American Journal Of Philological Sciences
155
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue06 2025
PAGE NO.
155-162
10.37547/ajps/Volume05Issue06-42
Comparative Analysis Of Ibn Sīnā’s And Al
-
Fārābī’s
Treatises On Poetics
Khurshida YULDASHEVA
A Second-Year Doctoral Candidate At The Tashkent State University Of Uzbek Language And Literature Named After Alisher Navoi,
Uzbekistan
Received:
12 April 2025;
Accepted:
08 May 2025;
Published:
18 June 2025
Abstract:
This article presents a comparative analysis of Poetics in the writings of two major medieval Islamic
philosophers: Abū Naṣr al
-
Fārābī (Al
-
Farabi) and Abū ‘Alī Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna). Both scholars engaged deeply with
Aristotle’s Poetics, integrating it into the Arabic
-Islamic intellectual milieu. Al-
Farabi’s Canons of Poetry and Ibn
Sina’s Poetics (as part of his encyclopedic Kitāb al
-Sh
ifā’, “Book of Healing”) are examined to elucidate their
respective theories of poetic art. Key areas of comparison include their classification of poetics within the
Aristotelian logical corpus, their conceptions of poetic syllogism and imaginative “assent,” and their treatment of
tragedy and comedy as high versus low forms of art. Drawing on Aristotle’s legacy and the Neoplatonic context,
Al-Farabi and Avicenna each made distinct contributions: Al-Farabi emphasized the logical and social function of
poetry (often linking it to rhetoric and political philosophy) while Avicenna expanded the moral and psychological
dimensions of poetics. Influences from Aristotle’s Poetics and late antique commentary are traced, alongside
insights from modern scholars (e.g. Dimitri Gutas, Jon Walbridge, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, and Abd al-
Raḥmān
Badawī). The study concludes that Ibn Sina’s commentary builds upon and departs from Al
-
Farabi’s foundations
–
for instance, by rejecting the notion that poetic syllogisms must be false and by affirming the role of imaginative
discourse in eliciting emotional responses and conveying moral insights. This comparative inquiry sheds light on
how medieval Islamic thinkers preserved, interpreted, and transformed Aristotle’s Poetics, laying ground
work for
subsequent literary theory in both the Islamic world and, via Ibn Rushd (Averroes), medieval Europe.
Keywords:
Aristotle’s Poetics []; Al
-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]; Avicenna (Ibn Sina []); Medieval Arabic Poetics; Tragedy
and Comedy; Imitation; Poetic Syllogism.
Introduction:
Aristotle’s Poetics [Black, 1990] –
a
foundational work on aesthetics and literary theory
–
found new life in medieval Islamic philosophy through
Arabic translation and commentary. By the 9th century,
the Poetics had been translated into Arabic (via Syriac)
by the Christian philosopher Abū Bishr Mattā ibn
Yūnus. This translation was imperfect, containing
omissions and misunderstandings twice removed from
the Greek original. Against this backdrop, Muslim
philosophers sought to clarify and adapt Aristotle’s
ideas for an Arabic-speaking intellectual milieu. Al-
Kindī
(d. 873) reportedly wrote an epitome of the Poetics,
now lost. A generation later, Abū Naṣr al
-
Fārābī (870–
950), often titled “the Second Teacher” after Aristotle,
composed a work known as Kitāb a
l-
Qawānīn al
-
Shi‘r
(“The Canons of Poetry”) as well as an epitome (Kitāb
al-
Shi‘r, “Book of Poetry”), in an effort to present a
‘purer’ and more accessible version of Aristotle’s
Poetics [
Both Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] and Avicenna thus
integrated Aristotle’s Poetics [] into the framework of
the Aristotelian logical corpus (the Organon). However,
they did so with different emphases and innovations.
Al-Farabi [
The aim of this study is to co
mpare Ibn Sina []’s and Al
-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s treatises on poetics,
highlighting how each understood key concepts
–
such
as poetic imitation (Arabic muhākāt), the role of
imagination (takhyīl), and the genres of tragedy and
comedy []
–
and how each was influenced by (and
diverged from) Aristotle. By examining their works side
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
156
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
by side, we can discern the evolution of medieval
Arabic literary theory from Al-Farabi [
LITERATURE REVIEW
Aristotle’s Poetics [Black, 1990] in the Arabic Tradition:
The reception of Poetics among medieval Muslim
scholars has been charted by modern researchers (e.g.
by Salim Kemal, Deborah Black, and others). Aristotle’s
Poetics [
Modern scholarship on Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s
poetics is highlighted by Abdurrahman Badawī’s cri
tical
editions and analyses. Badawī edited the Arabic text of
Aristotle’s Poetics [] and its Arabic commentaries
(including Al-Farabi [
Modern scholars have paid special attention to the
concept of the “poetic syllogism []” (qiyās shi‘rī) as
developed by Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974], Avicenna, and
later Averroes []. Dimitri Gutas highlights Avicenna’s
mastery in dealing with a flawed Arabic translation of
the Poetics
–
Gutas lauds Avicenna’s Poetics chapter in
the Shifā’ as “a masterpiece of literary analysis,” given
that Ibn Sina [] had to reconstruct Aristotle’s meaning
from a garbled text. Gutas and others also note an
infamous episode (recorded by Avicenna’s disciple
Ǧūzǧānī) in which Avicenna allegedly forged a few
illustrative poetic passages, passing them off as from
Aristotle, to test his contemporaries’ understanding –
a
colorful anecdote that underlines both the gaps in the
transmission of the Poetics and Avicenna’s confidence
in his own interpretative skill.
Jon Walbridge and S.H. Nasr have commented on the
broader differences between Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]
and Avicenna. Walbridge points out that unlike Al-
Farabi [
In summary, prior scholarship establishes that Al-Farabi
[Dahiyat, 1974] and Avicenna both treated poetry as a
form of syllogistic art within the Aristotelian tradition,
but with different nuances. Al-Farabi [
RESULTS
Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s Treatise on Poetics (Canons
of Poetry)
Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s Risāla fī Qawānīn al
-
Shi‘r
(“Epistle on the Canons of Poetry”) is essentially a
commentary on Aristotle’s Poetics [], though it also
draws on other Hellenistic sources. In this treatise, Al-
Farabi [
In developing these ideas, Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]
remains close to Aristotle’s framework but adapts
terminology to Arabic literary culture. Lacking a living
tradition of Greek theater, Al-Farabi [
Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] also delves into the means
and methods of poetic imitation. Following Aristotle,
he identifies the three primary media of poetry as: (i)
rhythm (meter), (ii) language (words), and (iii) melody.
In practice, Arabic poetry normally combines meter and
language, and may be accompanied by musical
chanting. Al-Farabi [
Importantly, Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] emphasizes the
psychological faculty of imagination (al-
khayāl) as t
he
bridge between poetic images and the intellect. In
Canons of Poetry, he explores how poetry works by
stimulating the imaginative faculty to create mental
images (khayālāt) that can move the emotions
【
78†L411
-419
】
. He aligns this with his epistemology: in
Al-Farabi [
To summarize Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s contribution:
he refashioned Aristotle’s Poetics [] into a logically
grounded art of imaginative persuasion. He codified
the aims of poetry (praise vs. blame) in ethical terms,
described the mechanics of poetic syllogisms, and
highlighted the centrality of imagination. In doing so,
Al-Farabi [
Ibn Sina [Kemal, 1991] (Avicenna)’s Treatise on Poetics
(within Kitāb al
-
Shifā’)
Ibn Sina []’s approach to poetics appears in the last
section of the logical part
of his Kitāb al
-
Shifā’ (“The
Book of Healing”), completed c. 1020s. Often referred
to simply as Kitāb al
-
Shi‘r (Book of Poetry), Avicenna’s
treatise is both a commentary on Aristotle and a free
exposition of his own views. Avicenna had access to the
earlier efforts of Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] and the
Arabic translations by Matta and Yaḥyā ibn ‘Adī, though
he was critical of their shortcomings. He opens his
treatise by frankly acknowledging that Aristotle’s work
is based on Greek poetic genres unfamiliar to Arabs,
and thus one must extrapolate general principles.
Avicenna then proceeds to reinterpret those principles
in a broader, more universal framework.
One of Avicenna’s first moves is to define the key terms
muhākāh
(imitation)
and
takhyīl
(imaginative
representation) rigorously. Avicenna argues that
poetry is a kind of imaginative discourse that produces
takhyīl, an imaginative impression in the soul of the
listener. In logical terms, he situates the poetic
syllogism [Black, 1990] within his theory of syllogistic
arts: whereas demonstration yields certain knowledge
and dialectic yields consensus, poetic syllogism [
Avicenna’s treatment of the aims of poetry closely
follows Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s tripartite scheme,
with some elaboration. He reiterates that the ends of
poetic imitation are: (1) praise of virtue and noble acts
(madḥ), (2) censure or satire of vice (hijā’), or (3)
neutral depiction (muṭābaqa, correspondence). He
explicitly equates ameliorative imitation with encomia
(praise poems) and depreciative imitation with satire,
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
157
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
noting this in “general terms” since actual poems may
mix elements. However, Avicenna places a “marked
emphasis on the ethical and rhetorical aims” of these
imitations. He stresses that poetic images of virtuous
deeds educate and those of vile deeds warn, echoing
Aristotle’s idea that poetry is both pleasing and
instructive. In a telling statement, Avicenna asserts that
“learning is pleasant not to philosophers alone but to
common people” when delivered through poetic
portrayal. Thus, he deepens the Aristotelian view by
explaining the psychological mechanism: people take
delight in recognizing an imitation and deriving a lesson
or insight from it.
Another significant contribution of Avicenna is his
analysis of how poetry delights. He elaborates that a
poem can please in two ways: through content (the
depicted scenario, which the audience may recognize
and find meaningful) and through form (the verbal
beauty, rhythm, and harmony). Avicenna famously
remarks that a poem is like a div that can give
pleasure even when its “soul” (content) is weak, by
virtue of its well-made form alone. Elements such as
meter (wazn), rhyme, and eloquent phrasing produce a
sensory delight that can carry a poem lacking in
substance. Nonetheless, the highest poetic effect
comes when both content and form work together to
portray the original in a vivid likeness, triggering
recognition and emotional response in the audience.
This reflects Avicenna’s holistic understanding of
artistic effect, combining aesthetics with psychology.
Avicenna also ventures into technical discussions on
metaphor and narrative structure. For instance, where
Aristotle discussed mythos (plot) and lexis (diction),
Avicenna reframes some of these in Arabic rhetorical
terms. Due to the corrupted state of the Arabic Poetics
text, Avicenna at times substitutes his own exposition:
notably, he inserts a discussion of majāz (figurative
language) at the start of his commentary, essentially
saying there are three “manners” of poetic expressi
on
–
direct description (tamthīl or simile), metaphor
(majāz, literally transfer or substitution), or a mix of
both. He clarifies that this is not Aristotle’s classification
per se, but Avicenna’s attempt to articulate how poetic
meaning can be conveyed either literally or figuratively
(or in combination), an insight likely drawn from Arabic
balāgha (rhetoric). Avicenna’s awareness of linguistic
nuance and audience reception is evident here.
A crucial aspect of Avicenna’s poetics is his integration
of poetry into his epistemological and psychological
framework. In Avicenna’s hierarchy of knowledge, he
places poetry at the lowest level of the intellectual
sciences, consistent with the Aristotelian tradition and
Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s context
-theory. Poetry does
not yield knowledge of universals or necessary truths;
it deals in particulars and imaginative scenarios. Yet
Avicenna does not condemn poetry. Rather, he justifies
its value by describing its unique mode of cognition:
poetry addresses the faculty of imagination and
through it can influence the ethical character and
emotions of individuals in ways philosophy cannot
directly do. Avicenna agrees with Al-Farabi [
In concrete terms, Avicenna’s commentary re
-
evaluates tragedy and comedy []. He follows the
established Arabic understanding that tragedy
corresponds to praise poetry and comedy to satire, but
he elaborates the point that tragedy (madīḥ) has an
edifying function
–
to ennoble the audience by
portraying virtue overcoming vice
–
whereas comedy
(hi
jā’) has a corrective function –
to humiliate vice and
induce laughter that scorns base behavior. Avicenna
concurs with Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] that Greek
tragedy’s aim was ethical and its pleasure intellectual
(the pleasure of learning through fear and pity), and he
extends this to assert that even ordinary people
experience joy in learning through imitation. Avicenna
explicitly cites Aristotle’s idea that humans find delight
in imitation because it yields understanding (e.g.,
recognizing a representation and grasping its lesson).
Hence, Avicenna positions the pleasure of poetry not
only in the sensory or emotional response, but also in
the subtle cognitive satisfaction it provides. This
sophisticated synthesis of Aristotle’s aesthetic
psychology with his
own is a hallmark of Avicenna’s
contribution.
In summary, Avicenna’s treatise on poetics built upon
Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s foundation but introduced
notable developments: he refined the theory of the
poetic syllogism [] (allowing poetic premises to be true
or false, and focusing on imaginative assent []), he
stressed the dual delight of poetry (form and content)
and its capacity to impart ma‘rifa (knowledge or
awareness) in a non-discursive mode, and he
underscored the ethical dimension of poetic art. His
work can be seen as “a major advancement” in Arabic
Aristotelian poetics, integrating logical, psychological,
and social considerations into a comprehensive
method. Avicenna’s commentary would later strongly
influence Ibn Rushd (Averroes []) in al-Andalus, who
wrote his own epitomes and commentaries on the
Poetics. In fact, Avicenna’s nuanced approach –
especially his idea that poetry aims at imaginative
persuasion (takhyīl) without necessarily being bound to
falsehood
–
was inherited by Averroes [
DISCUSSION
The foregoing results illustrate both continuity and
divergence in how Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] and Ibn
Sina [] understood poetic theory. In this discussion, we
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
158
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
synthesize these findings to compare the philosophers
point by point, and to interpret the significance of their
contributions within the broader intellectual currents
of their time.
Integration into the Organon: Both Al-Farabi [Dahiyat,
1974] and Avicenna accept Aristotle’s inclusion of
poetics (and rhetoric) as part of logic
–
specifically as
the final and least certain logical arts. This reflects the
Neoplatonic [] “context theory” they inherited, which
ranked the sciences and positioned Poetics as an
appendage to logic. Al-Farabi [
Theory of the Poetic Syllogism: A pivotal comparative
point is how each conceived the nature and truth-value
of poetic arguments. Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] took a
relatively strict view: a poetic syllogism [] is composed
of premises that need not be true
–
in fact, often are
known false
–
but which create a semblance (shabah)
or imaginative image leading to a desired emotional
conclusion. For him, what matters is the effect (e.g.,
instilling courage, fear, admiration), not the factual
truth. Thus, a poet might say “All heroes are as brave as
lions” –
literally false, but imaginatively stirring.
Avicenna, while agreeing that poetry’s aim is not
factual verification, does not insist that the premises
must be false; he only insists they must be effective in
imagination. He explicitly “rejected [Al
-Farabi [
Both thinkers, however, agree on the outcome: poetry
yields imaginative assent [] (ijti‘āl al
-
khayāl) rather than
intellectual conviction. They both would classify a
response
to
poetry
under
taṣawwur
(conceptualization) rather than taṣdīq (assertoric
belief). The difference is mostly one of emphasis and
allowance for truth in premises. This difference might
reflect Avicenna’s broader epistemology: he often
seeks to reconcile the apparent with the real, finding
gradations of certainty, whereas Al-Farabi [Dahiyat,
1974] (at least in the logical context) tends to draw
clear lines between demonstrative knowledge and
other forms.
Role of Imagination and Prophecy: Another key
comparison is their treatment of the imagination’s role.
Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] and Avicenna both share the
Aristotelian and Neoplatonic [] view that the
imagination is a lower faculty that mediates between
sense and intellect. But Al-Farabi [
Where they differ might be in tone: Al-Farabi [Dahiyat,
1974] seems more cautious
–
for him, the comparison
underscores that poetic images are mere surrogates for
rational truth. He contends that “for philosophers like
Farabi, poetical language is a mere surrogate or
auxiliary for truths that can be fully grasped
intellectually”. Avicenna, by contrast, while agreeing
that the highest form of truth is intellectual, is willing
to explore what the imagination contributes on its own
terms. His allowance that poetic imagery can yield
enjoyment of learning implies a more integrative
attitude
–
he sees value in the imaginative experience
per se, not just as a crude vessel for philosophy. This
subtle philosophical difference aligns with their
reputations: Al-Farabi [
Ethical and Aesthetic Dimensions: Both philosophers
agree that poetry has a strong ethical dimension
–
it is
didactic or at least morally relevant. Tragedy (praise
poetry) is “high” art because it deals with noble
subjects and can inspire virtuous emulation; comedy
(satire) is “low” art because it concerns base subjects
and often incites laughter at the ludicrous or immoral.
They inherited this hierarchy from Aristotle (who said
tragedy imitates better people, comedy worse people)
and from the Arabic adab tradition (which tended to
regard madīḥ as a prestigious genre and hijā’ as a vulgar
necessity). Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] explicitly mentions
that the noble or ignoble status of the objects
distinguishes the genres. Avicenna follows suit and
even intensifies the ethical interpretation: for example,
he explains that showing evil in an “abhorrent”
portrayal can still yield a sort of pleasure when the
audience recognizes the depiction and learns to avoid
such evils. Both thus justify even the low genre
(comedy/satire) as socially useful
–
comedy ridicules
vice, which implicitly encourages virtue. However, they
also caution against poetry’s potential to mislead. Al
-
Farabi [
Tragedy vs. Comedy
–
High and Low Art: In concrete
terms, both philosophers elevate “tragedy” (praise of
the noble) as the superior poetic mode and see
“comedy” (satire of the base) as its foil. They adopted
the practice (initiated by the Arabic translators like
Matta) of translating tragedy as madīḥ (pra
ise) and
comedy as hijā’ (satire). This translation strategy, which
some later scholars criticized as a misunderstanding,
was actually a clever adaptation: it localized Aristotle’s
genres to the Arabic poetic tradition. Al-Farabi
[Dahiyat, 1974] and Avicenna both use these terms in
their treatises, indicating that they indeed thought of
Poetics as applicable to the art of lyrical praise and
blame poems rather than to drama (since drama as
such did not exist in their cultural context). They
maintained Aristo
tle’s judgment that the subject
matter distinguished high vs. low art: praise poetry
deals with exalted subjects (gods, heroes, virtues) and
thus was considered the more serious and elevated art,
whereas satirical poetry deals with mockery of defects
and common folk, considered a lower, though still
useful, form. Both also preserved Aristotle’s notion of
catharsis in a transformed way: in tragedy/praise, the
audience feels admiration and possibly tarabbī
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
159
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
(edification) through fear and pity at noble suffering; in
comedy/satire, the audience feels amused contempt
which cathartically releases them from the vices being
ridiculed. Avicenna, in particular, discusses how a poet
can depict something hateful in an aesthetically
pleasing portrayal such that people can contemplate it
safely and even learn (he gives the example that seeing
an image of a hated thing can still give partial pleasure
through the recognition and the form, even if the
content is ugly). This aligns with the idea that tragedy
and comedy [], though opposite in social status, both
provide pleasure and insight in different mixtures.
Tragedy (praise) provides elevated pleasure and insight
(hence “high art”), comedy (satire) provides derisive
pleasure and a more coarse insight (hence “low art”).
In both Farabi and Avicenna, we see a clear hierarchy:
the poetic celebration of virtue is esteemed as the
highest function of poetry, while the lampooning of
vice, though necessary, is secondary. Their medieval
context (strongly influenced by ethical didacticism in
literature) informs this stance. Neither entertains an
idea of “pure art for art’s sake”; poetry is valued insofar
as it contributes to moral and intellectual culture. This
contrasts with Aristotle’s relatively more neutral
analysis of tragedy/comedy in purely dramatic terms,
but it was natural for writers in the Islamic milieu to
assess poetry’s worth by its alignment with ethical and
religious ideals.
Influence on Later Thought: The differences and
developments in Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s and
Avi
cenna’s poetics had a lasting impact. Al
-Farabi [
In conclusion, the discussion reveals that Al-Farabi
[Dahiyat, 1974] and Avicenna, while sharing a common
Aristotelian framework, diverged in nuanced ways that
reflect their individual philosophical orientations. Al-
Farabi [
Comparative Analysis: Ibn Sina [] and Al-Farabi
[Dahiyat, 1974]
Having discussed each philosopher’s approach and the
general differences, we now present a direct
comparative
analysis,
organized
by
thematic
categories, to clearly distinguish Al-Farabi [Dahiyat,
1974]’s and Ibn Sina []’s contributions to poetics.
•
Context and Purpose of Poetics: Al-Farabi
[Dahiyat, 1974] and Avicenna both set Poetics at the
end of the logical curriculum, but Al-Farabi [
•
Definition of Poetry and Imitation: Al-Farabi
[Dahiyat, 1974] defines poetry as imitation (muhākāh)
aimed at imagination
–
a poetic statement is essentially
a metaphorical syllogism or an analogy that evokes an
image. Avicenna agrees but provides a more elaborate
definition: poetry is “imaginative utterance” (al
-
kalām
al-mutakhayyal) which can be in verse or ornate prose
and which by its form instills an image or emotion.
Avicenna emphasizes that the poet “gives the likeness
of a thing, not the thing itself” –
in other words, poetry
uses fiction to point toward reality. Both use the term
takhyīl (to cause imagination) to indicate the goal of
poetry, but Avicenna formalizes this term within his
logic.
•
Poetic Syllogism and Truth: This is a critical
point of divergence. Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]: Poetic
syllogisms yield imaginary convictions and are
categorically not concerned with truth
–
they
deliberately use what may be false or non-existent to
simulate the true or possible. Avicenna: Poetic
syllogisms also aim at the imagination, but some truth
can be involved
–
the premises might be true, semi-
true, or fictitious, however truth is incidental to their
poetic function. Both agree that poetic syllogism []s do
not produce scientific knowledge, but Avicenna’s
allowance for true premises means he saw poetry as
potentially reinforcing truths under a different mode
(by making truths felt or vivid). For example, a poet
could truthfully say “All mortal life ends in death” in a
poem
–
a factual statement
–
but couch it in imagery
that makes the audience deeply feel the reality of
mortality. Al-Farabi [
•
Emotional
Effect
(Catharsis):
Al-Farabi
[Dahiyat, 1974] touches on effect mainly in terms of
moral conditioning
–
making noble things attractive,
base things repulsive. Avicenna delves a bit more into
the psychological response. He effectively describes a
process akin to Aristotle’s catharsis: through witnessing
poetic imitation, the audience experiences delight and
learning, a purification of emotions (especially in
tragedy/praise where fear and pity might be aroused
and resolved). Avicenna articulates that even
unpleasant subjects portrayed artistically give a kind of
pleasure in recognition and form, thereby prefiguring
later aesthetic theories. Al-Farabi [
•
Tragedy vs. Comedy (High vs. Low Art): Both
equate tragedy with encomium (high style, noble
content) and comedy with satire (low style, base
content). Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s commentary, as
far as we know, likely followed this equivalence and
stressed that “tragedy” in Greek was aimed at prais
ing
virtue (he cites that Greek poetic genres did not imitate
persons but actions for rhetorical purpose). Avicenna
explicitly writes the ends “amelioration (praise) and
depreciation (satire)” as the two poles of poetry. Both
consider the “praise” genre su
perior. However,
Avicenna offers more explanation: he notes that even
a neutral depiction tends toward either praise or satire
ultimately. And he clearly states that poetry
“ameliorates noble deeds and depreciates ignoble
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
160
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
ones” –
a concise summary of poetr
y’s ethical task. In
appraisal, both seem to admire what tragedy/praise
can achieve (stirring noble emotions) and see
comedy/satire as a useful but inherently less dignified
tool (stirring laughter or scorn at the ignoble). Neither
gives a hint of the later idea that comedy could be equal
to tragedy in profundity; they follow the classical
hierarchy strictly.
•
Language and Style: Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]
deals with language mainly to discuss metaphor and
analogy. Avicenna goes further in discussing linguistic
style and metrics. Avicenna even compares Arabic
poetic conventions (like the nasīb –
love prelude
–
in
odes) to Greek ones, showing a comparative literary
interest. He acknowledges that Greek poetry had fixed
genres and conventions just as Arabic does, implying
that a commentator must translate concepts across
cultures. Al-Farabi [
To sum up the comparative analysis: Al-Farabi [Dahiyat,
1974] provides the broad logical-political template:
poetry is imitation aimed at imagination, persuading
through false (or not strictly true) imagery for ethical
and political ends. Avicenna retains that template but
enriches it, giving the logical-psychological rationale:
poetry persuades by imagination and gives pleasure of
a special sort; it can utilize truth in its own way; it has a
morally educative function through both content and
aesthetic form; and it occupies a defined place in the
epistemic hierarchy (lowest, but not negligible).
Avicenna in many ways humanizes Al-Farabi [
Thus, while Ibn Sina [] and Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]
share a commitment to an Aristotelian framework
where poetics is part of logic and an emphasis on
poetry’s ethical utility, Ibn Sina [
Tragedy and Comedy as High and Low Art
A focal point of Aristotelian influence on both
philosophers is their treatment of tragedy and comedy
[Arberry, 1938], reframed in Arabic as high and low
poetic forms. The idea that tragedy is a “higher” art and
comedy a “lower” art is present in their works, rooted
in the nature of the subject matter each genre handles.
Aristotle had defined tragedy as the imitation of noble
actions, meant to evoke pity and fear resulting in
catharsis, and comedy as the imitation of base or
ridiculous characters, aiming at laughter. In the
absence of Greek-style drama, Al-Farabi [Dahiyat,
1974] and Avicenna mapped these concepts onto
Arabic poetic genres. Tragedy was identified with
madīḥ (panegyric or praise poetry) –
poems that
elevate and laud their subject
–
and generally with
serious poetry about noble characters or themes.
Comedy
was identified with hijā’ (satire or lampoon) –
poems that mock or attack their subject
–
essentially,
poetry dwelling on the ludicrous or immoral, producing
humor or scorn. This translation was not arbitrary. For
one, ancient Greek comedies often did involve scathing
satire of public figures (not unlike hijā’), and Arabic
literature had a rich tradition of lampoon and invective
serving a social function of corrective humor. Likewise,
Arabic praise odes (qaṣā’id) fulfilled some of the
societal role of tragedy
–
extolling virtue,
commemorating the deeds of heroes or patrons, and
eliciting admiration from the audience.
Both Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] and Avicenna affirm this
equivalence. In Al-Farabi [
From their perspective, then, tragedy/praise is the
loftiest poetic genre. It deals with noble subjects
–
for
example, panegyrics of virtuous rulers, or poems on
moral virtues
–
and its effect on the audience is to
elevate: to fill them with admiration, emulation, or
noble emotions (analogous to Aristotle’s pity a
nd fear).
It is considered “high” art not only because of subject
matter but also style: praise poems were composed in
elevated language, rich metaphors, and dignified
meters. Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] and Avicenna both
hold that such poetry has an ethical excellence: it
reinforces virtue by portraying it beautifully. Avicenna
stresses that the poet’s task in this genre is to
“ameliorate noble deeds and virtues” –
i.e., even if
depicting real events, to present them in their best light
and with an aim to teach or inspire. There is a direct line
here from Aristotle’s idea of showing better people
than we are (in tragedy) so that we aspire to be like
them.
Conversely, comedy/satire is the “low” art. It
deliberately takes ignoble persons or flaws and imitates
them in a exaggerated, ridicule-inducing manner. Both
philosophers see a legitimate purpose in this
–
to
depreciate the bad, as Avicenna says. By making vice
ridiculous, comedic poetry provides a social sanction
against misconduct (much as Aristophanes’ com
edies
or Arabic satirical verses did). Yet, it is lower because it
deals with the base, and the emotions it invokes
(ridicule, derision, sometimes mere amusement) are
not considered as ennobling or profound as those of
tragedy. Avicenna describes that the pleasure in such
portrayals is incomplete
–
if a person has never seen
the vice in question, they enjoy only the form, and if
they have, the enjoyment is mixed with recognition of
something unpleasant. This analysis by Avicenna hints
that comedic pleasure is more limited or
“approximate” compared to the fuller delight and
enlightenment tragic art can offer.
Furthermore, style differentiates high vs low art. Both
thinkers would note that praise poetry often employs
majestic, grandiloquent diction, while satire might use
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
161
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
colloquial, biting words or even obscene language (in
some Arabic hijā’). In their logical
-aesthetic analysis,
they don’t delve deeply into style levels, but implicitly
they acknowledge it: for example, Avicenna’s mention
that various languages have their specific rules but
share a common structure suggests awareness of high
vs low registers across cultures. The high art of
tragedy/praise uses the most refined balāgha
(rhetoric), whereas the low art of comedy/satire might
break decorum intentionally for humor.
It is important to note that while they classified comedy
as a lower form, neither Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] nor
Avicenna condemned it. They saw a proper role for it in
the polity: satire can correct behavior by shaming
wrongdoers through public mockery. In the ideal
virtuous city, Al-Farabi [
In medieval Islamic aesthetics thereafter, this high-low
distinction persisted. Poetry of madīḥ (praise of God or
the Prophet, panegyrics to kings) was esteemed; hijā’
was seen as sometimes necessary but not something to
pride oneself on. Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] and
Avicenna’s Aristotelian rationale gave philosophical
justification to these genre hierarchies ingrained in
Arabic poetic tradition.
CONCLUSION
Ibn Sina [] (Avicenna) and Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]
stand as the two premier figures in the formative phase
of Arabic poetics under Aristotle’s influence. Through
this comparative study, we have seen that Al-Farabi [
•
Al-
Farabi
[Dahiyat,
1974]’s
poetics
is
characterized by analytical clarity and didactic intent.
He treats poetry as a logical art that produces
imaginative illusions for the sake of persuasion. His key
contribution is the notion of the poetic syllogism and
the categorization of poetic aims (praise vs blame). He
effectively “reconstructed” Aristotle’s Poetics [] in a
purer form for the Islamic world, at a time when the
available translation was deficient. By doing so, Al-
Farabi [
•
Avicenna’s poetics is marked by philosophical
depth and systematization. Avicenna confirms and
then transcends Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s ideas: he
confirms that poetry is an imaginative syllogistic art and
that its genres correspond to praise and satire. But he
transcends by probing how poetry moves the soul and
by acknowledging a role for truth and intellectual
enjoyment in poetry. Avicenna’s commentary on the
Poetics has been praised as “a masterpiece of literary
analysis” that showcases his ability to
derive coherent
theory from a corrupted text. It developed a more
comprehensive method for analyzing poetic language
–
integrating logical form, linguistic trope, psychological
impact, and ethical purpose into a unified account. This
method essentially laid the groundwork for what we
might call a medieval philosophy of art in the Islamic
world.
The combined legacy of Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] and
Avicenna’s work on poetics was profound. It “paved the
way for Ibn Rushd”, the last great Andalusian
commentator on Aristotle, whose own writings on
Poetics in the 12th century would transmit these ideas
to Latin Europe. Indeed, it is through Averroes [] (who
cites the doctrine of takhyīl and follows Al
-Farabi [
Within the Islamic world, the impact was also lasting.
Although explicit commentaries on Poetics after
Averroes [] are scarce (poetics was often subsumed
under rhetoric in later madrasa curriculums), the
principles enunciated by Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] and
Avicenna became part of the adab (literary culture)
discourse. For example, later scholars like Husain Vaiz
Kashifi in Persian literature, or even implicit in the
poetics of mystic poets (the idea that poetry can convey
truths to the masses), reflect assumptions originally
justified by these philosophers. The very defense of
poetry against theological iconoclasm (the argument
that poetry can illustrate moral truths in a pleasurable
way, and thus is not merely lying) owes a debt to
Avicenna’s positive appraisal of poetic imagination.
In conclusion, this comparative study demonstrates
that while Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] and Ibn Sina []
share the Aristotelian conviction that poetry is an
imitative art of the imagination, they diverge in tone
and scope: Al-Farabi [
REFERENCES
Zubaida, S. & Adibah, A. (2025)
. “An Islamic Approach
to Poetics: The Role of Muslim Philosophers in the
Development of Literary Theory.” International Journal
of Islamic Thought, 25 (June 2025): 193
–
204.
–
Discusses the transmission of Aristotle’s Poetics [] into
Arabic and the contributions of Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi
[Dahiyat, 1974], Ibn Sina [], and Ibn Rushd.
Arberry, A. J. (1938). “Fārābī’s Canons of Poetry.”
Rivista degli Studi Orientali, 17(2): 266
–
278.
–
Edition
and English translation of Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s
Kitāb al
-
Qawānīn al
-
shi‘r, providing insight into Al
-
Farabi [
Dahiyat, Ismail M. (1974). Avicenna’s Commentary on
the Poetics of Aristotle: A Critical Study with an
Annotated Translation. Leiden: Brill.
–
Comprehensive
study of Ibn Sina []’s Poetics (from the Shifā’)
with
English translation. It analyzes Avicenna’s logical
approach to poetry and comparisons with Al-Farabi
[Dahiyat, 1974].
Black, Deborah L. (1990). Logic and Aristotle’s Rhetoric
and Poetics in Medieval Arabic Philosophy. Leiden: Brill.
American Journal Of Philological Sciences
162
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajps
American Journal Of Philological Sciences (ISSN
–
2771-2273)
–
Examines how Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974], Avicenna,
and others integrated Aristotle’s Rhetoric and Poetics
into their logical frameworks. Notably discusses the
concept of poetic syllogism [] and imaginative assent []
(takhyīl).
Kemal, Salim. (1991). The Poetics of Alfarabi and
Avicenna. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
–
A focused comparison of
Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974]’s and Avicenna’s theories of
poetics, highlighting how each justified the logical and
moral power of poetic discourse in different ways.
Kemal, Salim. (2003). The Philosophical Poetics of
Alfarabi, Avicenna and Averroes [Butterworth, 1986]:
The Aristotelian Reception. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
–
Expands on Kemal’s earlier work to include Averroes
[
Gutas, Dimitri. (2014). Avicenna and the Aristotelian
Tradition (2nd rev. ed.). Leiden: Brill.
–
Provides
historical context for Avicenna’s engagement with
Aristotle. Gutas particularly praises Avicenna’s handling
of the garbled Poetics translation as a “masterpiece of
literary analysis” and discusses Avicenna’s pla
ce in
transmitting Aristotelian thought.
Walbridge, John. (2010). God and Logic in Islam: The
Caliphate of Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
–
Contains a chapter on logic in the Islamic
tradition with references to how philosophers like Al-
Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] and Avicenna viewed the logical
arts. Walbridge contrasts Al-Farabi [
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein & Leaman, Oliver (eds.). (1996).
History of Islamic Philosophy. Part I (London:
Routledge).
–
Includes discussion of Al-Farabi [Dahiyat,
19
74]’s and Avicenna’s philosophical systems. Nasr
remarks on the integration of Greek philosophy into
Islam, noting Al-Farabi [
Badawī, ‘Abd al
-
Raḥmān. (1952). Manṭiq Arisṭū
(Aristotle’s Logic), Vol. 2. Cairo: al
-
Maṭba‘a al
-
Ḥadītha.
–
Contains the Arabi
c text of Aristotle’s Rhetoric and
Poetics with commentary. Badawi’s edition collates the
Arabic translation by Abū Bishr and the commentaries.
In his introduction and notes, Badawi evaluates the
translation
choices
(e.g.
tragedy→madḥ,
comedy→hijā’)
and
id
entifies
errors
and
interpretations by Al-Farabi [Dahiyat, 1974] and others.
Badawī, ‘Abd al
-
Raḥmān. (1966). Avicenna: Kitāb al
-
Shifā’: al
-
Shi‘r. Cairo: al
-
Hay’a al
-
Miṣriyyah al
-
‘Āmma. –
Arabic critical edition of Avicenna’s chapter on Poetics
from the
Shifā’. This is the primary source for
Avicenna’s text, which scholars like Dahiyat and Kemal
have used. (In-
text citations in this article to Avicenna’s
ideas are based on this text as translated by Dahiyat).
Averroes [Butterworth, 1986] (Ibn Rushd). (1986).
Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s Poetics [].
Translated with notes by Charles Butterworth.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
–
While not
directly about Farabi or Avicenna, this work shows the
culmination of the Arabic tradition of Poetics. Averroes
[
Leezenberg, Michiel. (2001). “Katharsis, Greek and
Arab style: On Averroes []’s Misunderstanding of
Aristotle’s
Misunderstanding
of
Tragedy.”
In
Documenta, 22(4) (Ghent, 2004), pp. 274
–
300.
–
An
article discussing how Aristotle’s concept of ca
tharsis
and tragedy was interpreted by Arabic commentators.
It highlights that Arabic philosophers had a “radically
different idea” of poetic language focused on
social/political concerns. It underscores the high-low
art distinction and how philosophers like Al-Farabi
[Dahiyat, 1974] and Avicenna politicized poetics in a
way foreign to Aristotle.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
–
“Al
-Farabi
[Dahiyat, 1974]’s Philosophy of Society and Religion.”
(2020).
–
This online resource provides background on
Al-Farabi [
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
–
“Ibn Sina
[Kemal, 1991] [Avicenna].” (2020). –
Offers an overview
of Avicenna’s life and works. It mentions Avicenna’s
contributions to logic and his inclusion of subjects like
poetry in his encyclopedias. The article references
Avicenna’s interest in combining philosophy with
literary forms (e.g., his allegorical stories) and how he
saw a role for imaginative literature in philosophy.
