‘elucidation’ i.e. additional synonym that did not bring anything new to it.

At that period, I assumed only one established version of the title of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work: Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabyīn, following the most renowned authority in the field – French specialist in Arabic studies Ch. Pellat[3], and following I.J. Kračkovskij[4], Russian specialist in Arabic studies, theoretician of Arabic poetics from Damascus Amdjad Trabulsi[5], as well as following Egyptian editors: Sandūbī and ‘Abd as-Sallām M. Hārūn, who based their studies on the manuscript kept in Cairo. My checking the Al-Ǧāḥiẓ entry in subsequent editions of Encyclopaedia of Islam confirmed that version of the title[6]. It was only C. Brockelmann who, in brackets, provided another version of transcription of the second part of the title, without any comments on it: Bayān wa tabyīn (tabayyun)[7]. None of the aforementioned researchers translated the title of the work, despite translating other titles. It seemed they were not sure what its correct translation should be.

I passed my doctoral thesis examination in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s Approach to Rhetoric and Stylistics in 1970. 

On its basis, I published two articles in the “Rocznik Orientalistyczny”[8] and suspended my studies on Al-Ǧāḥiẓ for a long time, focusing on studying and publishing many works in the field of contemporary Arabic literature.

In 1990, I was invited to the international conference “School of Abbasid Studies” held at University of St. Andrews in Scotland. The organizers, being interested in my earlier articles, asked me to give a lecture on Al-Ǧāḥiẓ. My speech: Some Aspects of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s Rhetorical Theory, was appreciated and admitted to printing.[9] Two years later, similar interest was given to my speech at the subsequent conference ‘School of Abbasid Studies’: Al-Ǧāḥiẓ on Poetry and Poets.[10] At St. Andrews I met world-renowned researchers occupied with studies on the Abbasid period, such as: Wolfhardt Heinrichs, Agostino Gilardo, R. Burton, D.E.P. Jackson, H.N. Kennedy and many others. Those whose studies were of special interest to me were the researchers of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s works: Wadī‘a Naǧīm and R.B. Serjent. I was encouraged not to give up the studies on Al-Ǧāḥiẓ and to write a book on his theory of ‘expression’ (bayān).

Discovery of the original titlein old manuscripts

The turning point in my studies was meeting at the congress „Union Européenne des Arabisants et Islamisants” in Salamanca of Muhammad Benšarīfa, director of the National Library in Rabat, who sent me a copy of the doctoral thesis of Morocco researcher Aš-Šāhid Al-Bèšayẖī (Albèšayẖī) entitled Literary Critical and Rhetorical Terms in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s „Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabayyun”[11] – which has not yet been given enough interest in European and Arab countries.

Therefore, I will briefly present his ideas here. The most essential for his studies of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ is Albūšayẖī’s providing evidence that the true title of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work was: Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabayyun.

Being a researcher at Al-Qarawiyyin University at Fez, he had an opportunity to study manuscript no. 1244 kept in the treasury of Al-Qarawiyyin Library, and provides us with a vocalized version of the title: As-sifr aṯ-ṯāliṯ min al-bayān wa at-tabayyun, tā’līf Abi Uṯmān ‘Amrū b. Baḥr Al-Ǧāḥiẓ.[12] He also gives evidence of the manuscript old origin.

He also analysed another manuscript kept at the Fayḍ Allah Library in Istanbul (illustrated manuscript catalogue no. 1/433, 106, adab), in which Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s title appears in obviously vocalized version: Yaštamilu haḏā as-sifru ‘alā ğamī‘ “Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabayyun” tā’līf Abī ‘Uṯmān ‘Amrū Ibn Baḥr Al-Ǧāḥiẓ [...]. He also found that it was the oldest of the work manuscripts ever found, dated 347 hiǧra, i.e. not even one hundred years after Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s[13] death. Despite its vocalization, the title of the manuscript was entered in the catalogue as: Al-Bayān wa at-tabyīn [sic!].[14]

Albūšayẖī also researched the manuscript kept at the Köprülü Library in Istanbul, entitled: Al-ğuz’ al-awwal min “Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabayyun” taṣnīf Abī ‘Uṯmān ‘Amrū Ibn Baḥr Al-Ǧāḥiẓ[15]

a. Historical evidence

In addition to his research work on manuscripts, the author provided a historical proof quoting renowned oriental study specialists who were sure that the title Bayān wa tabayyun was correct.

As early as in 1838, M. G. de Slane, in the English translation of the work made by Ibn H̱allikan: Kitāb wafayāt al-a‘yān[16] in the part dealing with Al-Ǧāḥiẓ, follows the Arabic text reading Kitāb al-bayān wa tabayyun[17].

The same version of the title is quoted by Clement Huart in A History of Arabic Literature (London 1903) and in later French editions (Littérature arabe, Paris 1912 and 1923). Albūšayẖī also quotes equal legitimacy of both title versions at Brockelmann’s and the fact that famous Egyptian editor ‘Abd as-Sallām Hārūn, on the occasion of publishing of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work in 1948, noticed two different transcription versions of the title: tabyīn or tabayyun in various manuscripts. 

b. Logical proof

The author quotes the opinion of Mišāl ‘Āṣī, researcher from Syria, and his study Mafāhīm al-ğamāliyya wa an-naqd fi adab Al-Ǧāḥiẓ[18] in which it was asserted that the title appearing in several manuscripts Bayān wa tabayyun was correct for two reasons:

a) the word bayān means ‘clear and eloquent expression’, and the word tabyīn – means the same and applies also to the speaker. [underlined by K. S.-B.]

b) the word tabayyun applies to the hearer burdened with the task of fahm (understanding) of (what is linked with bayān of the speaker), whose task is ifhām (providing for understanding)[19] [underlined by K. S.-B.]

That is how contemporary Arab researchers brought back true meaning to Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s word being so essential to the title of his work and to his whole theory – the meaning that had been changed by careless copyists, who tried to correct the author[20]. Here, I give many thanks to those researchers and to M. Benšarīfa, who enabled me to get acquainted with Albèšayhī’s work.

On the basis of the above convincing evidence that the title of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work was K. bayān wa tabayyun, I translated it using the words ‘communication and perception’. Next, I formulated the hypothesis that Al-Ǧāḥiẓ was the first in the Arab world and in Europe to invent and formulate the theory of social communication. Having compared his ideas with works of M. Bakhtin, I found that Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory was more extensive and formulated more precisely than Bakhtin’s. Therefore, I accepted the invitation extended by Professor Miklós Maróth to take part in the conference in Piliscsaba, organized by Pázmány Péter Catholic University, and delivered to the Arabic study specialists my speech entitled Entre Al-Ǧāḥiẓ et Bakhtine.[21]

At that time, I took Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s advice: 

If you wanted to be occupied with that art (ṣinā‘a) [...], you made qaṣīda, produced oration or wrote a treaty [...], present your work to researchers. And if you see they are listening carefully, their eyes looking at you and [can hear] those who ask for it [...], serve it [...] [B., t. 1, p. 176].

The Arabic literature researchers were surprised to see an attempt at comparing Al-Ǧāḥiẓ, Arab researcher of the 9th century, with M. Bakhtin, famous theoretician who inspired the modern theory of literature of the 20th century. However, when presented with Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s texts, I could see fully defended and thoroughly-thought out, coherent theory of social communication, free from ages-old copyists’ errors, admitted to be more complete and based on broader approach than that of Bakhtin’s.

For the content, if alive – likes to shine, and if obvious – wants to call out.[22]

Life and work of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ

Abū ‘Uṯmān ‘Amr Ibn Baḥr al-Fukamī al-Baṣri, known under the nickname Al-Ǧāḥiẓ (Boggle Eyes), which he accepted with his inborn sense of humour, was born in Basra ca. 776. His family was probably of Ethiopian origin and taken care of by Arab tribe Banū Kināna. He was educated in Basra, which in his young years was one of the two famous centres of Arabic science and literature, the other one being Kufa. 

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ felt himself one hundred per cent Arab and throughout his whole life he consistently defended Arabic tradition and culture, both old-Arabic of the al-ǧāhiliyya time (6th century) and Muslim, against the influence of the old culture of defeated Persians (aš-šu‘ūbiyya), which, beginning from mid 8th century, was disseminated by Persian origin secretaries of the caliph chancellery, and next, during the rule of Harūn ar-Rašīd (786–809), his viziers of the Persian Barmakid family and their caliph court confidents.

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ was an exceptionally talented pupil of philologists from Basra. Those were famous scientist: Abū ‘Ubayda (died 825) and Al-‘Aṣma‘ī’ (died 828), his teachers of Arabic language, old and his contemporary Arabic poetry, history, geography, as well as Arabic customs and traditions. It was not long that, thanks to his talents, brightness and independence of thinking, he was admitted to intellectual elite circles of Mu‘tazilites, inspired by Greek knowledge. Contacts with them broadened Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s creative and scientific horizons. Mu‘tazilites allowed conducting philosophical discussions of religious or scientific issues. They introduced the rationalist doctrine in order to explain provisions of the Koran and Islam tradition (ḥadīṯ). They were adherents of five principles:

1. There is One God and he is the Creator of the world

2. Koran has been created by God [and not ever existing as maintained by Muslim orthodoxy]

3. Koran is ‘splendid’ as regards the content and form

4. A Muslim who has committed a serious sin [e.g. polytheism, apostasy] is in the ‘middle position’ between ‘the faithful’ and ‘non-faithful’ (munāfiq)

5. They assumed personal responsibility of an individual – faith involves avoiding sins, specifically serious ones; in the Koran God specified what is good and what is bad, and this is to be observed; thereby rejecting the principle of predestination and promoting differentiating between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ on the basis of provisions of the Koran.

Mu‘tazilites were named ahl al-‘adl wa at-tawḥīd, i.e. people of righteousness and of single [God].[23] They were most influential during the time of the ruling of caliphs Harūn ar-Rašīd (786–809) and Al-Mā’mūn (813–833). The latter one acknowledged their doctrine as applicable throughout the whole caliphate.

The most distinguished scientist Mu‘tazili were Ibrāhīm Ibn as-Sayyār an-Naẓẓām (died ca. 825) and Bišr Ibn al-Mu‘tamir (died between 835 and 840). Their works were lost, or destroyed on purpose, during the time of the ruling of caliph Al-Mutawakkil (847–861), who condemned their doctrine as heretic. Their teaching has remained only in fragments, as quoted in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s books. He studied Greek philosophers’ works at An-Naẓẓām’s, specifically Aristotle’s Logic and Zoology, thanks to which he acquired the skill of precise reasoning and developed his interest in nature. Another master, Bišr Ibn al-Mu‘tamir, made his talented student take interest in art of words and rhetoric, which later on resulted in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s original, first time formulated theory of social communication. He truly appreciated scientific terminology developed by Mu‘tazili scientists, which is visualized in preciseness of the terms used by him in his works. First of all, however, he took from his masters’ deep religious Muslim thinking, seeking justice and truth, and ethical principles, and made them the basis of his thinking. His work is characterized by precision and logic of scientific discourse, despite purposeful ‘work embellishing with poetry, anecdote and stories’ in order to provide readers with entertainment, so characteristic for adab type works. 

 Al-Ǧāḥiẓ was a scientist of very broad interests, strong critical mind, intelligent and keen observer of life and nature. He had outstanding literary talent and sense of humour. 

He died in 868, as the legend says, buried among books in his library.

Work

The life and work of  Al-Ǧāḥiẓ took place at the turn of the (8th and the 9th century – a very interesting period of flourishing Arabic-Muslim culture, in which there still concurrently existed: spoken word (lafẓ), i.e. poetry, tribal speeches, evening storytelling while sitting by the fire (samar) – preserved from the period of al-ğāhiliyya, as well as official speeches of caliphs, judges and governors, preaching in mosques and by wandering preachers. Writing (ẖaṭṭ) was already appearing, with old Arabic poems written down by philologists, as well as written down speeches, preaching, stories, etc. It was at that time that short treaties (rasā’il) appeared, and next, extensive scientific works and adab – beautiful, erudite, popular science prose. The term adab had several meanings – from personal culture, good manners acquired through knowledge required to be learnt by an educated man (adīb), to the above-mentioned kind of educational and entertaining prose, embellished with poem quotations.

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ achieved fame as the writer of many-volume works of adab type, and as the author of concise, logically composed treaties. 

In his treaties (Rasā’il)[24], he dealt with zoology, ethnography, sociology, history, politics, and customs, presenting details of life of the complex community of the Abbasid time. This subject area also includes his social-tradition work Kitāb al-buẖalā’ [‘Book of Misers’], in which he ridicules greediness, always criticised by Arabs since pre-Muslim times. Al-Ǧāḥiẓ attributes that feature mostly to people of Persian origin, adding to the text attractive satirical poems and entertaining anecdotes. 

Selected chapters and fragments of his extensive works are erudite and at the same time, strictly scientific in nature e.g. those of: Kitāb al-ḥayawān [‘Book of Animals] and Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabayyun [‘Book of Communication and Perception’]. ‘Book of Animals’ contains much interesting information about animals and descriptions of animal kinds, inspired to some extent by Aristotle’s Zoology[25] Al-Ǧāḥiẓ also provides findings resulting from own observation of the nature, quotes folk beliefs and legends pertaining to particular animals, finally poetic quotations, in which animals are named, with descriptions of hunting, and even a detailed list of subjects of poetic comparisons, e.g. a ruler may be compared to a lion or an eagle, a beautiful girl to a gazelle, etc. The author passes from one animal kind to another and adds many digressions in order to keep the reader interested, and by no means, make him bored.

Probably already during the process of writing of Kitāb al-ḥayawān and of observation of the manner in which animals communicate, or their reaction to impulses coming to them from surrounding nature,  Al-Ǧāḥiẓ began to think of and develop the idea that brought him to formulate his theory of communication and perception. He devoted his whole next work to that theory. 

So, he presented his basic principles of ‘communicating’ already in ‘Book of Animals’, and their final version in Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabayyun. Some issues belonging to the area of rhetoric, poetics, and eloquence were additionally included by him in his later written ‘treaties’. As it is known, at that time, works were written by hand and copyists were commissioned to do that work. Thus, it was impossible for the author to supplement or develop individual topics; this was possible in his next works. Therefore, it is very difficult to trace individual elements of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory, being so exceptional in the 9th century. Surprisingly, all his works examined in details reveal their elements as a clear, coherent, logical composition.

Majority of his contemporary researchers, later Arab authors, and European Arabic philologists being their successors, used to underline ‘chaos’ in his works. There were only a few who were able to see his genius. One of them was Józef Bielawski – my master and promoting professor, who, while inspiring me to choose Discovering of Elements of Rhetoric and Poetics in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s Works as the subject matter of my doctor’s thesis, provided me with precious advice, fully appreciated by me after years of my work. He drew my attention to the need of making a detailed research of all his works and treaties. In 1991, while giving a speech on Al-Ǧāḥiẓ in Scotland, I could hear the same opinion from Professor Wadī‘a Naǧīm, being a renowned authority in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work research. 

I can remember how enthusiastic I was when, unexpectedly, I discovered very essential parts of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory in treaties that seemed to be dealing with different subject matters. And more important that, when put together, they made an unusually logical and coherent theory.[26]

The researcher distinguished himself by clarity of mind and preciseness of lecture, as well as broadness of horizons as creator, due to which his ideas are found to be so fresh nowadays. 

In this book in the article Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s Theory of Social Communication, I present Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory of ‘communication and perception’, which I compare with Mikhail Bakhtin’s, second half of the 20th century, known theory of ‘discourse’. Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory deals with all kinds of works of his contemporary authors: poets, speech-makers, writers, any people speaking or writing, and analyses their contents.

He devotes special attention to eloquence, its virtues and vices. He is the first one, preceding even famous Ibn al-Mu‘tazz (died 908), to discuss rhetoric figures. Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s works are a source of valuable knowledge about the ‘golden age’ of Arabic culture. At the same time, he is an excellent stylist who writes with imagination, uses original metaphors and comparisons. He is also skilful at selecting poetic quotations and entertaining anecdotes.

In several places I compare Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s opinions with opinions of other known adab authors of literary works, for example with Ibn Qutayba (828–889), his rival. As regards Al-Mubarrad, let me use the following quotation from Janusz Danecki’s, author’s of a monograph on the Arab author, which reads: 

Another famous work of Al-Mubarrad was Al-Kāmil fī al-adab [Supreme Book on adab] – a kind of literary selection of stories, anecdotes and poems, with author’s philological comments and digressions. 

Later on, he says: 

In contrast to  Al-Ǧāḥiẓ [...], in Al-Mubarrad’s work there are no theoretical or literary issues or author’s considerations.  Al-Ǧāḥiẓ speaks in his own name. Al-Mubarrad prefers to quote others.[27]

Focusing on the subject matter of my study, I put aside other fields of knowledge being important in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work (e.g. zoology, political science, ethnography, etc.).

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory of social communication

This chapter presents the main principles of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory emphasizing its exceptionally contemporary nature. It is an attempt at proving that at its main points, his theory is coherent with scientific theories formulated at the end of the 20th century. Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s broad approach is compared with Mikhail Bakhtin’s outline of the issues under consideration and with contemporary Russian, French or Morocco semiologists’ opinions about gestures, signs and mutual relations between the information provider and the information recipient.

A. Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s Theory

It is already in Kitāb al-ḥayawān [Book of Animals] that Al-Ǧāḥiẓ begins his analysis of various ways of communicating and formulates his first ideas in that regard. Probably, they have their origin in his observations of animals and their reactions in particular situations in the natural environment. Being a pious Muslim as he is, he begins his analysis from a study of the relevant subject-related verses of 55 Sura of the Koran: Ar-Raḥmānu:

(God) Most Gracious! It is He Who has taught the Koran He has created man: He has taught him speech.[1] (Ar-Raḥmānu ‘allama al-Qur’āna ẖalaqa al-insāna ‘allamahu al-bayāna)

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ praises God, Creator of man whom he provided with the gift of ‘communication’:

Who said about his Envoi (may prayer and peace be with him): We could have made him an angel but we have made him a human being, since it is easier to understand a human being, his nature is that of humans and such will be the measure of what they will hear from him. 

Next, he comments: 

God has not provided man with one kind (ṣinf) of ‘communication’ (bayān) but with many.

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ develops this idea: 

God made four things and one medium to serve people as instruments of communication (ālat al-bayān), enabling them to learn the content (ma‘ānī), and translator (tarǧumān), to clarify possible different meanings, should those four not be adequate to achieve their purpose. The things are: spoken word (lafẓ), writing (ḥaṭṭ), gesture (išāra) and number (‘aqd). The fifth is the medium which exists, as an indication of content, proof or argument, in immovable, silent, mute bodies, which do not speak, do not feel, do not understand and do not move independently. [...] [Ḥ., vol. 1, p. 23]

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ makes his theory more precise and provides it with deeper analysis in his next work: Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabayyun [Book of Communication and Perception]. It deals with specific issues of language, grammar, phonetics, eloquence and rhetoric, which are various aspects of people’s communication and perception.

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ formulates his theory in chapter Bāb al-bayān[B., vol. 1, pp. 77–80]. First, he quotes most general opinions expressed by his Mu‘tazili masters (not giving their names). Next, he presents his own deliberations and definitions of bayān (‘communicating, expressing contents’). The chapter contains much valuable material, here quoted in longer fragments in the sequence as presented by the author.

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ writes: 

Language experts and critics of meanings said: The content (ma‘ānī) has its origin in the human heart, is envisaged in the mind, takes residence in the soul, is associated with the image, derives from the thought. It remains hidden, distant, and primitive, its existence is passive. The man does not know the conscience of his companion or needs of his brother or friend. He does not know his partner’s or assistant’s intention as regards [their common] matters and as regards anything which he has not been informed about. The content comes alive when [people] disclose it, inform others about it and use it. That particular skill [bayān] facilitates explanation of the content, enables [others’] minds to get acquainted with it, uncovers things which were covered, discloses those which were hidden, brings closer those which were distant. Clarifies things which were unclear, resolves those which were disputable. Makes perceptible things which were imperceptible, makes the imprisoned – free, the unknown – known, the wild – tamed, the anonymous – identified, the identified – familiar. The ability to reveal the content (iẓhār al-ma‘nā) depends on clear sign (wuḍūḥ ad-dalāla), adequacy of gesture (ṣawāb al-išāra), and on conciseness and precision of implementation. The clearer and more adequate the sign (ad-dalāla) and the more informative and the clearer the gesture (išāra), the more useful and efficient the content. [B., vol. 1, p. 77].

It seems that Al-Ǧāḥiẓ must have been inspired by thinking of his Mu‘tazili masters. However, the style of that fragment is so close, if not identical, to his own imaginative manner of expression that it suggests Al-Ǧāḥiẓ himself must have formulated the text of his masters’ ideas.

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ proceeds with his further observations, addressing directly the recipient (listener, reader):

Expression (ad-dalāla aẓ-ẓāhira) of hidden content is deemed to be explication, communication (bayān). And have you heard that God the Greatest, the Blessed, praised bayān, inviting us to practice and study it, as it is said in the Koran.[2]

Wadī‘a Naǧīm in: Al-Ǧāḥiẓ wa an-naqd al-adabī, points out the relationship between ‘explication’ (bayān) and mind, and, at the same time, the link between man and God. Al-Ǧāḥiẓ writes about it in his treaty Fī tafḍīl an-nuṭq ‘alā aṣ-ṣamṭ[3] [On Speech Being Superior to Silence]:

Bayān involves mind; it depends on it. Thus, mind being man’s virtue, given to man by Creator in order to enable his understanding of the created world and existence, bayān is to be an instrument of ‘explication’ of man’s understanding. In that sense, ‘explication’ is closely associated with mind, and serves as an intermediary between Creator and created world. Through bayān, man expresses his attitude towards Creator and uses it as means of worshipping God. [...] You will not be able to thank God and to express your gratitude to God in another way than by words.[4] Arabs are proud of it [i.e. of clear expression][5] and they are better in it than foreigners. [ibid.]

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ provides the reader with detailed comments in effort to ensure good communicative quality of his utterance:

Bayān is a common name for any thing (al-bayān ism ǧāmi‘ li kulli šay’) that unmasks the contents you are facing and that takes the cover off a secret thought in order enable the listener to reach the truth (ḥaqīqa) and to harvest the fruit, irrespective of the quality of bayān and the kind of expression (dalīl). [ibid.]

In that fragment it is worth pointing out the abstract sense of the word ‘thing’, which is also given another meaning, i.e. ‘category’, which Al-Ǧāḥiẓ uses interchangeably, as can later on be seen in a fragment presenting his theory. 

It is important to notice that he also mentions the ethical aspect of communicating – the listener should reach the truth» and mentions the variety of kinds (categories) of communicating.

Further on, the researcher writes: 

Since the core idea (madār al-amr) or the goal to be reached between the speaker and the listener is to provide for understanding (ifhām) and to understand (fahm). And this is bayān [irrespective of] thing [category] employed for successful ‘providing for understanding’ and explanation of the contents. [B., vol. 1, p. 78].

And I want you to know, and may God take care of you, that the limit (essence) of the content (ḥukm al-ma‘ānī) differs from the limit of the words (ḥukm al-alfāẓ). The content is endless. While the names [for] the content (asmā’ al-ma‘ānī) are limited, few, precise. [ibid.]

While commenting on the above-quoted fragment, Iraqi researcher Wadī‘a Naǧīm uses the terms being used by Al-Ǧāḥiẓ himself: 

We can understand from it that the content, if not confined by names, remains free and broad [...], since it is you to make your words the carrier which carries them to the destination and which identifies it [...].[6]

Here we have to deal with the issue of the relationship between the content and the word (verbal form expressing the content), being very essential in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory,[7] many times discussed by him in various places in his books and treaties. Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s text, that we quote below, in which he ascribes a precise meaning to and explains the categories of bayān (expression, communication), may be treated as his definition of the term:

Wa ǧamī‘ aṣnāf ad-dalālāt ‘alā al-ma‘ānī min lafẓ wa ġayr lafẓ ẖamsat ašyā’ lā tanquṣ wa lā tazīd: āwwaluhā al-lafẓ, ṯumma al-īšāra, ṯumma al-‘aqd, ṯumma al-ẖaṭṭ, ṯumma al-ḥāl wa tusammā naṣba. Wa naṣba hiya al-ḥāl ad-dālla allatī taqūm maqāmat tilka al-aṣnāf. [...] [B., vol. 1, p. 78].

(All together there are five categories of presentation (expression) of the content, in words or without words, not too few and not too many, the first being the word, the next being the gesture, the system [link, relation between phenomena, number], the writing, and the situation named the sign. The sign is the situation indicating [something], which stands for those [four] categories.)

We will discuss those categories individually. Next, we will analyse Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s ‘theory of communication’ on the background of, only fragmentary, opinions of our contemporary European or Arab researchers. 

Al-lafẓ (spoken word) and al-ẖaṭṭ (writing)

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s knowledge was not only theoretical but also practical. He lived in a community whose culture was still based predominantly on the ‘spoken word’, despite the growing importance of ‘writing’. 

Since its 6th century beginnings, the Arabic poetry used to be improvised and recited. Philologists began to write it down as late as at the turn of the 8th century.

In the 6th century, during the al-ǧāhiliyya period (before Islam), various kinds of speech were practiced (ẖuṭba), and later on written down by, among others, Al-Ǧāḥiẓ. Since the beginning of Islam, Prophet Muhammad and the righteous caliphs delivered the obligatory Friday ẖuṭbas at the Mecca or Medina mosques; later on, that obligation was imposed on caliphs in the caliphate capital towns, or on governors and judges in other towns.

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s works discuss many kinds of ‘speeches’ made in the al-ǧāhiliyya times, such as ẖuṭbat aṣ-ṣulḥ, a peacemaking speech, made in order to reconcile disputing parties, ẖuṭbat al-ḥamāla, a speech delivered while providing a ransom for one’s blood killed [B., vol. 1, p. 110], and speeches relating to Islam, such as ẖuṭbat al-‘īd (a speech made on great Muslim holidays), ẖuṭbat al-‘aṭā’ (a speech on gifts), ẖuṭbat an-nikāḥ (a speech delivered at a wedding party) [B., vol. 1, p. 109],tā’bīn (a speech delivered at the deceased’s grave) [B., vol. 2, pp. 241, 270, 271; B., vol. 3, p. 96], as well as other related forms of orations such as ta‘aziya (condolences) [B., vol. 2, pp. 159, 160; B., vol. 3, p. 266; Ḥ., vol. 3, pp. 35, 175]; waṣīya (testament, instructions, advice – oral or written) [B., vol. 2, pp. 265, 270; B., vol. 3, pp. 88, 90, 91, 92].

Another form of speech was mau‘iẓa (purely religious preaching) [B., vol. 1, p. 111].

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ mentions various forms of wide-range multi-member discussion, common in the ǧāhiliyya times such as munāfara (contesting on numbers of tribe members), muǧādala (discussion, polemics), mufāẖara (boasting of heroic deeds), and mušāwala (throwing abuses at each other, each being as a scorpion’s sting) [B., vol. 3, p. 5].

In addition to the ‘spoken word’, another adequate kind of bayān (expressing oneself, communicating) is ‘writing’ (ẖaṭṭ).

Already in Kitāb al-ḥayawān, Al-Ǧāḥiẓ makes precise discussion of the relationship between the word and the writing:

Thus, there is no difference between speech sounds produced by voice sounding in the air and letters created on paper with the use of black ink. As the tongue, mouth cavity, labels, uvula and teeth, create [sounds], so does the pen with the use of ink, tissue, air and paper, produce images and signs, formulating examples and instructions. [Ḥ., vol. 1, p. 70–71].

In Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabayyun, the author discusses the differences between the word utterance made by the tongue and the writing created by the pen. He begins with the quotation from the Koran to prove that writing is more valuable:

In his Book, God showed the value of writing and the beneficial effects of the book, saying to the Prophet: (Proclaim! Thy Lord is Most Bountiful; He Who taught [the use of] Pen; Taught man that Which he knew not). [op. cit., S. 96, v. 3, 4, 5]

[By providing next, anonymous, quotations, Al-Ǧāḥiẓ informs the reader:

They said: «The marks made with pen stay longer, while the operation of tongue is volatile. 

And continues: 

The tongue is limited in expression to what is close and present, while the pen is able [to write] about what has been said and about what is unknown, what existed long ago and what is coming into being. A book may be read at all places and studied at all times, while the tongue action requires the listener, cannot be passed on to another person. [B., vol. 1, p. 71].

At the same time, Al-Ǧāḥiẓ emphasizes that writing reflects the culture of the given community. He discusses various kinds of writing beginning from the oldest inscriptions carved in stone, old Arab tribe treaties and contracts put down on papyrus, to diplomatic correspondence. Finally, he deals with the form which, in his opinion, is the highest and the fullest, that is the scientific and literary work.[8]

In his above-quoted opinion, the researcher says:

Bayān is a general name for everything.

This means that he does not limit that term to any particular form of literary or non-literary ‘expression’. Naturally, in this case, he deals with only two categories of communication between people – that based on spoken word and that based on writing.

The two forms [two kinds] of communication may be compared to those dealt with in the theory outlined by M. Bakhtin in Les genres du discours, in Esthétique de la création verbale.[9] Bakhtin’s outline is limited to two kinds of ‘discourse’: oral and written. He boasts of himself breaking the ages long tradition of European criticism, which involved examination of various kinds of artistic literary works while not taking interest in ‘non-literary’ forms of expression. Bakhtin introduces the term ‘discourse’ with the following concise description:

What should be underlined is in particular the variety of the kinds of discourse (oral and written), to which the following belong, without any difference: a short reply made during everyday talks, colloquial storytelling, a letter, a military order, etc. The said kinds of discourse may also include various forms of scientific expression, and all literary kinds, from a saying to a multi-volume novel. [op. cit., p. 265]

M. Bakhtin was sure that ‘the general issue of the kinds of discourse has never been discussed’. [ibid.]

Naturally, he could not know Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s ninth century Arabic theory, that even in the title of his work, never translated into European languages in its entirety, Kit‚b al-bayān wa at-tabayyun (Book of Communication and Perception), not only deals with all kinds of bayān, i.e. Bakhtin’s discourse, but also adds to them [kinds] of wordless ‘expression’ (communication): al-iš‚ra, al-‘aqd and al-ḥ‚l. Those three categories are studied by contemporary Russian and French specialists in semiotics, as well as by the Arab scientists from Morocco.

The contents of the Book of Communication and Perception prove that Al-Ǧāḥiẓ occupied himself with forms of oral and written expression in all their variety. In addition to the extensive parts of his work devoted to poets and poetry, writers and writers’ works, speakers and various kinds of their orations, tribal speech-makers and various kinds of speeches delivered by them, caliphs, judges and governors and their official speeches, we can find there short remarks serving as evidence that a ‘short announcement’, Bakhtin’s énoncé, of a young woman slave, a ‘joke’ or ‘reply’ made by a Bedouin boy and a ‘light cheerful talk’ at a bazaar of Basra constituted an equally important part of discourse (bayān) for Al-Ǧāḥiẓ, as it did for Bakhtin.

Contemporary Iraqi researcher of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work, Wadī‘a Naǧīm, writes in her study: Al-Ǧāḥiẓ wa an-naqd al-adabī [Al-Ǧāḥiẓ and Literary Criticism]:[10]

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ is most probably the first of the researchers writing in Arabic who studies balāġa (eloquence) and bayān (expression) in all forms (ṣūra) and manifestations (maẓāhir) in poetry, spoken or written prose, fully and comprehensively. [op. cit., p. 14].

Al-išāra (gesture, sign)

The Russian researchers G.E. Kreydlin and M.A. Krongauz speak briefly about gesture in chapter Hands as Signs, where they attribute much significance to hand gesticulation. They divide gestures into: ‘gesture-emblems’ used independently instead of speech, and ‘gesture- illustrations’ accompanying speech, sometimes clarifying its meaning, even without engaging the mind.[11]

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ makes an analogical division of gestures into the independent ones and those accompanying live speech. He does not limit them only to gestures made by hand, but adds also gestures made with head, eye, eye-brow, or arm. One may make gestures from a distance, using clothes, threatening somebody with a sword, with a whip, etc. [B., vol. 1, p. 79, 80]

In Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s study, gestures may express feelings of those being in love, threatened, or left alone:

Without gestures, people would not be able to understand particular meanings.

The fragments of poems quoted below show that it is shades of feeling hidden in gestures that count: 

The poet says about the meaning of the gesture (dalālat al-išāra): With a corner of her eye she gave me a sign, in fear of her family Without words, the gesture of the frightened one. And I understood that the corner of her eye said: Welcome my beloved, loving passionately. And another one says: The eye reveals what is hidden in soul, of love or hatred, if there is any. The eye is saying when the mouth remains silent and you can see the explanation from deep of heart. [B., vol. 1, p. 80]

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ also analyses the relation between voice and gesture. He writes: «The gesture and the word are companions». And further on:

The sign reaches more distant places than the voice, and from that perspective the sign is superior to the voice. [...] The beauty of the sign [made] with a hand or head compliments a beautiful language expression. Together with the form, shape, grace, balancing, coquetry and all that is associated with gesture. [B., vol. 1, p. 80].

Here, we can see how a simple gesture is extended by imaginable emotional situation.

The gesture is a valuable, even recommended, supplementation of speech (oration – ẖuṭba). The speech-maker’s symbols (ẖaṭīb) were: a rod and a turban. Sometimes, the speech-maker is leaning against his arc. [B., vol. 3, p. 64].

The speech-maker, by his head or hand movements, indicates parts of his words and their division. Arabs divide kinds of movements into word-related or content-related. Should the speech-maker have his hands tied and be forbidden to move his head, one third of his words would be lost. [B., vol. 3, p. 81]

Contemporary Morocco scientists are of the opinion that Al-Ǧāḥiẓ outlined his own semiological system, dividing signs into groups, as do our contemporary Russian or French semiologists. Morocco researcher Idrīs Belmaliḥ, in his work Ru’ya bayāniyya ‘inda Al-Ǧāḥiẓ (Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s Vision of Expression) tries to find an analogy between Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s understanding of ‘sign’ and Barthes or G. Mounin theory.[12]

Al-‘aqd (number, counting, reckoning)

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ does not describe this term in details. He only provides the reader with its very short definition and four (!) quotations of the Koran verses. It is the quotations that help to find the sense of al-‘aqd, other than, in my opinion, its simplified understanding by some Arab researchers.

We can see the difference between Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s approach and that of the authors of the contemporary Russian semiotics: Semiotika ili azbuka obszczenija. They write:

Numbers, like words, belong to ‘signs’ and are important to people. By using them, we count, take measures, put things in order. [op. cit., p. 199]

This simple description includes numbers understood in terms of ‘sign’.

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s understanding of the term ‘aqd (number, counting, reckoning) is much broader. He writes:

wa amma al-qawl fī al-‘aqd wa huwa al- ḥisāb, dūna al-lafẓ wa al-ẖaṭṭ, fa ad-dalīl ‘alā faḍīlatihi wa ‘iẓam qadar al-intifā‘ bihi qawl Allāh ‘azza wa ǧalla: (As far as al-‘aqd is concerned, it is counting (ḥisāb) without word or writing. And a proof of how valuable and powerful its use is may be found in the words of God Almighty):Fāliqu al-iṣbāḥa wa ǧā‘ilu al-layla sakanān wa aš-šamsa wa al-qamara ḥusbānān...[13]; (He it is that cleaveth the day-break [from the dark], He makes the night for rest and tranquillity, and the sun and the moon for the reckoning [of time] (ḥusbānān). the Koran, Sura 6 Al-Ān’ām (Livestock), verse 96. [B., vol. 1, p. 81]

Another Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s quotation from the Koran (Sura Ar-Rahmanu, verse 5) ends with the same words:

[...] wa aš-šamsu wa al-qamaru bi ḥusb‚nin. (The sun and the moon follow courses [exactly] computed).[14]

As far as this is concerned, I found the following comment made by an Arab the Koran translator exceptionally important for my thesis: «in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory, the term ‘aqd / ḥisāb has a deep sense of mathematical cosmological rules» that God has given to people.

The translator says in [his English] commentary to the Koran no. 5174 following the above verse (quoted by Al-Ǧāḥiẓ):

In the great astronomical universe there are exact mathematical laws, which bear witness to God’s Wisdom and also to His favours to His creatures [...].[15]

The contemporary Muslim theologist ‘Abd Allāh Yèsuf ‘Alī, seems to repeat precisely the thought of Al-Ǧāḥiẓ, who, in the above-quoted fragment dealing with al-‘aqd, gives the following two more quotations from the Koran as a proof:

Huwa allaḏī ǧa‘ala aš-šamsa ḍiyā’an wa al-qamara nūrān wa qaddarahu manāzila li ta‘lamū ‘adada as-sinīn wa al-ḥisāba [...] (It is He who made the sun to be a shinning glory, and the moon to be a light, and measured out stages for her; that you might know the number of years and the count [of time]. [The Koran, Sura Jonas, verse 5][16]

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ will repeat the same sense, quoting the 12th verse of Sura Al-Isr‚’.[17]

[of our] Signs; the sign of the Night have we obscured, while the sign of the Day we have made to enlighten You : that you may seek Bounty from Your Lord, and that you may know the number and count of the years : all things have we explained in detail. 

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ comments on it: 

Reckoning (ḥisāb) includes many meanings and numerous benefits, and if not for the ability to reckon in the world, we would not understand the words of God Almighty and Glorious about the meaning of reckoning in the other world. [B., vol. 1, p. 80].

It is evident that Al-Ǧāḥiẓ selected those quotations from the Koran carefully, to speak about the mathematical laws of time and space, which express (yubīnu) God’s power, at the same time communicating to the man the possibility of measuring the time and space. Additionally, being a faithful Muslim, he includes [ḥisāb] i.e. taking the man to ‘moral account’ by God at the Final Judgement.

The above-presented researcher’s observations have nothing to do with primitive ‘counting with fingers’ (designated by the same word ‘aqd), common for centuries, and now, at Arab bazaars.

Hence, al-‘aqd is in a sense a sign from God, and the man is to understand that sign. Here we have God – the sender, and man – the addressee, i.e. the principle of bayān, communication.

It is interesting that identical relation, i.e. mutual communication between ‘God and man’, is shown by the Russian researchers. Kreydlin and Krongauz write:

People communicate with nature and with God, who sends miraculous signs to the earth to confirm His existence, e.g. the burning bush to Moses.[18]

The researchers consistently maintain that there being communication, there must be the sender and the recipient, including God, while people say prayers to Him.[19]

In the light of the dispute about understanding of the sense of the term al-‘aqd it must be pointed out that some Arab scientists do not analyze the quotation in its entirety, or even skip some quotations on a given subject in their analysis, satisfying themselves only with a fragment. This is contrary to the principle of scientific responsibility.[20] The worse so, they make such an analysed fragment the basis for their erroneous opinion, later on absentmindedly repeated or imitated by their followers[21] (taqlīd).

The opinions of the contemporary Arab scientists who study Al-Ǧāḥiẓ nowadays are varied. For example, the meaning of the term al-‘aqd ‘counting with fingers’ is approved of by Idrīs Belmaliḥ in his work Ru’ya al-bayāniyya ‘inda al-Ǧāḥiẓ, while ‘Alī Bè Malḥam in Al-man‚hi al-falsafiyya ‘inda al-Ǧāḥiẓ, approves of its broad interpretation, namely as calculation, system of numbers.[22]

Al-ḥāl (situation)

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ writes: 

Indication (naṣba) means a situation (ḥāl) in which one expresses oneself without words and indicates something without [the use] of hand. We can see it in what God created in the sky and on earth, in all that is voiceless and that has been given voice, including what is immovable and what grows, stays at one place or wanders, including the complete and the incomplete. Since the proof (dalāla) in a dead and immovable [thing] is the same as the proof in a live, voice-granted, animal. [B., vol. 1, p. 81]. Since it is also the silent that express something [as regards] giving a proof, and the voiceless [beings] [as regards] an argument (burhān). God said: Ask the earth: Who has made you cut with rivers, who has grown your trees and provided fruits? And although the answer will not be a dialog, it will be an ‘expression taking into account existing situation, without use of language, however, understandable to a reasonable observer’ (i‘tibār). [B., vol. 1, p. 81].

In the earlier-discussed examples from Kitāb al-ḥayawān, Al-Ǧāḥiẓ shows the animals’ ability to receive signals from the nature, e.g. the wolf receives information provided by the smell brought by the wind. A skinny body and grey complexion are signs of illness. [Ḥ., vol. 1, p. 34]

And how much may Alexander of Macedonia say while lying on a bier!? The speech-maker said standing over his body: Yesterday, he was more eloquent (ablaġu), nevertheless today, he expresses more (abyanu). [B., vol. 1, p. 82]

Thus, Al-Ǧāḥiẓ understands «communication by situation» as an expression of hidden contents by mute objects and their variable features. He writes:

If there is a reasonable recipient, a silent, mute object may substitute in communication (bayān) a live, speaking human. [Ḥ., vol. 1, p. 35]

It is exceptional that such a broad approach to the types of expression (communication) is so much in line with the newest European scientific theories.

In Russian handbook of semiotics, G.M. Kreydlin, A. M. Krongauz, Semiotika ili azbuka obščeniya,[23] the authors discuss the issue of situation – communicating something to others. It is effectuated by means of signs to be received by sight or hearing, as well as by smell, taste or feeling. They repeat that communication needs the sender and the recipient.

B. Al-bayān wa at-tabayyun (communication and perception) in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s and Mikhail Bakhtin’s works

Let us compare the Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory already presented with the major assumptions and specific ideas of the theory of ‘discourse’ formulated by M. Bakhtin.  

It is essential that, while writing about various kinds of communication (bayān), Al-Ǧāḥiẓ focuses in particular on perception (tabayyun).

He writes: 

And the main point is communication (bayān) and perception (tabayyun), providing for understanding (ifhām) and understanding (tafhīm). And the one who provides understanding (mufahhim) and the one who understands (mutafahhim) are co-participants in the process of communication (bayān), but the one who provides understanding has a higher position than the one who understands, as the teacher and the pupil. [B., vol. 1, p. 78]

An analogical approach is promoted by M. Bakhtin in his works published in 1984, where he emphasizes the importance of language communicative function, writing:

The listener, who has received and understood the sense of discourse, has at the same time ‘active and responsive attitude’ to discourse: the listener agrees or does not agree to it, supplements it, accepts it, etc.

He continues:

Understanding of spoken word, utterance (parole vivante) is always accompanied by active reception.[24]

Paradoxically, very interesting examples, as if given specifically to match Bakhtin’s theory of ‘attitude of active response’ (une attitude responsive active), may be found twelve centuries earlier, in Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work, in its parts dealing with speech-makers: the author instructs speech-makers to be attentive to the reaction of the listener, who should be able to understand the speaker’s words exactly and who should be interested in them. Let me quote two examples selected from among many:

The speech-maker’s enthusiasm – adequate to the listeners’ ability to understand’;

and: 

If the listener is not more eager to listen that the speech-maker is eager to speak, the speaking one will not achieve the aim at which his words are directed, and his speech will be missing as much as the listening one was missing [attention]. [B., vol. 2, p. 232]

Another quotation by Al-Ǧāḥiẓ seems to be practical illustration of Bakhtin’s thesis of ‘active receipt’ of provided information: 

The speech-maker ends his utterance in order to enable the other to speak, or to give space for understanding the other’s active response.[25]:

An example from Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work:

Caliph Al-Ma’mūn gave the following answer to Sa’īd Ibn Salm, who was giving him thanks for the beautiful words addressed to him: – That is because the Prince of the Faithful understands you when you are speaking and finds understanding when he is speaking to you. And he did not find understanding in people who went away, and he does not expect to find in those who will come. He added: – By God, you follow my speech not losing any sound, you stop at the words that are not fully uttered, and you learn from them what I myself did not know! [B., vol. 2, pp. 29–30]

If we pass from that example of deal understanding between information provider and information receiver, to communication and perception in the written form, specifically in literary or popular science works, we will see Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s evident concern about communicativeness of those works. The writer should take efforts to make the work understandable to a wide range of readers. Therefore, he should not limit his book to a narrow range of specialists in a particular domain, but treat it as an instrument serving dissemination of knowledge. [Ḥ., vol. 1, p. 88]

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ attributed much importance to scientific terminology being used by the elite and defined precisely by his Mu‘tazili masters; he writes:

Distinguished theologists and theoreticians revealed more eloquence than majority of speech-makers. It was them who selected particular words to have particular meanings and ‘created’ (ištaqqū) Arabic names for them. It was them who ‘invented the terms’ (iṣṭalaḥū) to name (tasmiyya) what was not named in the Arabic language. And, from this perspective, they became the predecessors and an example to be followed. [B., vol. 1, p. 129]

Al-Ǧāḥiẓ recommends that terminology to be used while expressing philosophical or scientific contents to the elite recipients or theologists,; however, he is against using it while referring to general audience. He writes:

Individual art employs individual selected terms [...] and they are those most appropriate in the given domain. However, it is improper when a theologist seeks the scholars’ words for his oration or letter, or while addressing his family, slaves or while providing information in a conversation [...] An individual situation needs the words that are appropriate for it, and individual art (ṣinā‘at) needs its individual terminology. [H., vol. 3, p. 368–369].

This opinion proves Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s broad approach to the theory of social communication, taking into account the complexity and variety of the Arab community in his times. Once again, we are facing exceptional congruence of his thought with that of Bakhtin’s, who writes:

Every époque, every literary trend [...] is characterised by its specific concept of the literary work recipient (addressee), by specific perception and understanding by the reader, listener and the audience. (op. cit., p. 306).

C. Theory of communication (al-bayān wa at-tabayyun) and later Arab theoreticians

It should be added that Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s theory, a theory of a genius, placing him among the 20th century researchers, has not enjoyed recognition in the Arab world, neither was it recognized by his contemporaries or by the subsequent generations.

No doubt the first and the main reason for that was that individual parts of his theory and his important scientific statements were scattered among his anecdotes, stories, poems, quotations from the Koran, information from history, ethnography, zoology, politics, and information concerning customs, etc. That was in line with the convention of writing of such works adab, the instructive and entertaining works of the 9th century. However, that made it difficult for researchers to put together and in generally understand his theory. That was why they made use of only fragments of his works, which often resulted in their wrong understanding.

Those who recognized his genius were few. One of them was Abū Hilāl al-‘Askarī (died 1005), theoretician of poetics, who in his work Kitāb aṣ-ṣinā‘atayni al-kitāba wa aš-ši`r [Book of Two Arts – Writing and Poetry] praised Al-Ǧāḥiẓ’s work, not trying, however, to conceal his objections:

[...] The books on [rhetoric] are only few, the greatest and most important one of them being Kitāb al-bayān wa at-tabyīn by Abè ‘Uṯmān Ibn Baḥr al-Ǧāḥiẓ. On my life, I swear it is very useful, it is extensive, it contains beautiful wordings and refined thoughts, excellent speeches and interesting stories, [...] Unfortunately, its lecture that defines beautiful speech involving ‘expression’ (bayān) and eloquence (balāġa) is dispersed and scattered all over the work. It is as if lost [sheep] among the examples, and its revealing is possible only after long tracing and several time browsing [in the book].[26]

Another reason, which I realised thanks to the doctor’s thesis of the Moroccan researcher Aš-Šāhid Albūšayẖī,