---

Metaphor is one of the most important entries in Rhetoric, at least in the classic meaning of the term. Today its most accepted definition, a trope indicating similarity, is the outcome of the efforts of great men such as Abdol Ghader Jorjani and Abu Yaghub Sakaki, who introduced and developed this theory in Islamic Rhetoric. Jorjani's theory of metaphor, which is the result of his deep investigation in the works of the ancient scholars and writers, shows a functionalist insight in to metaphor. The scholars of eloquence, Jorjan being the last in their chain, had a particular attention to the holy Quran in their study of rhetoric, which made them see that linguistic segments play an important role in reading the verses of the Quran. In his book, Miftah Al-Ulum, Sakaki, who followed Jorjani's theory, gives the theory another interpretation. While Jorjani had a deep insight in to the role of linguistic segments, Sakaki's literature-based view leads him to ignore the necessity of considering the function in metaphor. Comparing the views of these two theorists reveals that they have different ideas, not only regarding this issue but concerning so many other issues. The present study aims to investigate these differences and endeavours to show the differences of these two scholars on the definition and nature of metaphor and the way it should be treated

---

Verse and prose have had proponents and opponents in the literary tradition throughout history, and each group has argued for or against the other. By overcoming this dual opposition without taking the side of poetry or prose and adopting a philosophical and aesthetic approach, Abū Hayyān al-Tawhīdī revealed other aspects of the relationship between verse and prose. Quoting the opinions of the advocates of poetry and prose, the present paper objectively analyzes the monotheistic meta-dualism approach in Al-Imtāʿ wa al-Mu’ānasa using a descriptive-analytical method. The results indicate that by rereading the works of the proponents of verse and prose, Tawhīdī believes that the final word cannot be stated about poetry and prose. Moreover, after explaining the nature of speech and its types, he mentions the advantages of verse and prose in the words of their advocates: e.g., verse is creation and the general public does not attain it, while prose is realized faster and attracts the general writer for its convenience; prose needs poetry for adornment, but poetry does not need prose; the poet has an infinite horizon ahead while the writer has a limited field, and prose is the foundation of speech but poetry is its derivative; prose is free of obligations while poetry is full of poetic requirements; prose borrows from wisdom but poetry borrows from emotion; and despite the formal beauty of verse, prose is more original and noble. Finally, he concludes that both verse and prose have undeniable virtues and the best type of speech is one that its form is something between verse and prose while it is neither verse nor prose.