This article reframes the traditional view of Persian rhetoric as merely a derivative of Arabic tradition by examining its development through four key manuals: Muhammad ibn ʿUmar Rādūyānī’s Tarjumān al-Balāgha, Rashīd al-Dīn Vatvāt’s Hadāʾiq al-Sihr, Shams-i Qays-i Rāzī’s al-Muʿjam, and Sayf-i Jām-i Hiravī’s Jāmiʿ al-Sanāyiʿ. It is an exploration of the historical and cultural contexts in which these works were composed, highlighting how Persian rhetoricians adapted and reshaped Arabic models as part of a broader movement toward literary autonomy. By foregrounding these dynamics, the article offers a fresh perspective on the reciprocal relationship between Arabic and Persian rhetorical traditions. Particular attention is given to Tarjumān al-Balāgha as a seminal effort to Persianize rhetorical tradition, in which Rādūyānī adapts and reconfigures Arabic concepts to lay the groundwork for a distinct Persian literary identity, and to Jāmiʿ al-Sanāyiʿ, which subsequently consolidates this project into a coherent and comprehensive Persian framework. Together, these works mark pivotal moments in the trajectory of Persian rhetorical thought and reflect broader cultural and intellectual currents in the medieval Islamicate world.

In the course of archaeological excavations at Metropolis between 1999 and 2004 when the hall of the city council (boule) was unearthed, an important inscription now referred to as the ‘Apollonios Decree’ was discovered on the bouleuterion terrace. This inscription decrees that a statue honouring Apollonios is to be erected ‘in that part of the Agora where it will be the most conspicuous’. Ongoing excavations have revealed a concentration of sculptures in the same area, further strengthening the hypothesis that the Agora was located on the bouleuterion terrace. The present study was undertaken to better understand and interpret the functions of this part of the site based on the findings of excavations on the northern side of the bouleuterion in 2018. It also aims to ascertain if this is the area referred to in inscriptions as the place where public benefactors (euergetai) were honoured with boule-decreed statues, to determine if the statue dedicated to Apollonios of Metropolis was indeed located here, and to propose a possible location for the as-yet unidentified Metropolitan agora.

This article focuses on perceptions and attitudes of ethnic minorities toward nation-building processes in Kazakhstan. It provides important insights on how ethnic minorities position and perceive themselves after more than thirty years of nation-building. The article draws on a survey (N=4,000) and semi-structured interviews conducted in 17 regions of Kazakhstan. It concludes that despite some variations in perceptions toward civic and ethnic identities, in general, ethnic minorities positively evaluate the nation-building processes in Kazakhstan. The evidence suggests that ethnic identity continues to play an important role in self-identification of ethnic minorities, while civic identity is important to a limited degree. The study also shows that there is variation across different ethnicities in terms of salience of ethnic and civic identities.

The first decade after the end of revolutionary events in Gilan (1920–21) was a period of active attempts by the Bolsheviks, Communist International, and Communist Party of Iran to gain a solid social foothold in Iran. This article, based mainly on Russian archival sources, focuses on the dynamics of the Communist International and Communist Party of Iran guidelines, attempts and features of their implementation, and the relationship between Iranian communists and the Bolshevik and Communist International leadership. This study demonstrates that the main Red efforts between 1922–25 aimed at building an inter-class coalition, in which cooperation with Reza Khan became only a part of these broader efforts. Their failure led the Reds to return to a previously tested course of fomenting agrarian revolution in Iran and repeated fiascos. Throughout this period, the Communist Party of Iran’s leadership did not simply execute directives but instead took an active role in the decision-making process, involved the Bolsheviks in internal party struggle, and challenged high-ranking functionaries of the Communist International.