---

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

---

The purpose of the present paper is to study the specific historical conditions in which a new relationship between “literary texts” and “public education” was established. This created a different formulation of “literature”. To that end, the genealogical method was used. From a genealogical point of view, phenomena have no meta-historical nature and are constructed following historical events and within complex power relations. The findings show that “poetry” and “education” in the mid-centuries discourse had a specific definition, function and formulation and that they established a relationship with each other in connection with the mechanism of the collector power and the construction of the hierarchy of society. The confrontation of Qajar rule and Iranian society with numerous crises such as war, cholera, and famine challenged the collector power. With the activation of new mechanisms of power (disciplinary and bio-power) and the formation of the assumption of equality, the hierarchical structure of the society was gradually weakened and the issue of public education as a way to save the state and the nation became problematic. The discourse of literary criticism turned the “Iranian people’s manners” and “literary texts” into issues and established a new relationship between the two. Meanwhile, a collection of texts and various social situations came under the umbrella of “literature”. In sum, the results indicate that the change of power mechanisms in the Qajar period marked a fundamental shift in the historical existence of Iranians and a new state of affairs was established; “Literature” and “education” bore new definitions, functions, and connections, and they established a new relationship with each other.