Abstract:
This research, using a comparative method and based on the Slavoj approach, examines the characteristics of utopia in the poetry of Sohrab Sepehri and Nazik al-Malak, two Persian and Arabic speaking poets, and analyzes their similarities and differences based on the descriptions provided by the two poets at the content level. The results of the research show that both poets have sought refuge in their own imaginary and poetic utopias to escape the reality of their societies. Due to having similar romantic tendencies and social conditions, common themes such as escaping poverty and oppression and attention to the world of childhood, nature, and the village are seen in both utopias; however, the different tendencies and individual experiences of the two poets have made Nazik's utopia closer to reality, giving it a national and socio-ethical dimension, while making Sohrab's utopia more symbolic, mystical-ethical, supra-national, and universal.
Machine summary:
Due to having similar romantic tendencies and social conditions, common themes such as escape from poverty and oppression, and attention to the world of childhood, nature, and the village are seen in both utopias; however, the different tendencies and individual experiences of the two poets have made Nazik's utopia closer to reality, giving it a national and socio-ethical dimension, while Sohrab's utopia has become more symbolic, mystical-ethical, supra-national, and universal.
This research aims to examine the concept of utopia in the poetry of Sohrab Sepehri and Nazik al-Mala'ika, two Iranian and Iraqi poets who are both prominent figures in their contemporary literature, to discover how the characteristics of the ideal city intended by each of them are, and what notable points of similarity and difference they have in this regard.
Therefore, so far, no independent research has addressed the concept of utopia in the poetry of Sohrab and Nazik al-Mala'ika; in addition, the predominant basis of these studies is finding common concepts in the entire poems of the two poets, which, in the opinion of the authors of this work, is not correct; especially since it often suffices to find a few examples through the entire collection of the poets' poems and state a general title for them, and rarely are the differences and similarities separately analyzed and examined, and usually this work is presented in the conclusion section in the form of several general titles and propositions.
(
, 
, 
)
