An Ornamentalist View of Metaphor in Arabic Literary Theory

The aim of the present paper is to examine the kind of thinking and the chain of assumptions that lie behind the reduction of metaphor to a mere ornament in Arabic literary theory. For this purpose, Arabic ornamentalist thinking is traced from the third century A.H. (the ninth century A.D.) to the seventh century A.H. (the thirteenth century A.D.). This is not to say, however, that the seventh century marks the end of such thinking in Arabic literary theory, but that at that time the Arabic literary theory, and the theory of metaphor, was developed into fixtures with an increasing emphasis given to form over content and the art of verbal expression in general. Inordinate attention was given to ornate style, and rhetoric became an arena for displaying verbal acrobatics. The axioms, "closeness of resemblance" and "congruity of metaphorical elements," represent metaphor's highest degree of formalization and stereotyping. That is why some of the images in classical theory are mainly based on complete parallelism between the objects compared, particularly with regard to form, size and color. From that time onwards, the fixtures of the classical theory have been kept intact. Metaphor, and rhetoric in general, is nowadays reduced to textbooks to be studied in abstract and rigid terms developed by the classical theory. Arabic rhetoric is a dead discipline: it is merely an ornamental repertoire of figures that could only be used as a sweet adorner for the language.


Introduction
In the West, the theory of metaphor has undergone a drastic development starting from the classical view which confines metaphor to the general role of adornment, elucidation and agreeable mystification, to the modernist view-initiated by the romantics and reached its maturity in the twentieth century-which has reinstated the epistemic power of metaphor. Challenging the assumptions on which the ornamentalist view hinges, the western modernist view holds that metaphor is a mode of assimilating reality to language, a structural organizing principle that does not merely re-describe an already existing meaning but creates a new meaning with a cognitive content that is unparaphrasable 1 . In the Arab world, however, the Arabic classical ornamentalist view is still dominating Arabic literary theory and, hence, has continued to exercise a fatal attraction up to the present day. The aim of the present paper is to examine the kind of thinking and the chain of assumptions that lie behind the reduction of metaphor to a mere ornament in Arabic literary theory. For this purpose, Arabic ornamentalist thinking is traced from the third century A.H. (the ninth century A.D.) to the seventh century A.H. (the thirteenth century A.D.). This is not to say, however, that the seventh century marks the end of such thinking in Arabic literary theory, but that at that time Arabic theory of metaphor was developed into fixtures that have been carried over to the present day. I will first discuss the definition of metaphor and the related tropes in Arabic rhetoric in order to outline the broader sense in which this paper uses the term "metaphor" and which would be of relevance to the ensuing discussion. Then I will trace the historical evolution of metaphor to examine the chain of assumptions underlying the ornamentalist thinking.

Metaphor and Related Tropes in Arabic Rhetoric
Metaphor is the fundamental figure of speech in Arabic rhetoric: the other traditional figures,"‫"تشبيه‬ (simile) and ‫"مجاز‬ ‫مرسل"‬ (free trope) tend to be prototypes of metaphor. The term ‫استعارة‬ (metaphor) is derived from the root ‫أعار‬ " -‫يعير"‬ meaning "to borrow." It refers to a set of linguistic processes whereby attributes belonging to one thing are "borrowed" or transferred to another. (Matlub, 1983-1987 Hence, like its western counterpart, the Arabic metaphor is also seen as a trope of transference that manifests the basic patterns of figurative language. The word ‫مجاز‬ is used in Arabic rhetoric to refer to figurative language. The word originally refers to the place where a movement of some sort is displayed; and in rhetoric it indicates the movement or transference of words from one realm of thought to another (Matlub, 1983-1987. In this sense, ‫"مجاز"‬ (figurative language) is language which uses words deviating from their original meanings and uses. Its opposite is (literal language) ‫,"حقيقة"‬ wherein words are used in their original sense. (Reinert, 1978(Reinert, , pp. 1025(Reinert, -1026 In Arabic, as in western rhetoric, the distinction between metaphor and simile is based on syntactic considerations: metaphor is considered a shortened simile. However, while in western rhetoric the distinction is based on the absence or presence of the connective, in Arabic rhetoric it is based on the suppression of one of the terms of comparison. That is to say, in Arabic rhetoric structures of the form A is B, and A is like B are similes, whereas in a proper metaphor the borrowed term (B) completely replaces the proper term (A). This notion made dominant by such prominent rhetoricians as al-Qadi al-Jurjani (2006, pp. 324-325) and'Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani (1954, pp. 302-303)), seems to pivot on the idea that the identification effected in a proper metaphor can only be expressed mentally, not linguistically. For instance, in the proper metaphor " ً ‫أسدا‬ ‫"رأيت‬ ( I saw a lion) [i.e. Zayd], the speaker hides the name "Zayd" pretending that it is not the original name and gives the name "lion" instead. The identification in this case is embedded in the speaker's mind, and the linguistic utterance shows only the name "lion," which is pretended to be the only name set in the vocabulary of the language for Zayd. However, in the statements "ٌ ‫أسد‬ ٌ ‫"زيد‬ (Zayd is a lion) and ‫ك‬ ‫"زيد‬ ‫األسد"‬ (Zayd is like a lion), where a simile is expressed, it is unlikely that the hearer would take Zayd and lion as identical, for one cannot be designated as a man and a lion at the same time.
Such a notion, however, seems to be mistaken. Needless to say, no mental operation can take place outside the domain of language. The mental intention of one who says (I saw a lion), meaning Zayd, cannot be expressed except by a linguistic utterance, be it audible or not. In other words, the statement, "I saw a lion" is, in fact, based on a basic statement of identity of the form A is B (Zayd is a lion). That is, there is no essential difference between metaphor and simile; the same phenomenon is referred to by two grammatical forms.
Closely connected with metaphor and simile in Arabic rhetoric is the figure"‫مرسل‬ ‫"مجاز‬ (free trope). The term literally means a trope or a figure which is free of the relation of resemblance expressed by metaphor and simile. (Reinert, p. 1027) The relations expressed by free trope include those of metonymy and synecdoche in western rhetoric: the cause for the effect ‫ببية)‬ َ ‫,(الس‬ or the effect for the cause ‫سببية)‬ ُ ‫;(الم‬ the whole for the part ‫ُلية)‬ ‫;(الك‬ the part for the whole ‫;(الجزئية)‬ the condition for the place where it manifests itself ‫(الحالية)‬ or the contrary ‫.(المحلية)‬ (Matlub,Vol. III, Instances are: ‫الحاكم‬ ‫"بث‬ ‫المدينة"‬ ‫في‬ ‫َه‬ ‫عيون‬ (The governor spread his eyes in the city), where "eyes" (the part) is a substitute for "men" (the whole); ‫"رعينا‬ ‫الغيث"‬ (we tended the rain), where "rain" (the cause) is a substitute for "plants" (the effect);" ً ‫نباتا‬ ‫السماء‬ ‫"أمطرت‬ (the sky rained vegetation), where "vegetation" ( the effect) replaces "rain"(the effect). Free trope might be designated as a figure of contiguity, a movement within a single world of discourse. However, we also find the basic statement of identity; A is B, lying at the center of it: A is identified with B which is contiguous to it. In "We tended the rain," "rain" is identified with "plants," while each retains its own identity.
In this paper, I use the term "metaphor" to include what is traditionally designated as metaphor, simile and free trope since the basic statement of hypothetical identity expressed by metaphor lies at the center of all related figures. This definition of metaphor springs from the nature of figurative language of which metaphor is considered a basic manifestation. The process of figurative language is one of synthesis, as opposed to discursive language which is analytical; it is the unification of heterogeneous elements into some kind of unity in which heterogeneity is paradoxically preserved. By the same token, metaphor is a vital synthesis: the metaphorical elements A and B are identified with each other so that we can see two ideas in one.

The Tenth Century
A more systematic Arabic literary theory (and theory of metaphor) began to be established around the third century A.H. (the tenth century A.D.). The formation of the theory was influenced by the translations of Greek works, especially those of Aristotle and Plato, and by the Arab theologians' involvement in exegesis of the Quran. (Abbas , 2006, pp. 51-65;Maroth, 2002, pp. 241-243;Simawe, 2001, pp. 275-276) Around this time, the first step towards the formation of a theory of metaphor was taken by al-Jahiz, Ibn al-Mu'tazz and Qudama bin Ja'far. Like western classical theorists, Arab theorists formulated the theory of metaphor in connection with the issue of form and content, or language and thought, an issue which preoccupied Arab thinkers for centuries to come. In Arabic literary theory, this issue took the form of the dichotomy of words ‫(األلفاظ)‬ and ideas ‫.(المعاني)‬ Words are seen as the dress of ideas, and metaphor is one of the verbal graces ‫(المحسنات‬ ‫البديعية)‬ used by poets to embellish words. Hence, Arab theorists leveled harsh criticism against the far-fetched and abstruse metaphors and insisted upon the harmony and congruity of metaphorical elements.
Al-Jahiz (d. 255/862) was the first Arab critic to deal with the question of form and content. In his al-Hayawan, he announces his well-known theory that ideas are available to everyone, and that what counts is the verbal qualities that give them expression. (pp. 131-132) The significant feature of most of his discussion is the insistence on form rather than content as the decisive criterion of quality. The declared assumption is that little, if anything new, can be originated in poetry, and that the only difference between one poet and another lies in his manner of expression. Al-Jahiz's doctrine of form was later abused by such critics as Ibn al-Mu'tazz and Abu Hilal al-'Askari, who drew heavily on formal analysis.
In his treatise Kitab al-Badi', Ibn al-Mu'tazz (d. 296/903) conducted a systematic study of poetical figures. The fundamental thesis of the book is that badi' (or the New Style) is in no way invented by the new poets. Good examples of badi' could be found in the Qur'an, the Tradition, and the pre-Islamic poetry. The sole difference, however, is that while the ancients used those poetical figures sparingly, the moderns-like Bashshar Ibn Burd, Muslim Ibn al-Walid, Abu Nuwwas and Abu Tammam-used them with extravagance. (p. 1) Ib al-Mu'tazz goes on to enumerate five figures of badi', of which metaphor is one, in addition to twelve beauties ‫,)محاسن(‬ with prescription of the manner in which each figure should be used. Instances of the infelicitous use of figures are drawn particularly from the modern poets ‫الشعراء(‬ ‫,)المحدثون‬ amongst whom Abu Tammam appears with special frequency, as an example of the extravagance that poets should avoid. 2  , insisted on a degree of clarity and exactitude in the ideas expressed by the poet, and gave logical and hard argument precedence over the poetical figures. (Abbas, 2006, p. 65) Hence Ibn Tabataba's insistence on the clarity of metaphorical elements. According to him, the poem is the product of conscious process; it is nothing but "a labor of thought" ‫فكر")01.‪(p‬‬ ‫:"جيشانُ‬ ‫فإذا‬ ‫والق‬ ‫تطابقه،‬ ‫التي‬ ‫األلفاظ‬ ‫من‬ ‫إياه‬ ‫يلبسه‬ ‫ما‬ ‫له‬ ‫وأعد‬ ، ً ‫نثرا‬ ‫فكره‬ ‫في‬ ‫عليه‬ ‫الشعر‬ ‫بناء‬ ‫يريد‬ ‫الذي‬ ‫المعنى‬ ‫مخض‬ ‫قصيدة‬ ‫بناء‬ ‫الشاعر‬ ‫أراد‬ ‫والوزن‬ ‫توافقه‬ ‫التي‬ ‫وافي‬ ‫فإذا‬ ‫عليه.‬ ‫القول‬ ‫له‬ ‫يسلس‬ ‫الذي‬ ‫بما‬ ‫القوافي‬ ‫شغل‬ ‫في‬ ‫فكره‬ ‫وأعمل‬ ‫أثبته‬ ‫يرومه‬ ‫الذي‬ ‫المعنى‬ ‫يشاكل‬ ‫بيت‬ ‫له‬ ‫اتفق‬ ‫وترتيب‬ ‫للشعر‬ ‫تنسيق‬ ‫غير‬ ‫على‬ ‫المعاني‬ ‫من‬ ‫تقتضيه‬ ... ‫فيه‬ ‫القول‬ ‫لفنون‬ When a poet composes a poem, he thinks of the ideas in prose, and chooses from words the best garments that suit them and from rhymes and meters those that are fitting. And when he comes upon a line that goes with the meaning he has in mind, he writes it down, and then he cudgels his brain in search of the rhymes that fit the ideas without previous arrangement of lines … (p.5) Consequently, Ibn Tabataba obliterates the distinction between prose and poetry. (p.6) "Poetry," he says, "is well-knit letters, and letters are unraveled poetry" ‫محلول"‬ ‫شعر‬ ‫والرسائل‬ ‫معقودة‬ ‫رسائل‬ ‫"فالشعر‬ (p. 78). This requirement for hard and logical thought in poetry leads Ibn Tabataba to emphasize the truth of imagination, or what he calls "the truth of resemblances" ( ‫صدق‬ ‫:)التشبيه‬ ‫ومعنى.‬ ً ‫صورة‬ ‫به‬ ً ‫مشتبها‬ ‫صاحبه‬ ‫ويكون‬ ‫صاحبه‬ ‫مثل‬ ‫بصاحبه‬ ‫شبه‬ ‫كل‬ ‫في‬ ‫يكون‬ ‫بل‬ ‫ينتقض‬ ‫لم‬ ‫ُكس‬ ‫ع‬ ‫إذا‬ ‫ما‬ ‫التشبيهات‬ ‫فأحسن‬ (The best resemblances are those which, if reversed, will not be distorted. Rather, the objects involved should be similar to each other in image and meaning.) (p.11) Accordingly, the "abstruse and far-fetched metaphors" ‫ِقة)‬ ‫َل‬ ‫الغ‬ ‫البعيدة‬ ‫(االستعارات‬ are deplored, as when al-Muthaqqab al-'Abdi personifies his camel: Good poetry, Ibn Tabataba concludes, "should be truthful with no lies, and plain with no figures" (p. 128). Similarly, al-Amidi (d. 370/967) stresses the truth of resemblance. In his al-Muwazana, he makes it clear that al-Buhturi is a better poet than Abu Tammam because he strictly adheres to the "essentials of poetry" ‫الشعر)‬ ‫(عمود‬ as represented by the pre-Islamic poets who use metaphor with decorum, whereas Abu Tammam transgresses all limits and uses resemblances which have not been used by Arab poets before. For instances, Abu Tammam's depictions of Time ‫(الدهر)‬ with a neck or a hand, or as a man who thinks and smiles are ugly and far-fetched metaphors because Arabs are not accustomed to such resemblances (pp. 245-250). 3 Like his predecessors, Qudama Bin Ja'far (d. 320/929) considers metaphor to be one of the ornaments that should be used with propriety. While Ibn Tabataba and al-Amidi advocate the truth of poetry, Qudama claims in his Naqd al-Shi'r that "the best poetry is that which feigns most". ( p. 26). ‫أكذبه)‬ ‫الشعر‬ ‫(أحسن‬ , and that poetry is characterized by hyperbole ‫و)‬ ُ ‫ُل‬ ‫(الغ‬ and extravagance ‫,(اإلفراط)‬ not by the image of reality (p.31). As 'Abbas has demonstrated, Qudama was indirectly influenced by Greek philosophy, particularly by Aristotle's the Rhetoric and the Poetics. Hence, his doctrine of the feigning of poetry. (Abbas, 2006, pp. 192-195) However, the hyperbole and extravagance Qudama insists upon are not related to the poet's images, but his ideas and meanings. He demands a degree of clarity in the conveyance of ideas, without relying on difficult images which might obscure them. (p. 132) As such, he is of the opinion that the power of resemblance should be curbed: ‫يدنى‬ ‫حتى‬ ‫فيها‬ ‫إنفرادهما‬ ‫من‬ ‫أكثر‬ ‫الصفات‬ ‫في‬ ‫اشتراكهما‬ ‫الشيئين‬ ‫بين‬ ‫وقع‬ ‫ما‬ ‫هو‬ ‫التشبيه‬ ‫وأحسن‬ ‫االتحاد‬ ‫حال‬ ‫إلى‬ ‫بهما‬ (The best resemblance is that in which the common characteristics shared by the objects are more than the differences, so that they may become almost one.) (pp. 55) A metaphor cannot be accepted unless it is intended as a simile because it is closer to reality. (p. 104) As such, poets should avoid the use of "the far-fetched metaphor" ‫االستعارة)‬ ‫,(فاحش‬ viz., the metaphor which is "alien to convention and to what people commonly use" ‫مثله)‬ ‫الناس‬ ‫يستعمل‬ ‫عما‬ ً ‫بعيدا‬ ‫للعادة‬ ً ‫(منافرا‬ (p. 105). Moreover, the duality of words and ideas persists throughout Qudama's critical account. According to him, poetry consists of four elements: words, ideas, meter and rhyme (p.2). Good poetry depends on the correct way of using these elements and on the choice of stylistic figures to embellish the ideas. These views came mainly as a reaction to the use of the badi' figures. Al-Marzuqi enumerates seven essentials, two of which are "the closeness of resemblance" ‫التشبيه)‬ ‫في‬ ‫(المقاربة‬ and "the congruity of metaphorical elements")‫له‬ ‫المستعار‬ ‫منه‬ ‫المستعار‬ ‫.(مناسبة‬ (Vol. I, p. 9) The criterion of these two essentials is the establishment of resemblance between two things which are almost alike, so that the point of similarity is revealed without ambiguity. (pp. 10-11) As such, within the theory of "the essentials of poetry," which was the culmination of the prescriptive tendency in Arabic criticism, metaphor is formalized and stereotyped; poets were required to use pre-packaged, pre-digested and finished metaphors. The role of rhetoric as a sweet adorner was dominant.
With 'Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani (d. 471/1078), metaphor starts to enjoy a more important status. As Gibb (1963) rightly points out, the balance between form and content was to some extent redressed by 'Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani who "supplemented the excessively formal analysis of his predecessors by a system of logical and psychological analysis which demanded at least equal consideration for the ideas expressed" (p. 88) Still, al-Jurjani's arguments in his celebrated Dala'il al-'I'jaz and 'Asrar al-Balagha makes it clear that metaphor, and figurative discourse in general, is deviant from and decorative to literal discourse. Al-Jurjani's theory of figures emerges from his doctrine of the inimitability of the Qur'an. In opposition to his predecessors, he (1962) argues that the sublimity of the Qur'an does not lie in the use of words, for individual words exited long before the revelation of the Qur'an. (pp. 295-296) Nor does it lie in the ideas alone if they are understood as the raw materials which are available to everyone. (198)(199). Rather, it lies in those logical ideas which emerge from the arrangement of words in a particular way congruent with the syntactic rules of the language. Hence his doctrine of composition. ‫والتأليف)‬ ‫َظم‬ ‫الن‬ ‫(نظرية‬ (pp. 3-4) However, although al-Jurjani calls for reconciliation between words and ideas, he seems also to suggest that this reconciliation can only be effected by the mediation of the element of "dress":

‫يلي‬ ‫ما‬ ‫إال‬ ‫تكتس‬ ‫لم‬ ‫تريد‬ ‫وما‬ ‫ُركت‬ ‫ت‬ ‫إذا‬ ‫فإنها‬ ‫األلفاظ‬ ‫ألنفسها‬ ‫تطلب‬ ‫وتدعها‬ ‫سجيتها‬ ‫على‬ ‫المعاني‬ ‫ترسل‬ ‫أن‬ ‫من‬ ... ً ‫طائرا‬ ‫أيمن‬ ‫تجد‬ ‫ولن‬ ‫إال‬ ‫المعاني‬ ‫من‬ ‫تلبس‬ ‫ولم‬ ‫بها،‬ ‫ق‬
‫يزينها.‬ ‫ما‬ (The best thing … is to leave ideas to their own devices and let them choose their own words. They will select the garments that suit and embellish them best.) (Asrar, p. 10) At this juncture, al-Jurjani distinguishes two levels of meaning: "the meaning and the meaning of meaning" ‫ومعنى‬ ‫المعنى‬ ‫.المعنى‬ (Dala'il , p. 203) Metaphor, simile and the other figures belong to the "meaning of meaning." Thus in the utterance " ً ‫أسدا‬ ‫"رأيت‬ ( I saw a lion) [i.e., a brave man], one moves from the level of plain meaning or the denotation of the word, which is not intended here, to the figurative level. (Dala'il ,p. 201) In 'Asrar, al-Jurjani explores at length the nature and scope of the figurative level. Figurative language, he explains, is deviant from the ordinary language: ‫واضعها‬ ‫وضع‬ ‫في‬ ‫له‬ ‫وقعت‬ ‫ما‬ ‫غير‬ ‫بها‬ ‫أريد‬ ‫فكلمة‬ ‫المجاز‬ ‫وأما‬ (Figurative meaning consists in the use of a word which deviates from the ordinary meaning and use.) (Asrar, p. 325) By the same token, metaphor is a deviant word: it is a word transferred from one entity to another where it appears as a "borrowed word":

‫في‬ ‫أصل‬ ‫للفظ‬ ‫يكون‬ ‫أن‬ ‫الجملة‬ ‫في‬ ‫االستعارة‬ ‫أن‬ ‫واعلم‬ ‫غير‬ ‫في‬ ‫الشاعر‬ ‫غير‬ ‫أو‬ ‫الشاعر‬ ‫يستعمله‬ ‫ثم‬ ‫وضع،‬ ‫حين‬ ‫به‬ ‫اختص‬ ‫أنه‬ ‫على‬ ‫الشواهد‬ ‫عليه‬ ‫تدل‬ ‫اللغوي‬ ‫الوضع‬
‫كالعارية.‬ ‫هناك‬ ‫فيكون‬ ‫الزم‬ ‫غير‬ ً ‫نقال‬ ‫إليه‬ ‫وينقله‬ ‫ذلك,‬ (Know then that metaphor is, generally speaking, a word that has a basic meaning in language, which all the evidence bears out. Then, the poet or the layman uses and temporarily transfers it to another sense; so that it appears there as a borrowed word.) (Asrar,p. 29) The virtue of metaphor is that it illustrates and decorates the plain meaning. (Asrar, p. 41) However, contrary to his predecessors al-Jurjani considers the far-fetchedness and abstruseness of the resemblances a mark of genius in the artistic work. For him the most refined image is that in which heterogeneous ideas are yoked together: ‫وإنها‬ ‫وشبكة.‬ ‫نسب‬ ‫معاقد‬ ‫األجنبيات‬ ‫بين‬ ‫ويعقد‬ ‫ربقة‬ ‫في‬ ‫والمتباينات‬ ‫المتنافرات‬ ‫أعناق‬ ‫بين‬ ‫يجمع‬ ‫أن‬ ‫في‬ ... ‫والحذق‬ ‫القريحة‬ ‫جودة‬ ‫تستدعي‬ ‫لصنعة‬ (It is a craft which needs talent and skill … in which heterogeneous and dissimilar ideas are brought together, and foreign objects become next of kin.) (Asrar, p. 136) Thus, an image becomes trite when resemblances are pictorial and literal, for no cudgeling of the brain is involved to respond to resemblances that appeal to the sense of sight. However, far-fetched and strange images are of the best quality because the point of similarity requires intellectual effort ‫(تأول)‬ to perceive it. (Asrar,p. 151) According to this criterion al-Jurjani classifies metaphor. There is on the one end of the scale the metaphor in which the point of similarity is conspicuous that the reader does not exert much intellectual effort to perceive it. An instance is the comparison of a rose with a cheek where the common characteristic (redness) is so obvious (Asrar,. On the other end, there is the finest type of metaphor ‫الخالص)‬ ‫(الصميم‬ , one in which the discovery of the point of similarity requires further interpretation and reflection on the reader's part. An instance is the comparison of a convincing argument with the sun. As the point of similarity (clarity) does not consist in a physical property, the reader cannot grasp it at first sight and needs to reflect upon both objects in order to come up with the dominant trait. (Asrar, 'Abd al-Qahir al-Jurjani is perhaps the only classical Arab theorist who gives the synthetic power of imagination a relative importance. However, his contribution was not built on by later critics and was eclipsed by critical accounts that were more or less a dismal continuation of the stylistic theory of ornamentalism. For instance, in his al-'Umda, al-Qayrawani (d. 456/1064), al-Jurjani's contemporary, announces that metaphor is one of the "beauties of words" ‫الكالم)‬ ‫,(محاسن‬ and that the elements of metaphor should not be discordant (Vol. I. 270-71) He defines the "refined metaphor" ‫الحسنة)‬ ‫(االستعارة‬ as: ‫شيء.‬ ‫في‬ ‫منه‬ ‫ليس‬ ‫مما‬ ‫أولى‬ ‫كان‬ ‫به‬ ‫ويليق‬ ‫منه‬ ‫يقرب‬ ‫ما‬ ‫للشيء‬ ‫استعير‬ ‫إذا‬ (When the object borrowed to a thing is, rather than alien, congruent and harmonious with it.) (p. 269) Accordingly, Abu Nuwwas's metaphor, as below, is far-fetched and ugly, for money does not have voice to shout and complain (p. 270). The sole function of metaphor and simile, al-Qayrawani affirms, is that they illustrate the plain meaning and that the best resemblances are those which appeal to the senses (p. 287): ‫ويصيح‬ ‫يشكو‬ ‫منك‬ ‫مما‬ ‫المال‬ ‫صوتُ‬ ‫ُح‬ ‫ب‬ (The voice of money has become coarse, complaining and shouting at you.) Similarly, al-Khafaji (d. 466/1073), in his Sirr al-Fasaha, affirms that the use of metaphor should adhere to the Arab norm (p. 21), and that it should be based on convention (p. 136). He defines metaphor as a word transferred from its basic meaning for the sake of illustration. Therefore, it should be clearer than the plain meaning; otherwise, the plain meaning is preferable because it is the primary meaning and metaphor is secondary to it (p. 118). Al-Khafaji goes on to classify the farfetched metaphor into two types: ‫مبن‬ ‫استعارة‬ ‫أنه‬ ‫ألجل‬ ‫أو‬ ‫له‬ ‫استعير‬ ‫مما‬ ‫لبعده‬ ‫يكون‬ ‫أن‬ ‫إما‬ ..." " ‫استعارة‬ ‫على‬ ‫ية‬ (… either because the metaphorical elements are discordant, or because the metaphor is built on another.) (p. 120). Obviously, the second type al-Khafaji condemns is the "mixed metaphor," which he further dwells on: ‫بنيت‬ ‫إذا‬ ‫االستعارة‬ ‫إن‬ ‫واسطة.‬ ‫بال‬ ‫إليها‬ ‫ترجع‬ ‫حقيقة‬ ‫لها‬ ‫تكون‬ ‫أن‬ ‫والواجب‬ ‫دت‬ ُ ‫َع‬ ‫وب‬ ‫قبحت‬ ‫غيرها‬ ‫على‬ (When a metaphor is built on another, it becomes ugly and far-fetched, for it should have a literal meaning to refer to without mediation.) (p. 133) He cites as "mixed metaphor Imri'u al-Qays's famous image of the night: ِ ‫بكلكل‬ ‫وناء‬ ً ‫أعجازا‬ ‫وأردف‬ ‫بصلبه‬ ‫تمطى‬ ‫لما‬ ‫له‬ ‫فقلت‬ (And I said to it [the night] when it stretched out its back and followed up with [its] hindquarters and struggled to get up with [its] breast …) (Rendered by Heinrichs, Al-Khafaji explains that while the word hindquarters ‫(أعجاز)‬ is borrowed to refer to the middle of the night, the words back ‫ُلب)‬ ‫(ص‬ and breast ‫َل)‬ ‫ك‬ ْ ‫َل‬ ‫(ك‬ do not have any literal reference, but are built on the metaphor of hindquarters. (pp. 122-123)

The Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries
The sixth and seventh centuries A.H. (the twelfth and thirteenth centuries A.D.) witnessed an insufferable split between rhetoric and poetics. Arabic poetry became highly formalized, and an increasing emphasis was placed on form rather than content (Abbas, 2006, p. 496). As a result, there emerged among Arab poets a strong tendency to pursue badi' figures which were self-consciously artificial, pre-digested and designed to please on grounds of formal excellence. As Shawqi Dayf (1965) remarks, the degraded condition of metaphor and related figures could be clearly seen in the emergence at the time of a poetic genre called al-badi'yat-poems apparently written in panegyric of the Prophet, but were in reality a means of teaching the various types of badi' figures (pp. 273-274).
In the field of literary criticism, critics were at pains to classify and enumerate rhetorical figures. The five main elements of badi' classified by Ibn al-Mu'tazz were multiplied several times in al-Sakaki's Miftah al-'Ulum, the work which was destined to become the most popular manual of rhetoric. By the ninth century A.H. we find Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti stating that there are more than two hundred figures of speech (Badawi, 1978, p. 44).
Al-Sakaki (d. 629/1228), in subjecting rhetorical figures to abstract and rigid rules, represents the culmination of the ornamentalist view of metaphor and related figures. In Miftah al-'Ulum, the stereotyping and prescriptive tendency is conspicuous in his definition of metaphor: ‫للمشبه‬ ‫باثباتك‬ ‫ذلك‬ ‫على‬ ً ‫داال‬ ‫به،‬ ‫المشبه‬ ‫جنس‬ ‫في‬ ‫المشبه‬ ‫دخول‬ ً ‫مدعيا‬ ‫اآلخر،‬ ‫الطرف‬ ‫به‬ ‫وتريد‬ ‫التشبيه‬ ‫طرفي‬ ‫أحد‬ ‫تذكر‬ ‫أن‬ ‫هي‬ ‫االستعارة‬ ‫به‬ ‫المشبه‬ ‫يخص‬ ‫ما‬ (Metaphor is to mention one of the two terms of comparison and to mean the other, by way of claiming that the literal object becomes a member in the class of the borrowed object. This is achieved by attributing some of the characteristics of the borrowed object to the literal object.) (p. 369) Accordingly he enumerates several types of metaphor under two headings: the explicit metaphor ‫التصريحية)‬ ‫(االستعارة‬ , in which the borrowed term is mentioned, and the implicit metaphor ‫مكنية)‬ ‫,(استعارة‬ in which the borrowed term is suppressed. (p.

373)
The explicit-implicit formula is still the approach in Arabic theory of Rhetoric nowadays. As 'Isma'il al-Sayfi (1983) rightly says, the naivety of the approach can be clearly seen in the predetermined path assigned to the poet in the creation of metaphor: he first thinks of the two objects to be compared and then he suppresses one of the terms of comparison (p. 57). The reader's role in this mechanical and rigid process is also predetermined: he first identifies the suppressed term in order to determine the type of metaphor he is dealing with, and then he might think of the resemblances, mostly pictorial and literal, established between the two terms.

The Chain of Assumptions Underlying the Ornamentalist Thinking
As we have seen, the Arabic ornamentalist view of metaphor is based on a chain of assumptions with regard to metaphor and its relation to reality and language. Behind this view, there resides a fundamental split between language and thought, word and idea, form and content. Language is viewed as a mere mode of expression, a dress by means of which ideas are clothed. Reality is a "fixed" entity totally separate from language which can describe but cannot change it. Therefore, the term "dress" is frequently used among Arab theorist to define the relationship between both entities. According to this view, there is also the assumption that language itself displays a further split between the literal or plain discourse ‫(الحقيقة)‬ and the figurative discourse ‫.(المجاز)‬ The "proper" or "ordinary" way of expressing ideas is assigned to the literal discourse, while the "deviant" way is assigned to the figurative discourse. This cleavage can largely be seen as that between the language of prose and the language of poetry, analytic language and synthetic language.
By the same token, metaphor, being assigned to the figurative mode of expression, is viewed as something extraneous to language, to the plain way of "dressing" thought. Hence, the view that metaphor is a transposed or borrowed word. Now, since language is separate from reality and metaphor is separate from language, then metaphor is thrice removed from reality. It has no power over thoughts but is merely a means of decorating and illustrating the plain meaning. In this sense, we speak of metaphor as a stylistic device which can be assigned to the manner of expression but has no bearings on the creation of meaning.
If metaphor is external to the real meaning of an expression, why should it appear in the expression at all? Generally, most Arab classical critics agree that metaphor has two functions: decoration and illustration. The implied assumption is that metaphor enhances the plain meaning with charm, vivacity and clarity. However, it is frowned upon whenever it transgresses these confines. As such, Arab theorists tend to set rules of decorum peculiar to Arabic culture, according to which the proper or improper use of metaphor is measured. For them, metaphors are generally accepted when they are immediately apparent to the reader and are based on "easy" or "obvious" resemblances. In short, the tendency is to banish metaphors which, instead of decorating and clarifying the real meaning, obscure it-a prescriptive tendency which aims at curbing the "licentious" and "extravagant" use of metaphor.
Lastly, given such a subsidiary function, metaphor, according to the Arabic classical view, does not contribute to the cognitive content of the real meaning, but is something added to it. It can be dispensed with and the plain meaning can be retrieved by the reader. For instance, the Arabic common metaphor ٌ ‫أسد‬ ٌ ‫زيد‬ (Zayd is a lion) can be translated into its real meaning ٌ ‫شجاع‬ ٌ ‫زيد‬ (Zayd is brave). This means that in principle the metaphorical expression is exhaustively paraphrasable.

Conclusion
In the sixth and seventh centuries A.H., the Arabic literary theory, and the theory of metaphor, was developed into fixtures with an increasing emphasis given to form over content and the art of verbal expression in general. Inordinate attention was given to ornate style, and rhetoric became an arena for displaying verbal acrobatics. The axioms, "closeness of resemblance" and "congruity of metaphorical elements," represent metaphor's highest degree of formalization and stereotyping. That is why some of the images in classical theory are mainly based on complete parallelism between the objects compared, particularly with regard to form, size and color (Moreh, 1976, p. 245). From that time onwards, the fixtures of the classical theory have been kept intact. Metaphor and rhetoric in general, is nowadays reduced to textbooks to be studied in abstract and rigid terms developed by the classical theory. Arabic rhetoric is a dead discipline: it is merely an ornamental repertoire of figures that could be used as a sweet adorner for the language.
A distinction, however, should be made here between metaphor in literary practice and in literary theory. No doubt, the modern Arab poetic trend in the twentieth and twenty first centuries has initiated a revolution in the use of metaphor and successfully exploited it to express new realms of experience. The liberation of poetic experience has opened the way to all kinds of experiments with metaphor. Nevertheless, the classical concept of metaphor remains completely inadequate in expressing "the transforming power of metaphor in Arabic modernism" (Simawe, 2001, p. 284). As Salma al-Juyyusi (1981) rightly maintains, if we assess the use and importance of metaphor in modern Arabic poetry, we will understand the kinds of liberation the modernist poet has undergone. Modern poetry has become "inclusive poetry"; it offers an experience in its entirety, which is "complex and full of contradictions." This gives the poet the chance to exploit the metaphorical power latent in all objects. Being open to all life, metaphors spring from the new freedom of the poetic creativity to co-ordinate all life's objects and experiences (Vol. II, pp. 680-681). However, such a development in the use metaphor has not been accompanied by a similar development in critical theory. The classical concept is still dominant in literary criticism, leading to the inevitable result that the theory is lagging behind the practice.