Saadi’s Lived Experience and the Credibility Simulation of Events in

Classical Persian ādābnāmehs, by virtue of their didactic and deterrent function, are replete with explicit and implicit traces of the author-narrator's presence within the narration of events and reports, aiming to guide and steer the interpretation and understanding of the listener or reader. Gulistan of Saadi, as a text within this advisory tradition, exhibits various forms of such authorial interventions in the construction of its tales and perceived realities. One significant form of intervention in Gulistan is the use of different types of modality discourse intended to simulate the credibility of the events and reports being represented. This study explores and interprets the forms of credibility simulation employed by the author-narrator of Gulistan in the context of his lived experience, adopting a phenomenological-narratological approach. The findings reveal that the author-narrator often attempts to present many of the events and accounts embedded in the tales as emanating from his own lived experiences, primarily through the use of the first-person pronoun. At the beginning—or sometimes in the middle—of such tales, he references perceptual acts or other signs of proximity, implying his direct or indirect presence at the time and place of the event or his access to its source. This is articulated through three rhetorical forms of the "I": the rhetorical self, the observing self, and the individual self. Such techniques of proximity not only serve to simulate the credibility of the events and reports, but also strive to render the represented knowledge or belief as certain and true in the eyes of the audience.
Introduction
In classical Persian politico-ethical literature, narrative structure serves not merely as a vehicle for content but as a deliberate strategy for persuasion and the establishment of truth. Saadi’s "Golestan," one of the most emblematic works in this tradition, constructs layered forms of verisimilitude by integrating the author-narrator’s active presence within the text. The use of the first-person pronoun and sensory-verbal markers such as “I heard,” “I saw,” and “I remember” are not merely rhetorical devices; they function as epistemological mechanisms that anchor the narrator’s relationship to the truth of the narrated event. This paper analyzes the three primary modes of representing the lived “I” in "Golestan", arguing that Saadi’s modulation of the narrator’s distance from events enables him to craft a compelling and enduring construction of truth and credibility—one that continues to shape the didactic function of Persian prose to this day.
Method
This qualitative, descriptive-analytical study employs phenomenological and narratological approaches. All anecdotes in Golestan were examined for the presence of first-person pronouns and other markers indicating proximity or distance between the author and narrator (e.g., "I heard," "I saw," "I remember," and signs of companionship). The anecdotes were categorized into three groups—rhetorical, observational, and personal—based on spatial and temporal distance as well as narrator involvement, and then analyzed in terms of their semantic effects and strategies of authentication.
Results
The study identifies three narrative modes—rhetorical, observational, and personal—through which Saadi crafts varying levels of narrator presence in "Golestan". Each mode functions as a strategic tool to establish credibility, whether by referencing traditional authority, eyewitness observation, or lived experience. These modes not only authenticate the narrative but also deepen its ethical impact. By shifting between distance and proximity, Saadi transforms storytelling into a performative act of moral persuasion. The narrator becomes both a witness and a moral agent, enabling readers to engage with the anecdotes as experiential truths rather than abstract teachings. This narrative design reflects a sophisticated understanding of epistemic authority and enhances the text's persuasive power within its socio-political context.
Conclusion
Rhetorical self (30 anecdotes) includes explicit anecdotes which target the use of “I heard” at the beginning or middle of anecdotes which signals direct testimonial authority, emphasizing oral tradition and the chain of transmission. The second type is implicit which are the passive constructions like “it is narrated” and “they say” convey epistemic prestige and suggest widespread credibility.
      Observational self (10 anecdotes) include the use of “I saw” and detailed visual descriptions that establish the narrator as an eyewitness, thereby narrowing the epistemic gap without engaging in action.
      Personal/engaged self (40 anecdotes) are often marked by “I remember” or “I saw,” with the narrator acting as both focalizer and agent. In many cases, the narrator’s presence is inferred through verbs such as “I was,” “I had,” “I accompanied,” or “I was related to,” underscoring their existential participation