Notes oir tire history of ‘Arñ$ in al-Andalus
DMITRY FROLOV
Arabie poetry in al-A ndalus is a case of a poetical tradition brought into
a new environment where it struck roots, undergoing radical changes in the
process. As is well known, this evolution fmally resulted in abandoning first te
metric of ‘Arad (muwashslzah) and then, the language of dic classical poetry
(zajaO.
This study of the metrical dimension of the history of Arabic poetical
tradition in Medieval Spain is a continuation of the similar study of te classical
poetry in the Mashriq undertaken in tlie autbor’s monographt. Not being a
specialist in te history of Andalusian poetry, 1 nevertheless decided to publísh
te statistical data on its metrical repertory, hoping that Wey might be useful to
scholars working in te field. The driving impulse of this work was te aulhor’s
conviction that, as E. Lévi-Proven~al puts it, “il serait... imprudent d’essayer de
dégager les traits originaux qui la concernent, sans montrer simultanément ce que
fut eh Espagne la grande tradition du classicisme oriental, á laquelle ce pays
demeura toujours strictement attaché, et qui devait se manifester á chaque instant
dans la plupart des branches du savoir qu’il re9ut et exploita”’.
ACKNowLEDCEMENTS.
1 wish to express my deep gratitude to my first teacher of Arabic, te
Spanisl’¡ scholar Alcaén Sánchez, whose approach to te interpretation of te
quantitative basis of ‘Arad’ was te foundation and te starting point of my
reflections on the subject. 1 ani also indebted to Prof. Alexander Kudelin, one
of te few Russian arabista who made a substantial contrlbution to te study of
te Andalusian poetry’, whose advice and critique, as well as free access to bis
impressive collection of te Andalusian poetry made tis study possible. 1 also
would like to thank my colleague Alexander Rubakin for revising te English
text of tis article.
Dmitry Frolov, The CkusicalArabic Verse: Historyand Theory of ‘Arad, Moscow 1991.
E.. Lévi-Proven~al, Sn Civilisation arabe en Espagne, Paris 1961, p. 39.
See A. Sanchez, “Concerning Use Nature of the System of Arabic Metrics”, in Arabic
Philology, Moscow 1968.
AB. Kudelin. Clasgical Spanish Arabic Poetry, Moscow 1973.
Anaquel de Estudios Árabes, VI (1995)
88
Dmnitrv Frolov
EXPERIMENtAL BASLS.
Tables of [he metrical reperíory of [he Andalusian poctry duriííg its ínost
creative period, starting from [he secoííd half of [he IOth century Al). and np
lo [he 14th century AD., include [he statxstical data reprcseníiííg fouríecn poets,
whosc uíames speak for themselves:
1. Ibn Hání al-Andalusí (d.972). - Di’wdn. Ed. Karazn al-Bustání, Beirut
1963. 85 pieces.
2. lbn Darraj al-Qasialíl (d.1030). - Dixvan. Ed. Mahmñd ‘AH Makki
Damascus 1961. 173 pieces.
3. lbn Zaydún (d.1071). - Dfwún Ibn Zaydan wa-rasa’iluh. Ed. ‘AIf ‘Abd
al- ‘Aiim, Cairo 1957. 173 pieces.
4. Ibn ‘Ammar (d.1Q84 or 1086). - Saláh Khális, Muhainmad ibn ‘Aminar
al-Andalusí Dirasa adabiyya tarikhiyya, Baghdad 1957. 76 pieces.
5. AI-Mu’tamid ibn ‘Abbád (d.1095). - Díwdn. Ed. Alunad Mimad alBadawí & llámid ‘Abd al-Majid, Cairo 1951. 176 pieces.
6. AI-A’má al-Tutilí (d. 1131). - Dfwdn. lSd. Ihsán ‘AMias, Beirut 1963.
88 pieces.
7. lbn l-lamdt (d.1133). - DI’wdn. Ed. Ihsán ‘Abbás, Beirut 1960. 370
pteces.
8. Ibn al-Zaqqáq al-Balansí (d.1133 or 1135). - Drwan. lSd. Afifa
Mahmúd Dayr¿ni, Beimt 1964. 149 pieces.
9. Ibn Khatája (d.1138). Dtwan. Ed. Kara¿n al-Bustañí, Beirut 1961.
-
360 pieces.
10. AI-Rusáfi al-Balansí (d.1177).
1960. 59 pieces.
11. lbn Sahí al-Andalusí (d.1251).
-
Drwan. lSd. lhsán ‘Abbá<s Beirut
-
Díwcln. Ed. lhsán ‘Abbá.s Beirut
1967. 136 pieces.
12, Ibn al-’Abbár (d.1260). - Díwjn. lSd. ‘Abd al-Salám al-liaras Tunis
1986. 245 pieces.
13. Hn~im nl~QartAjann1(d.1285). - Dñvan. Ed ‘TT’h.~n.’ ~
Beirut 1964. 44 pieces.
14. lbn al-Khatlb (d.1374).
Alger 1973. 353 pieces.
-
Di’wan. Ed. Muhammad al-Sharff Qáhir
Number of poetical pieces in each Díwan does not include muwashshah
poems [hat are not in conformity with [he ‘Arad. Por diree poets (nos.. 1. 3, 9),
meters werc defined by ínyself and for alí [he res;, dic data was taken from [he
Díwe§in. Ambiguous cases, such as [he borderline between hazaj and shorl wdfir,
or between rajaz and meters adjacent to it (sari’, mnunsari4), were treated in
accordance wi[h [he approach presented in [he aboye snonograph. Short fonns
were placed separately, as well as a peculiar form of basa which is kííown as
mukhalla’ al-basa. Summary data for four basic meters of [he Qasida tradition:
ww¿i, basa, wajir, kamil, and for alí short verse forms were included in [he
taNes as separate lines. Data of [he ínetrical repertory of [he poetry in al-
Notes on ihe history of ‘Arúd in al-Andalus
89
Mashriq, used as [he basis for comparison, were titen from [he au[hor s
monograph5.
IIISTORICAL BACKCROUND.
Classical Arabic verse developed from folklore foundation of aneient
recital and song forms of rhy[hmical speech used by Nortbem Arabian tibes. Wc
can reconstruct [hree such forms: rajaz, mostly a declamatory fonn, being [he
direct continuation of ancient saj’; hazaj, whose roots come from [he
autoch[honous, now extinct, tradition of song and music of bedouins of Central
and West Arabia; ramal, wbose origins can be traced back to [he traditiotí of
singing, únported to [he Peninsula from [he Sasanid Iran, mainly [hrough 1-lira,
[he seat of Lakhmid kings6. Of te two song forms only one, hazaj, is Arabic
in its origins, anó it is doubtless much older [han [he o[her.
The evolution of [he inner structure from prinitive verse forms to a more
stnct metrical order brought into existence an altemating rhy[hm of a clearly
quantitative nature, based on a watid-sabab alternation, where [he longer
segment, watid, plays [he role of arsis, while dic shorter segment, sabab, tbat of
thesis. This rhythm liad three variations corresponding to [he aboye archaic verse
forms: ascending, where watid is placed at te end of each foot (rajaz rhytbm);
descending, where each foot begins wi[h watid (hazaj rhy[hm); ané intermediate,
where watid stands in [he centre of [he foot (ramal rhythm).
Each basic rhytbm gaye birtb to a “family” of closely related meters.
Thus, dic hazaj family comprises such meters as tawtl, wc7fir, ,nutaquirib, as well
as [he ‘Arad version of hazaj; [he rajaz family, basa, kamil, sari’, munsarih,
mujtathth, not to mention rajaz proper; and [he ramal family, [he smallest olie.
includes only three meters khafff, ramal proper, and ¡nadal, which is actually
a rare variation of ramal. These “families” played different roles in [he making
of [he metrical repertory of Arabic poetry.
The image of Pte-Islamic poetry, reflected (or created) by anthologies
compiled during dic period of “written flxation” (al-tadwiin), beginning in [he
second half of te 8[h century AD. and ending at [he dawn of [he I0[h century
AL)., is still dominant in Modem Arabic Culture and in [he works on [he history
of Arabie poetry by Furopean scholars. This view places [he centre of poetical
activity in Northern Arabia. The poetical heritage of [he bedouin tribes loc’ated
[here appears as basically uniform in different aspects of poetic art.
The metrical repertory of [his ancient poetry. or [he qasid tradition, seems
to be characterized by te following distinctive features:
-
‘These data can be compared wuth tose given in the carlier works on Use metrical repertory
of Use Arabic poeíry. .11 of Usem treating exclusively poets of al-Mashriq: E, Braunlich, “Versuch
e’ner Literaturgeschichtlichen Betrachtungsweise altarabisehen Poesien”, Der Islam, 24. 1937; J.
Vadet, “Contribution a Ibistoire de la metrique arabe”, Arabica, 2, 1955; J.Bensheikh, Poetique
arabe. Erraj sur les vojes duce créa¡ion, Paris 1975, pp. 203-227.
6 Ibid, chs.4 and 5, Pp. 94-156. ‘Arad meters Usat bear the same names: rajaz, hazaj, ramal, are
nol identical with this archaic verse forms, though they are their direct decsendants.
90
Dmitry Frolov
1) unchallenged priority of iawil, [he main qasíd meter, whose share is
generally no less [han one [hird of [he total poetical production, often reaching
over 50 percení, which resulta aNo in prevalence of descending rhytbm meters;
2) predominance of four basic (long) meters of [he qasi’d: iawil, basa,
wdfir, ¡cornil, whose share oscillates aboye [he mark of 90%, only rarely falling
beiow 80%;
3) very low rate of meters of [he [huidrhytkn ([he ramal family), wbose
total share vanes from zero to 1,5%, only occasionally reaching [he mark of 45%;
4) rarity of short verse forms, used mainly for singing (hazaj, ¡cornil,
ramal, khajjf), as qasíd poetry was intended primnarily for declamation.
Table 1 shows confonnity between an[hologies of oíd poetry, exemplified
by Hamasa of Abú Tammám, wi[h individual Di’wáns of l’re-Islmnic poets, and
[he continuation and even accentuation of [heir common metrical tendencies in
Early Islarnic and Umayyad poetry’.
This metrical picture is in principIe correct, but only for pat of classical
poetry. As far as 1 know, Prof.Gmnebaum was dic first to realize [hat side by
side wi[h [he bedouin school of ¿netric diere existed anotber school, originated
in 1-lira. In his foreword to [he Iii>i’wdn of Abú Du’ád al-lyádi, wbich he himself
collected and published, Prof. Grunebaum wrote: “As an unexpected reward...
Abú Du’ád emerged as an important figure in literary history, enabling us to
form new concepts of [he literary situation in [hose parts of [he ‘arabiyya which
from about AD. 450-600 had [heir cultural center in al-Hira, [he capital of [he
‘8
Lakhmidlcíngs
Prof. Grunebaum also wrote: “For [he understanding of [he development
of Arabie poetry [he study of AMi Du’ád has yielded far-reaching resulta which
can he summarized as follows: 1-lira and [he ‘Iraqian and East Arabian arcas of
which it was [he cultural capital harbonred a highly developed school of poetry,
distinguished by metrical variety, occasional expression of ideas of non-Bedouin
background, and a definite colour of local tradition. So far, Abo Du’ád is [he
first representative of [he group... It is not surprising to find [he metrical
technique of Arabic poetry in ‘Iraq richer [han anywhere cIsc. Generations of
town and court life naturally tended to develop [hose arta [hat were gencrally
practised””.
Wc used Ihe following editions: Díwdn oJ-JJudhaiiyyi’n, Cairo 1965; Zuhayr ibn Abi Sulmá,
hijean, Cairo 1964; Hutay’a, hijean, Cairo 1958; Jarir, DFwán, 1-II Cairo 1969-1971; AbC
Tammátn, Di’wñn al-Hamása, 1-II (undated).
GE. von GrunebaumAbO Duád al-lyádt: Collection ofFragmenís”, 1-i’ZK4I, Sl, 1948-1952,
p. 83.
¿bid, pp. 100-101. Grunebaum included into this school such poeta, as ‘Ad8 ib,, Zayd,
Mutalammis, Tarafa, al-Muthaqqib al-AMI, ‘AM Qays aJ’Burjunú, aJ-A’shá,
91
Notes on tite history of ‘ArÚ~ in al-Andalus
Table 1. Bedouin Metrical Tradition in [he Poetry of al-Mashriq
Meters
Descending:
tawil
wñjir
w¿41r (sh.j
hazaj
mtaaq&rib
Total
Ascending:
basa
basikmukh)
kñmil
kñmil(sh.j
rajaz(3)
rajaz(2)
sart’
munsarih
Total
Hudbayl
(diwan)
Zuhayr
Hutay’a
Jarir
Hamása
of Abo
Tanunám
41,43
18,93
0,59
30,18
24,53
4531
19,36
36,61
20,57
5,92
66,86
1,89
66,60
4,27
68,94
1,91
59,09
56,40
10,67
0,11
0,22
2,25
69,66
11,83
18,87
15,38
15.55
13,02
0,59
5,92
0,59
0,59
0,59
33,14
18,87
10,26
1,71
0,85
17,22
Intermed.:
madfd
ramal
ramal(sh.)
khafif
khaflf(sb.)
Total
4 meters
short forms
Pieces
7,90
10,90
0,22
11,46
1,01
3,15
0,24
40,91
1,12
1,12
28,99
0,85
3,77
31,51
29,05
0,33
0,34
1,89
1,71
0,67
1,89
1,71
1,35
85,80
7,69
92,45
92,02
2,56
89,95
7,90
90,77
4,82
100
53
117
418
890
It is significant thaI two special metrical characteristics mentioned by
Grunebaum are: 1) te use of ramal, and 2) a certain predilection for khafjf ~>.
Prof.Grunebaun treated occun’ence of tese meters in [he poetry of te UÚa
school as independent cbaracteristics of its metrical repertory, but if [he
exposition presented aboye is true, [hey are simply different metrical variations
lO
Ibid pp. 102-103. Grsanehaum states thai rama/sn Pre-Islamie time was used only by poets
of this school, wiUs Use only exception of Imru’ulqays, wbo was believed tobe Use rñwfof AbO
Duád, wbereas kha~was used by the poeta not connected with Use school, buí not very frequently.
Though some new instances of Use usage of diese meters could be added to Use data given by
C,runebaum, his conclusion remains trae.
92
Dmitry Frolov
of [he same basic rhythm, whose origin can be connecíed wi[h Hira as an
intermediary between Persian and Arabie cultures. In this case [he observations
made by Prof.Grunebaum can now be restated, and we can say tbat [he poetical
school of Hira shows a definite predilection for meters of [he ramal basic
rhythm that grew and remained outside [he Bedouin Qasíd traditionlt.
Table 2 shows that, apart from a sharp mercase in [he occurrence of
meters of [he “ramal family” (up to one [hird of [he total number of verses),
some otlier features can be observed in [he metrical repertory of [he school.
These are:
1) a considerable decline iíí [he frequency of (awtl [bat sometiines yields
priority to another meter;
2) a similar falí iii [he occurrence of [he four basic meters of [he Qasrd
tradition:
3) a notable risc in [he frequency of short verse forms, thaI were
connecíed, as was mentioned aboye, witb [he art of singing.
Table 2 also shows [hat [he poetical tradition boro in 1-lira, although
neglected by Iiterary crities and autbors of anthologies, continued during [he
Umayyad time in [he poetry of ‘Umar ibn Abí Rabi’a (and several minor pocis
of Medina), and it even became [he major trend in [he development of Arabie
poetry during [he Early Abbasid period, as represented by rnuwalladan poets,
who initiated [he movement of batí’, [hat seemed almost a revolution in [he
poetical art. It is not at alí accidental [bat such poeta as Bashshár ibn Burd, Abo
Nuwás, Muslim 11w al-WalId, Abil ‘1- ‘Atáhiya and o[hers, who continued and
developed [he tradition of [he flira school, were of Persian origiíí. Later, [bis
metrical scbool was represented by poetry of Abu Tammamn” and of alBuhturi.
It can not be deduced from [he aboye [bat Abbasid poeta regarded
[hemselves as successors of Abo Du’ád or ‘Adj ibm Zayd in [he domain of
me¡ncs On [he contrary, tbeir poetry was unanimously considered as brealcing
wíth [he traditions of Pre-Islamie poery which was represented for [hem by
popular aníbologies, such as Mu ‘allaqa~ Mufa&Ialiyya¡, Asma iyyaí, Jamnharar
ash ‘¿Ir al- ‘arÉ by Ahí) Zayd al-Qurashí, Tabaq¿u al-sim ‘arÉl’ by al-Jumabí. and
two Hamasa’s by Abo Tainmám and al-Buhturi, ¡tu of tbem creating [he image
of [he all-embracing Bedouin tradition whieh had very different meírics.
Prof. <Srunebaum, very significantly, suggests Usat “ramal was an adaptation of Use Pahlavi
octosyllabic verse.., lo Use exigencies of Arabic prosody”, quoting E. Benveniste, “Le texte du Draxt
asurik et la versification pebJevie”. JA 217 (1930), p. 221, asid adds Usa ‘there is certainly no
intrinsic obstacle to Use assumption of Persianinfluence on Use formation of Arabie poetical technique
In Use districts adjacent to, and under dic suzerainty of, Use Iranian power”, see ibid, p. 102.
Wc used the following editions of relevaní texts: Abo Du’ád-Grunebaum, op.cit; ‘Adj ibn
Zayd, hilván, Baghdad 1965; ‘lImar ibn Ahí Rabia, hilván. Cairo ¡960; Bashshár ibn Burd,
Dñvan,l-IY, Cairo 1952-1966; AbO Nuwás, hilván, Beirut n.d.; Abo Tammám, hilván, Beirut sid.;
al-Buhturi, hilván, ¡-¡Y, Cairo 1962.
93
Notes oit (he history of ‘Arad in al-Andalus
Table 2, Metrical School of 1-lira in [he Poetry of al-Mashriq”
Meters
Descendiutg:
tawd
wñfir
wáfir(sh.)
hazal
mutaqdñb
,nudñt’i’
Total
Ascettding:
basa
basíl(makh)
1dm,!
kñmil(sb.)
rajaz
sari’
munsarih
mujtathth
muqtadab
Total
Abc
Duád
‘Adj
ibn
Zayd
‘limar
ibn
Abí
Rabia
flash.
ibn
Burd
Abo
Nuwás
Abo
Tamn,ám
Buh.
Shár.
12,50
8,33
21,25
11.25
1,39
6,94
2,50
3,75
21,42
4,76
2,38
0,59
5,06
27,39
7,56
0,17
3,19
2,86
18,40
9,09
0,43
0,87
0,65
21,49
9,89
0,32
0,53
6,28
29.16
38.75
34,21
41,17
14,07
9,18
1,70
4,09
¡.50
0,10
30,64
29,44
38,51
¡5,28
8,75
8,63
12,50
9,72
4,17
1,39
1,39
7,50
1,25
6,25
3,75
18,75
1,19
1,19
1,19
4,17
14,45
0,17
11,76
2,69
2,35
6,39
4,54
0,34
44,45
27,50
35,12
1,39
4,17
1,25
11,25
1,25
18,75
1,25
33,75
17,10
1,51
24,46
0,65
1,73
5,41
3,90
0,43
11,82
0,74
17.24
1,38
0,74
6,06
4,36
0,53
42,69
12.28
1,00
7,49
2,79
6,09
12,97
7,58
3,19
0,10
53,49
55,19
42,87
2,38
4,16
2,38
19,36
2,08
30,64
0,17
4,03
1,18
9,42
1,34
16,14
0,90
2,49
4,59
6,49
1,40
15,87
0,65
0,22
1,08
12,55
0,87
15,37
0,21
0,96
1,49
15,43
0,53
18,62
48,51
24,05
71,64
4,11
62,88
5,31
lotermed.:
madre]
ramal
ramaKsh.)
khaft~
khaftj’(sh.)
Total
25,00
Non- Arszd
verse
1,39
4 meters
short forms
58,33
15,28
50,00
6,25
57,13
10,11
64,19
11,26
Pieces
72
80
336
595
19,44
1002
462
940
Table 3 provides data on [he metrical repertory of two most outstanding
poets of [he 1O[h and lid> centuries AD., who personified [he acme of [he
It measis Usat Abo Tammám, who in bis famous ¡Jamñsa was asserting Use Bedouin metrical
followed in bis own poetry another metrical ideal, that of the Easly Abbasid poetry, which
contmued Use tradition of 131ra.
tradition,
94
Dmitry Frolov
CI’assical Arabie poetry, al-Muíanabbi and AbÍl ‘1- Alá’ al-Ma’arñ’4. It can he
seen [bat [hey are an example of [he balanced combination of [be lwo metrical
tendencies. Since [ben [bis metrical syn[hesis replaced [he pure Bedouin metrica]
traditiotí as [he core of [he poetic art.
Tahle 3. Metrical Repertory of al-Mutanabbi and al-Ma’an’i.
Meters
a]Mutanabbi
al-Ma’ani
Saqí al-zantí
Descending:
tawil
wcifir
hazaj
¡nutaqdrib
Total
21,83
16,55
31,86
15,04
7,75
46,13
3,54
50,44
Ascending:
basa
basa(mukh.)
¡cainil
kulmil(sh.)
rajaz
sari’
rnunsarih
mujtathth
Total
15,14
1,76
14,79
0,70
3,17
2,46
6,34
0,35
44,71
10,61
0,89
16,81
Intermediate:
¡nadal
ramal
rarnal(sh.)
khaftf
¡cha,ftf(sh.)
Total
4 meters
short forms
Pieces (total)
al-Ma’arr¡
Luzamiyy¿u
23.23
13,56
0,44
6,55
43,88
41,60
25,05
1,57
13,82
0,56
0,25
6,21
2,95
0,19
50,60
9,16
7,07
0,89
7,96
0,19
0,57
0,12
4,58
0,06
5,52
70,77
4,22
75,21
4,43
77,79
1,62
284
1 13
1592
4,43
6,20
2,66
1,06
8,10
-
Their metrical repertory, which can be cailed Classical, should be added
14
We used Use following editions of relevant texts: al-Mutanabbi, Dñvdn, l-IY Beirut 1980;
Abo ‘1-Alá’ al-Ma’arrí, Sitar!, a/-tanwi’r ‘alá Saq¡ al-Zane], 1-II, Cairo 1941; AbÉ ‘l’’Alá’ alMa’arri. Lazam en> la yalzam. 1-II, Beirut 1961.
95
Notes on tite history of ‘Arúd in al-Andalus
Lo [he two previous types as [he [bird. Further metrical development of [be poetry
in al-Masitriq does not concern us [¡ere, as from [be lid> century AD. [he
Andalusian poetry has gone ita own evolutional way.
These [hree types of [he metrical repertory: Abbasid, basically ancient
Hitan (Type A), Bedouin (Type B), and ClassicaJ (Type C) were [he legacy of’
Arabic poetly in [be Mashriq left to Arabie poetry in al-A ndalus, [hal entered
mío ita most creative period ir> [he 10[h century AD. Their quantitative
parameters are shown in Table 4.
TaLle 4. Three basic types of Metrical Repertory of [be Classical Arabic
Poetry.
Parameters
Type A
Type E
Type C
(Abbasid)
(l3edouin)
(Classical)
50-70%
around 90%
70-75%
íawtl
10-25%
35-50%
20-30%
Dcscendtng
meters
30-40%
60-70%
45-50%
Ascending
meters
30-50%
30-40%
45-50%
Oesc.:Asc.
1:1,5(1-1,8)
2(1,5-2,5):]
1:1(0,9-1,1)
4 basic meters
Intennediate
meters
15-30%
0-5%
5-10%
Short t’orms
10-25%
2-8%
5-10%
DIsCUSSION.
We can say little def’mite about [he metrical repertory of poets who lived
in [be Sth and 9[h centuries AD., because of insufficient data available to us. We
know [bat cultural tradition prevalent in al-A ndalus tilí [he reign of ‘Abd al-Rah
m~n 11(822-852) was Syrian. It would probably mean [bat poetry exhibited some
variation of [he Bedouin metrical repertory, characteristic for [he offlcial court
poetry of [be Umayyads in [he Mashriq.
With [he arrival of [he famous Ziryab, a pupil of [be celebrated singer
Ishaq al-Mawsili, lo Cordoba, [be Abbasid cultural influence began quickly
gaining force and finally replaced [be Syrian traditiont5. Long period of relalive
peace asid prosperity in [be 9[h century under ‘Abd al-Raliman II stimulated
Lévi-Proven~al, La civilisation Arabe en Espagne, pp. 69-74.
96
Dmitry Frolov
cultural development, and [he f¡rst major poet in al-A ndalus, Yabyá al-Ghazál
(773-864) appeared at [hat time. Unfortunately, his Di~wc7ntó proved unavailable
t(> me, but from [be general tone of bis poetry, [he absence of panegyrics and [he
prevalence of such genres as hija’, ¡citamriyyat, and zuhdiyyat we can deduce bis
inclination towards Early Abbasid poetry, contemporary tu bim, which may
bespeak [he adoption of [he Abbasid (Hiran) ínetrical tradition”.
1-lis younger contemporary, Sa’id ibn Júdí (d.897) was, on [he contrary,
an adherent of [he pure Bedonin poetical tradition, probably [he last in alAndalus, not to count [he strict traditionajisí ¡br> ‘Abd Rabbihi (860-940), wbose
literary taste coníd have influenced not only [he contents and style of his poetry,
but aNo bis metricsl
We can conclude [hat even hefore [he time of ‘Abd al-Rabman III (91296]), [he Andalusian poe[ry in Classica] Arabic tried bo[h metrical traditions of
[he Past. During [he reign of [bis mighty moííarch, who had adopted [he title of
caliph in 929 AD., [bus proclaiming al-An4alus equal tu al-Mashriq in ar>y
respecr, [he Andalusian poetry entered its classical, most creative period. Tite
tuming point, it seems, coincided wi[h two cultural events of extreme
signiticance [bat happened a]most sitnultaneously.
The first was [be an-ival in Cordoba of [he great AbÚ ‘Ah al-QaII (901967), [he fouííder of [he Andalusian philological tradition, who liad brought wi[h
him forty Dñvan of Eastem poet&9. The second was [he emergence of [he
famous al- ‘Iqd al-faríd by lbn ‘Abd Rabbihi, [bat provided [he Andalusian
poe[ry wi[h a solid [heoretical foundation in [he ficíd of metrics -[he firsí writen
fixation of [he science of al- ‘Arad, leaving behind [he scholars of [he East.
From [bat time [he Andalusian poetry in Cla.ssical Arabie acquired [he
“leamed” eharacter and [he merrical repertory of a poet becarne more [he matter
of rational choice [han of chance and poetical instinct. Both [he normative [heory
and [he corpus of [exts representing it were present, and tite first reálly great
Andalusian poet was soon to appear. It was Ibn HAni (d.972), [he panegyrist of
[he caliph ‘Abd al-Rabmár> III.
Table 5 contains statistical data, representing metrical repertory of Inajor
pocts of [be Cordoba caliphate (lOth-llt.h centuries AD.).
Two main panegyrists of [he Cordoba calipitate, lbn Hání al-Andalusí
and Ibn Darráj al-Qastalíl, bod> oriented towards [he Bedocin ideal in its
philological interpretation, raised [be art of panegyric to [he height of classical
Oriental masterpieces. Bo[h of [hem wcre compared wi[h al-Mutanabbi as bis
Published in pan by Hiknoat al-Awsí and hIll Nájí.
Tite story of his visit to Baghdad, where he succeeded in pretendtng that his own verse was
composed hy Abo Nuwás, told by Ibn Dihya, see U. Pérés, La poésie andalocre en Arabe clasríque
au XI silcle. Paris 1953, Pp. 44-45, indicate Usc same oricotation, as well as the comparison of alGhaz.ál’sverseswiílithose of ‘limar ibo Mi Rabia, Bashsháribnflurd, andal-’Abbásibnal.Ahnaf
by Use satne lhn Dihya, see op.cit, p. 54.
As lar 55 Wc know, he had no DEsean, aod Use number of poetical pieces, available lo os, is
not enough to afford a statystical analysis.
See list of Usem in P¿r~s, opeP., p. 30, note 6, citing lbn Khayr.
Notes on tite itistory of ‘Arúd
itt
97
al-Andalus
Occidental rivals20. H. Pérés lista al-Marrákush¡ and Ibn Hazm in [he Occident,
Table 5. Poeta of ¡he Cordoba Caliphate
(lOth-llth centuries AD.)
Meters
Descending:
<awtl
wdfir
wc7fir(sh.)
hazaj
muzaqarib
Total
Ascending:
basa
basa(mukh.)
¡cOrnil
kdmil(sh.)
rajaz(4)
rajaz(3)
rajaz(2)
sari’
munsarih
rnujtathth
Total
Intermediate:
modal
ramal
ramal(sh.)
¡chafif
¡chafiflsh.)
Total
4 basic meters
short forms
Pieces
Ibn Hanl
Ibn Darr~j
Ibn Zaydún
29,41
1,18
27,74
5,79
19,66
8,67
0,58
3,53
34,12
12,13
45,66
8,09
37,00
17,65
1,18
31,76
16,18
1,73
27,74
0,58
14,45
0,58
9,24
5,20
2,35
0,58
1,16
2,35
1,18
0,58
0,58
0,58
48,55
6,36
1,16
4,05
42,20
56,47
5,88
0,58
1,16
0,58
3,47
9,41
5,79
4,62
5,20
8,67
2,31
20,80
81,18
2,35
79,76
2,32
58,38
18,50
85
173
173
3,53
as wcll as al-Tha’alibi and Ibn KhallikAn in [he Orient, among critics who
20
op.dd,
See RA. Nicholson, A Literary History of Ose Arabs Canibridge
pp. 46, Sl.
1969,
p. 419. Cf Pérés,
98
Dmiíry Frolov
shared [bis opinion”.
It can be seen that metrica] repertories of Ibn l-láni and [bn Darráj belong
to [he same typc, wbich, unlike motives and style of [beir poetry, is clcarly not
Bedonin. Tite only parameter [hat conforms to Type B is low occurrence of shor¡
verse forms, but it reflects only [he prevalence of pancgyrics, nol inlended br
singing, in [heir poetry.
AII otiter parameters, actually making [beir technique of versification look
close to [bat of al-Mutanabbi, prescnt a mixture of [be two o[her types, Abbasid
and Classical. The vacillation between types A and C has remained a specific
tralt of [he metrical repertory of most Andalusian poets ever since. In [he case
of Ibn Hání and Ibn Darráj [his mixture is naturally nearer lo Type C-. Some of
ita peculiarities, as we shall set later, [¡ave a plunounced Andalusian colouring.
First, wwíl yields [he f¡rst position to ¡camil, which becomes inconestahly
[he leading meter of tite Occidental poetry. Second, wafir drops tiul of [he
company of four main qasíd meters, leaving [he qasrd tradition in Spain with
triangular foundation: ¡cantil íawil basít.
The joint impact of [bese two features resulta in te emergence of [he
[hird peculiarity. Wc can set, [bat [he drop in frequency of descending rhy[hm
to [he occurrence rate of type A is compensated not by [be corresponding risc
in frequency of [be intermediate rhythin, to [he mark of 15-30% (as should [¡ave
liten ¡he case in confonr>ity with Ibis type), buí by [he risc in t’requency of
ascending rhythm to [be mark of type C and even more. The general outcotnc
of alí [bese sitifis is [bat [be first stage of Andalusian poetical tradition modelled
ita metrical type largely as ascending by contrast wi[h [be descending (B),
intermediate (A), and balanced (C) types. This change of metrical dominant
marks [he creation of a separate Andalusian metrical [radition (Type D).
Ibn Zaydún, who was probably [be greatest poet of Muslim Spain,
presents an interesting buí not an easy task for a metrical analysis. On one hand,
his poetry is a combination of [be tradition of court panegyrics (26 picces,
approximately 0,15% of [be DI’wan), aud of love poems, which more directly
reflect Andalusian realities (85 pieces, approximately half of [be Dtwan)’.
On [be o[ber hand, Ibm Zaydfln’s poetry -chronologically and
biographically- is [he link between [he Cordova school and [bat of Seville,
which can be considered [be poetical capital of al-Andalus during [be period of
muln¡c alqawa’if3.
Summary dala given in Table 5 place bis poetry unequivocally in [he
Abitasid metrical tradition (Type A). His metrical repertory is close to thai of,
-
2t
22
-
See Pérés, op. ch., pp. 46 asid 47, note 4.
It we take Use total number of bayzs iii each genre, Use proportion will be nearly dic opposite:
rnadh -abouí one Usird of Use hijean, gitazal- around one fourth, see Kudelin, op.cii, p. 75. Por Use
analysis of nietrical repertory, though, Use number of pieces composed in each mejer seema a more
approprs’ate crirerion Usan Use number of verses in each piece.
23 About two Usirds of Isis poems were composed in Use Cordova period, among thern practically alí love poetry, and one Usird belongs to tbe later, Seville period, althougb nol of them
were composed in Seville proper.
Notes on tite history of ‘Arúd itt al-Andalus
99
say, Baslishar ibn Burd oral-Eulitud, with whom, incidentally, he was compared
as lis Occidental rival24, However, ¡he picture turns out to be not so simple, if
we treat ibm Zaydfin’s metrics analytically (see Table 6)25.
We can see ¡he difference between [he two periods as fas as metrics is
concerned. Altbough in both periods iawtl yields its “hereditary” first place to
ano[her meter, [he “successful” rival is different. While in Cordova it is basa,
which normally has a medium frequency rate in any type of metrical repertory,
in Seville it is ¡cilmil, ¡he most “Andalusiar>” meter, as in [be poetry of Ibn H~nl
and lbn Darraj. The frequency rate of basa in [be poetry of Ibn Zaydñn of [le
first period is exceptionally [¡igl (aboye 20%) and has only few paralícís in [he
history of Classical Arabie Poetry, among [hem Muslim ibn al-Walid and
—26
Ma’arrl in Luzilmíyyt¡t
Titere are several o[ber shifts, such as ¡he change in [he proportion of
Descending:Ascending meters from 1:1,1 (Cordova) to 1:1,3 (Seville), [be drop
in tIc frequency of ¡he four qastd meters (from 62,71% to 48,08%), and [he
slarp increase in [be rate of slort verse forms (from 15,25% fo 28,85%), alí
pointing in [he same direction to [be extreme of Abbasid type, which stands
miles away from ¡he Bedouin metrical tradition or even Classical one. At [he
same time, bod> varianta preser>t clear altemative to [he metrical repertory of Ibm
¡Uní and lbn Darraj.
It seems, ¡hat alí metrical tendencies, observed in ¡he poetry of [he
Cordova period from ¡he time of ‘Abd al-Ralimán III, are not a spor>taneous
process of evolution, but a deliberate, conscious searcí for metrical identity of
Andalusian poetical tradition.
Cultural attnosphere of [be period, especially at [be time offitna, supports
¡his view. It is during [be 10<1> century AD. [hat Andalusians carne to [he
realization of [be great values of ¡heir own poetry and begar> compiling
an[bologies of it, [he first of [bem being Kitdb al-fiada ‘iq (unfortunately lost) by
Ibn Iaraj al-Jayy~n¡ (d.976), and ¡he 11[b centuty witnessed [be appearance of
already [bree antbologies, one of [bem belonging to ¡he poet ‘libada ibn Ma’ al5ainá”’ In [be sanie 11[h cer>tury many poets began compiling [heir own
dfwans, among [hem Ibn Zaydñr> and o[her poets of [be Seville scbool2t.
-
24
See Pérés, op.cit, p.
47; Kudelin,
op.cit. p. 75. However, from the nietrical point of view,
Useir closeneas is that of a common type and not of an individual character.
25 Wc were unable to place, with certainty, three pieces into one of Use periods and iherefore
lefs Usem out from Use statystical calculations.
26 Not so speak of several minor poas of the JdJÚliyya period, al> very significantly belonging
to (be Hiran tradition, see Frolov, op. cii.
2’ See Pérés, op.cil., p. 52 ané note 2. fliese facts could be seen as having a double meaning.
1-IPérés. mentioning these anUsologies, wrote: “Mais jusqu’au Xle siécle, il y avait peut-étre des
rassons matérielles qui motivaient le peu destime des Espagnois pourleur poésie etleurprose: s’était
‘absence de tout dEsean el de toute nUsologie”.
28 See Pérés, op.cir., p. 54.
100
Dmitry Frolov
Table
Meters
6.
Metries of Ibn Zaydún’s Poetry.
Cordova
Seville
nasib
mcdli
Descending:
rawd
wdfir
wcifir(sh.)
mute qar¡b
Total
20,34
9,31
0,85
8,47
38,97
Ascending:
basa
basitónu¡cit.)
kaniil
¡camil(sh.)
rajaz(4)
rajaz(3)
sari’
munsarih
mujtaíhth
Total
20,34
0,85
7,63
3,39
0,85
0,85
5,08
0,85
3,39
43,23
9,61
3,85
5,77
44,22
4,71
47,06
Intermediate:
ramal
ramol(sh.)
¡chaftf
khaffl(sh.)
Total
3,39
4,24
8,47
1,70
17,80
7,69
7,69
3,85
3,85
23,08
3,53
4,71
8,23
2,35
18,82
15,39
62,71
15,25
48,08
28,85
62,34
18,93
73,07
7,69
52
85
26
4 basic
merers
- sitorí torms
Pieces
17,32
7.69
16,47
9,41
1,18
7,06
34,12
7,69
32,70
1,92
24,69
1,18
5,88
3,53
1,18
1,18
4,71
11,54
9,61
1,92
26,92
11,54
11,54
50,00
26.92
7,69
34,61
15,39
118
Abo ‘l-Wal¡d al-Himyarl of Cordova (d.1048) made his an[hology [be
expression of his contemporaries’ general attitudc. The preface to lis al-Badi’
ff wasf al-robE’
which H.Pérés called “un veritable manifeste du nationalisme
littéraire”’9, marked [he beginning of [be movement [hat reached lis height later
in te fasnous al-Dha¡chrra fr mahasin ahí al-Jazíra of lbn Basshm (d. 1147).
lf we look at [he poetry of ]bn Zaydún in [his perspective, we can make
some additional observations. Although his panegyrics inherited from [he
previous ma.sters tme pure Andalusian trait predominance of ¡cúrnil, [bey
-
29
See Pérés, op.cit., p. 52; Kudelio, op. cit., p. lO.
101
Notes oit the history of ‘Arlial itt al -Andalus
demonstrate aL ¡he sanie time a very peculiar metrical repertory (Mmii tawil
ramal wdfir mutaqarib), where basa, ar>d not wafir, is totally absent, wbere
suc[¡ unusual, for [he qasí4 tradition, meter as ramal bolds [he thirdU) place, and
w[¡ere descending rlythm in general surpasses ascending one in proportion close
to Type B (1,4:1).
Suc[¡ repertory las a very individual c[¡aracter and does not conform to
any type. It bears [he traces of a conscious, rational cloice, among thern [he
clearly deliberate absence of basa, otherwise very frequení in Ibn Zaydún’s
poetry (see Table 5) and a hig[¡ rate of ramal, wlicl can not be considered
ainong very popular rneters of lbn ZaydQn, if we lake lis poetry as a w[¡ole.
Would it not be so, we coníd lave seen quite tIc opposite picture with regard
to [hese two meters, where eacl of [bem would occupy its own traditional place.
T[¡e intentional character of [le poet’ 5 metrical repertory becomeseviden[,
if we turn to ghazal poerns of Ibn Zaydún. The distribution of meters in lis love
poetry looks quite different from [hat in his panegyrics. Kámil loses ita frequency
ar>d yields ¡he first position to basa, wlicl springs up from “now[¡ere” and
becomes Ile leading meter. Ramal c[¡anges places wi¡h ¡citajW Descending
meters ir> general lose [leir frequency to a great extent, and [le ascending
r[¡ythin takes [he leadership.
The goal which [le poet was pursuing was probably to differentiate
metrically what Ibn Zaydún regarded as an Andalusiar> genre (gitazal), from w[¡at
was considered to be prirnarily an Oriental one (mad¿O, at [be same time making
bo[b genres different from [heir counterparts in al-Mashriq and ¡hus asserting an
independent character of [he Andalusian poetry. The tendency towards
“estrangement” of [le poetical genre, or motive, with [be help of treatir>g
traditional temes in untraditional meters, not infrequent in various poetical
traditions, was particularly favoured by Arab crities, as [he [heory of sariqdt
shows30. AI[bough sorne traits, like [le tirst rank of Mmii in panegyric poetry,
was borrowed by Ibr> Zaydñn from his predecessors; ir> o[ler aspecta [he poet
went bis own way. This deviation frorn Ibn HAn¡’s and Rin Darráj’s “way” can
be accounted for by [he fact ¡hat [he two elder poets were oriented mostly
towards one genre (madh), wlile [he younger poet was creative in many genres,
[le centre of his creativity being located in gitazal asid not in maílh.
The same goal of “estrangement” could be seen also in [le attempts to try
iawtl, iden[ifted wi[h [he core of Oriental qasíd tradition, for sud un-qastd
verse form as takhnws (nos.13,14 ir> [he Dfwdn), wlicl [¡e favonred. These
attempts might lave been [le embodimení of [le tendency to incorporate ¡he
muwasitsitah form into [le Classical tradition in its Occidental variation. This last
observation opens up a new aspect of discussion.
First, leL us make one more observation, concerning alí [he diree poets of
[he period. Despite differences between Lleir metrical repertories, we can see,
-
-
30 See
-
AB. Kudelin, Medieval Arabic )‘oetics, Moscow 1983.
-
102
Drnirry Frolov
[bat rajo: exlibita a very low frequency in [le poetry of each of them31. II is
natural Lo conclude, [bat rajaz did not interest [hem, and [lis is very meaningful.
Metrics of ‘An7d, whidh was a cultivated forin of poetical art, developed
from folklore roots, represented, as was shown elsew[¡ere32, mostly by [be
centuries-old tradition of popular rajaz poetry, [he genuine and spon¡aneous
expression of ¡he Arab mentality and language ability.
Once [here is a community of native speakers, for whom Arabie, in alí its
forms, is [le sole means of expression, rajaz verse would emerge organically,
like wild planta, given [be necessary conditions of soil, temperature and water.
On [be contrary, in ¡he community, where [he native language is o[ber [han
Arabic or wlere we see some kind of bilingualism wi[h tite prevalence of a nonArabic e[hnic and linguistical elemení, [lis spontaneous rajaz tradition quickly
disappears, giving way to ano¡her folklore verse tradition, wlic[¡ has roota in [bis
otber language. Examples are plenty (Iran, Turkey, India, Central Asia).
TIc histo¡y of ‘Arad in [hese regions show, [bat it can exist as a living
poetic tradition, only if there remains a tic wi[b its original roots. lf [bis
connection is severed, tite ‘Arad poctry can go two ways. It can be preserved
and cullivated as part of [le corninon cultura] [¡eritage of alí Muslim nations, as
dried flowers are kept in a herbarium. Or it can establish connections wi[h a new
folUore foundation, undergoing radical citanges, among [bem [be emergence of
strophic forms and [he introduction of [le stress as a rhy[hmical factor into [he
verse structure, which, incidentally, immediately undermines its quantitative
‘3
basís”.
As it happened, [le cultivated tradition of ‘Arad, or qasíd, poctry was
brou~lt into Spain discor>nectedfrom its folklore roots, and it seems, [bat
spontaneous rajaz poetry never found a place for itself in al-Andalus. Art
conquerors, who made up a very small minority of [he population, were quickly
assimilated by [he native e[bnic element, and [lis radically citanged [he
Jinguistical situation in [le Peninsula.
Following [he presentation of 13. Corriente34, [he linguistical situation in
Muslim Spain can be suminarized as follows, Stating [lat until [be 13[b century
“al-Andajus was botb Romance and Art”35. [he Spanis[¡ seholar stresses [le
need “to take into account [hat in Muslim Spain titere was not only a situation
of bilingualism (Romance and Arabic being simultaneously spoken tul [he 13[h
century), but aNo of diglossia (colloquial Arabic vs. Classical Arabic, [he latter
being imponed from [he East. >36, and [ben continues: “In one respect SpAr
ts unique in its epocí and would remain so for centuries amidst Arab lands, and
3)
‘Itere is no evidence allowing us to surmise lliat diese poeta composed a lot of rajaz verses,
that were simply not included into their dAvans, as was Use case soinetimes in al-Mashriq.
32 See Erolov, op.cit, and references given diere,
‘These facts constitute a strong counter-argunient against Ml attempts to reeoostruct stress
wUsin the cínasical ‘ArÚd verse.
F. Corriente. A Grammaíical Sketch of ¡he Spanish Arable Dialect Bundie, Madrid 1977.
~ Ibid, p. 6.
36 ¡bid, p. 7.
Notes on tite itis¡ory of ‘ArÍ4 itt al-Andalus
103
it is by [he fact tbat Rs speakers were aware of ¡he personality of Llicir dialect
and not a bit ashamed of it, Lo [he point tlat [bey sometimes preferred it over
Classical Arabie for purposes sud as folk poetry and proverb collections”37.
Trying to fix [he time of emergence of ¡he Spar>is[¡ Arabic koine, F.Corriente
suggesls “as an educated guess that [he Hispano-Arabie melting-pot produced the
standards of [his language between [be nintl and tentl centuries”3<.
It is exactly at Wat time we set [be emergence of rnuwasitsha¿i poetry. lbn
Bassám stated [bat ¡his poetical form was invented by a certain Muqaddam, who
lived in ¡he second half of ¡he 9[h
beginning of [he 10¡h century39. Tlis
statement is accepted by modero scholars, but poetry of Muqaddam and Isis
successors was lost. TIc earliest ,nuwashshaks aL our disposal belong Lo [he
above-mentioned pud ‘Ubada ibn Ma’ al-Sama’ (d.1028), wlo was ¡he au[bor
of an an[hology of Andalusian poetry in Classical Arabic, and [he earliest ¡charla
in [le Romance language goes back approximately to 1042 A.D.40
We will not go into [he detalís of a very complex problem of [he genesís
of mnuwashshah41. It is enougl for us to state tla[ in [he tenth century we see
[he existence, side by side wi[l [le ‘Ara4 poetry, of an altemative poetical
tradition, boro in al-Andalus and already fully aware of [le situation of
bilingualism and making aes¡hetical use of it, ¡hus deviating from [he “way” of
Oriental poetry not only metrically42, but also linguistically.
TIse reaction of ¡he tIree analyzed poets to [he situation of [he existence
of [le altemative autoclthonous poetical tradition was different. Ibn Hání and
Ibn Darraj, w[¡o confined [hemselves mainly to one genre, panegyric, whic[¡ is
-
fbid,8. Tbe author adds: “lnstinctivety feeling the main differences between CLAr and 5pM.
like Use substitution of stress for vowel length, they went as far as to develop spelling devices... mn
their wish to make living usage match wiUs grapheme. That tIsis was intentional, and not the mere
result of ignorance of CLAr, is borne out by tite fact that such orthography is used by auUsors, like
lbn Quznián, al-Zajjáli, al-=ultarland otiters, whom we can not accuse of snch ignorance”.
Elsewhere in Use book F. Corriente says of Use narure of Hispano-Arabie metric, citing Garcia Gómez
on Usat matter: “dial, unlike CIAr, SpAr was characterized by phonemic stress, and that lengdiening
of vowels Was just one of íite concomitant effects of stress. This would match Use situation of the
Romance languages of Spain and could be construed s.s an efect of interference by Use substrat,im:
s.s a matier of fact, Use eniergence in al-Andalus of an accenmal metric system (Use zaire], ostensibly
irreducible to quantitative meters) would be Use living proof of Usis assumption”, see ibid, 63 and
note 88.
28 Ibid. p. 7.
~ See, i.e., E. García Gómez, Poemas Ardb¡goandaluces, Buenos Aires 1942, p. 22. Cf sIso
A. Kudelin, ‘Spanish Aiabic Strophics as “mixed poetical systeni” (hypoUsesis of 1. Ribera in Use
light of recent discoveries)’, in Typologiya i vzaimosvyazi srednevekovikh literatur Vostola i Zapada,
Moscow 1974, p. 395.
40 See Kudelin, op.cit., p. 395, where Use auUsor mentions shat E. L¿vi-Provenqal bId once Usat
he had found Idiarjas in Romance belonging to Use period before bIse 1 lth century, citing: P. Le
Gentil, Le virelai el le villancico. Le probléme des origines arabes, Paris 1954, p. 161.
Publications on Use problem are numerous. We sIsalí mention only tIte already cited article
of A. Kudehn (Moscow, 1974) titar presents a good piece of scholarship, but, s.s written in Russian,
it mighí bave escaped dic atiention of Spanish colleagues.
42 lbn Bassáni gaye deviation from Use “Arabie meters” s.s tite reason for bis refusal to snalyse
muwashshah poetry, see Kudetin, Classical Spanish Arabc Poetry..., p. 20.
104
Dmit,y Frolov
[he most conservative form of ‘Arad poetry, did nol make any concessions lo
Ibis [radition and simply ignored it, wbile Ibn Zaydfin [mcd, as we saw, Lo
incorporate it into ¡he Classical tradition, implandng it in [he centre (así) of its
metrics íawfi. Thus of [he íwo above-mentioned [heoretical possibilities, open
to ‘Arad poetry in al-Andalus, it tried bo[b as early as [he Cordova period.
TIc “way” of Ibn Han! and Ibn Darrtij objectively lead to [he
conservation of an isolated tradition of high court poetry, whose metries [ley
gaye an Andalusian colouring, and it is not by cbance [hal [heir metrica]
repertory became standard in Muslim Spain wi[bin [he tradition of Arad poetry,
replacing in [his role classical oriental models.
TIc “way” of Ibn Zaydiin lead Lo [he amalgamation of [he two traditions
of Andalusian poetry -imponed and autoclthonous- [hat in historical perspecíive
coníd have meant no[hing buí decomposition and decay of [he imponed metrics.
TIc second síage of poetical devclopment rougitly coincides wt[b [he
period of mula¡c al-tawa ‘¡fand Seville could rightly be considered ILS poetical
capital. Ibis stage is represented by three poeta in Table 7. TIc last of [hem, Ibí>
Haindís, spent in Seville a raiter shoní, but very isnportant period (1078-1091),
for bis formation as a poer. Chronologically, he could be considered as a link
between [his period and [haLof [he Ahnoravids, al[hough after [he taU of Seville
le lefí al-A nilalus and spent [he rest of lis life, more [han forty years (10911133), in Nortb Africa.
lbn ‘Asninas, whom al-Marrakushi characíerized as “un de ces glorieux
poétes qui suivent les traces d’Ibn Hání al-Andalusi”43, confn’ms Ibis
characteristie also by lis metrie. Tite metrical repertory of his poetry, witich
consists mainly of panegyrics, repcats alí main parameters of Type D, which was
set up by lbn Han! and Ibn Darráj, among tbem predominance of ¡cornil and
ascending rneters in general, low rate of wafir, etc. Ile only individual feature
of ¡he poeí’s metrie is [le rarity of Ile tlird rhy[hm, witose rate is [he lowest
among alí Andalusian poeta, studied in [his paper, nol exceeding [he limits of
Type B.
Poetry of al-Mu’tamid prescnts a more complex object for metrical
analysis, as it displays a greater diversity of genres and belongs clronologically
Lo two different periods: [he period of glory (tilí 1091) -about 75% of bis
poetical production, and [be peniod of exile (1091-1095)- appr. 25% of his
poerns.
AI[bougl [he royal poet had no need Lo compose panegynics and never
wrote [hem, le adinired al-Mutanabbi, being an adherent of [he Classica] Eastem
tradition, and even tried to imitate [le great Eastem poeí in bisfakhr poems, but
lis style tumed closer Lo his Andalusian predecessors lbn Hání and Ib»
Darr~’twho, ~ w~ r~m~m~r, shared j~jg atútude toward~,ai ~Auta.~abti
Aí
[he same time, al-Mu’tamid’s ghazal poems, whose main object was I’timad,
-
-
See Pérés, op. cii., p. Sí.
B. Shidfar, Andalasian Literature, Moscow 1970, p. III.
105
Notes on ¡he history of ‘ArÚ~l itt al-Andalus
resembled lbn Zaydtin’s poerns dedicated to Walláda45. Ilus, lis di’wc7n sbows
a joint iínpact by bo[l “ways” of Andalusian poetry set up at ¡he previous stage,
Talle 7’ Poets of Seville.
Ibn
Meters
‘Arnnsar
Descending:
uzwtl
w&flr
wqfir(sh.)
hazaj
mutaqárih
‘l’otal
al-Mu‘taenid
30,26
17,04.
30,55
3,95
4,00
4,05
1,32
0,57
9,21
0,57
10,79
8,65
44,74
32,97
43,25
6,58
11,93
3,41
17,04
5,11
12,70
1,62
17,31
1,89
0,81
0,27
0,54
Ascending:
has it
has it(mukh.)
¡cantil
2,63
28,95
5,26
kdníil(sh.)
Ibn Hamdis
rajaz(6)
rajaz(4)
3,41
rajaz(3)
0,57
10,79
1,70
3,41
57,37
1,32
2,63
rajaz(2)
sari’
munsarih
mujtathf/s
Total
2,63
2,63
52,63
4,86
3,51
0,54
44,05
Interinediate:
toada!
ramal
ramal(sh.)
kha4
2,63
khafiflsh.)
2,63
Total
0,27
4,32
2,84
1,70
4,55
0,57
9,66
7,57
12,16
Non- ‘Arad
meters
0,54
4 basic mneters
78,93
59,10
68,12
short formá
10,53
15,91
3,24
Pieces(total)
¡
76
176
370
whicit makes hm dic typical representative of ¡he second generation of
See Shidfar, op. cd.,
p.
113.
106
Dmi¡rv Frolov
Andaitisian poets.
Metrics of al-Mu’Larnid corroborates [bis theory of mixed influences. On
[he one hand, it exhibiís [he prevalence of ¡cornil and of asccnding meters over
desccnding (1,7:1, which coincides wi[b witat is atíesLed in Ibn Háni’s poetry),
[he lowest rate of wafir (coimnon trait of lbn Hání, lín Ammár and alMu’tamid), and exactiy [le sanie frequency of tite tIsird rIsytbm as lbn HAnl’s
di’wan (about 10%).
On lite o[her hand, we see in al-Mu’tainid’s poetry [he Iowesí míe of [he
four basic íneters, repeaíing [hal of Ibn Zaydún’s metrics (59,10% vs. 58,38%),
[he lowcst rate of tawfl (less titan 20%), witicit again is paralleled only by lbn
Zaydún.
Tite individual peculiariíy of al-Mu’trnnid’s mctncs is an exceptionally
higit frequency of sari’, whicit was not citaracterisíic for Ibn Haní aí>d lbn
Darraj, but was more favoured hy Ibn Zaydún. It> [he poelry of al-Mu’tamnid [bis
meter entered for [he fn’sí time [he group of four or uve mosí frequent meters:
fIn Han! (¡cornil towfl basa ¡charni, lbn Darraj (¡cornil towfl bas¡?
mutoqarih w¿ifir), lín Zayddn (towtl basa ¡cantil ¡chajtf wajYr), lín
‘Amír>ár (¡cornil tawfl basa mutoqarib wofir), al-Mu’tamid (¡cornil tawil
-basa rnutoqúrib sari’).
lf we ¡nake a comparison between metrie of al-Mu ‘tamid’s poetry of [le
two periods, we síalí see radical changes in [he period of exile. Tawd restores
ita lerediíary lirst place, surpassing by far any o[her meter, lite proportion of
descez>ding:ascendingmeters comes Lo [he classical rate of 1:1. Slorí verse forms
go out of use almost completely. Actually, poems of [bis period are coinposed
ínáínfy in diÑe lneters: ía~vi’i <about one [bird of [he total number of pieces),
basa, ¡cornil (aNo one [hird, laten toge[her), alí o[her meters occurring once or
lwice al tite most.
One more common metrical trait relates [he poetry of Ib» ‘Ammar and alMu ‘tamnid to [he poelry of Ibn Zaydñn. It is a very high nne of sIsort verse fonns
[Ial, as a rule, attests to [he orientation of poetry towards song and ¡nusie. Ihis
rate (froin 10% Lo 20%) itas no parallels in [be previous, as well as it> tite later
stages, and it is understandable, if we tate into consideration [he already
mentioned attempLs of ‘Arad poetry to ftnd for itself a place in [he domain of
popular song lraditiion. whicIs by [bat time has been occupied hy ils rival,
muwashshah poelry. In [he case of Ibn Zaydon wlo took [he most radical
position, ir lead Lo [le tendency of incorporating of [he muwaslsitait it> ‘Arad
poetry in [he form of takhmfv. In [be case of al-Mu’Lair>id and lín ‘Albád,
whose position was more conservative, it spelled a sharp mercase in [he rale of
short forms.
Wc can also observe a very peculiar tendency cominon Lo tite metric of
[he lhree poets. While different stages of poetica] activity of [he same poe show
a great degree of metrical divergence, [beir metrical reperíory of [be Seville
period looks very mucit alike. Many facta comtorate [his observarion, an>ong
[hem [be fail in [be tate of tawit, tIc uncitalleí>ged flrst place of ¡cornil, [he
oscillation of [he ratio descending:ascending meters around [be mark of 1:1,5.
litis set of facts attest.s Lo [he continuity of [he Andalusian metrical type (D), set
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Notes on tite history of ‘AriVj in al-A ndalus
107
up by Ibn H~n1 and Lín Daitaj.
On [le otber hand, [le sharp increase in ¡he frequency of sitort verse
fonns, paralleled by a similar drop in Ile tate of four basic meters of [be qasf4
tradition (below ¡he mark of 50%), which was mentioned and explained aboye
and whicit was citaracteristie only of [he Seville poetry, attests Lo [le new trait
introduced by it.
Iaking these two sets of facts inLo consideration, we can speak of [he
existence of [he Seville metrical scitool [bat transcends individual metrical
inclinations of ¡he pocis of [lis sclool, which comes second, aSter [le Cordova
scitool, in tIc history of Andalusian ‘Arad poetry.
Ibn Hanidis, [hougit related to [be itistory of Andalusian poetry only
[hrougit ¡he medium of Seville’s poetical cuele, presents a metrical repertory,
totally different from that of [be Seville school, showing no links wi[h
Andalusian -or any o[ler- song tradition and, consequent]y, a very low rate of
slort verse forms. It also differs in some crucial points, lite [he ratio of
descending:ascending meters (1:1 for Ibn 1-laindis), or [be secondary role of
¡camil, from [le metrie of [le earlier, Cordova school. Being closer to poets of
Almoravid and Almohad periods, itis poetry at tIc sanie time gives [he
irnpression of an non-Andalusian origin, which is no surprise if we remember
¡hat Ibn Hanidis came from Sicily al [he age of 33, already, it seems, ar>
experienced poet.
Tite low tate of sbort verse forms indicates tIaL frorn [his time on cací
of [he two poetical traditions -classical aud popular- went ita own way, never
meeting again. And it is no surprise [hat tIree poeta demonstra[e [le cor>servation
of [le Cordova metrical repertory (Type D). lite only exception is al-A’má
al-TuLlí!, “Tite Blind of Tudele”, who, as his metric shows, followed [le “way”
of Ibn Zaydún, and it is only natural [hat le is also known as [be au[bor of
muwashsho~t poems.
Ile relation of muwashsha4 and ‘Arad poetry is a separate and very
complex problem wlicl lies outside tite scope of [he present anide. We sIal
make only one remark. Altlough muwashshaft compositions by al-A’ma deviate
from [he rules of classical metrie lo such an extent [baL[ley evidently confonn
to anotIer metrical sysLem, ir> most of [hem [be basic, or underlying, ‘ArU4 Ineter
ts discernible. Ilis meter is mostly of [be ascending rhythm, being ei[her icamil,
or rajaz. This slift from tawil in takhmís poems by Ibn ZaydOn [o ¡<ami¿Irajaz
in muwashshah by al-A’má seems significanL. It indicates tlat post-classical
poetry of [he 12[h century, even when it looked back to [he abandoned metncal
system, was oriented not Lo ita original, Oriental prototype, but Lo its Andalusian
version with ¡camil a.s [le leading meter instead of iawtl, and predominance of
ascending rneters in general.
Wc conclude our survey of tite metrical repertoly of ‘Artiq poetry in alAndalus wi[h statistical daLa on later poeta, practically wi[lout comments, as
no[ling happened in [be domain of ‘Arad, wbose vitality lad been probably
exlaus[ed one or two cenLuries before in ¡he futile a[empt to fiud a compromise
wiLh rite new poetical tradition, bursting wi[h ¡he force of [he Andalusian genius.
108
Dmitry Frolov
Table 8. Poeta of [he 12[h century AD.
Meters
Descending:
tawfl
wdJir
wáfir(sh.)
hazaj
mu¡oqarib
TotaJ
Ascending:
basa
basti(mukh)
¡camil
¡camil(sit.)
rajaz(6)
rajaz(4)
rajaz(3)
rajaz(2)
sar,
rnunsorih
mujtathth
Total
A’má
TullE
Ibn
Khafra
Ibm
al-Zaqqaq
al-Rusafl
30,68
9,09
27,69
4,61
23,50
12,75
0,66
27,12
6,78
1,69
4,55
44,32
8,46
40,76
4,70
41,61
3,39
38,98
27,27
1,14
7,95
2,27
6,15
3,08
31,15
2,31
0,39
0,39
11,49
0,66
24,84
0,66
0,66
11,87
8,48
25,43
1,69
2,27
6,82
1,14
48,86
1,69
8,08
1,15
1,92
54,62
Intermed.:
modal
ramo!
ramal(sit,)
khafif
¡chafiftsh.)
Total
5,68
0,77
1,15
0,39
2,31 -
6,82
4 meters
short forms
78,40
4,55
Pieces(total)
88
1,14
0,66
4,70
2,01
0,66
46,34
1,69
50,85
4,62
0,66
5,37
0,66
4,70
0,66
12,05
10,17
74,99
5,01
74,56
3,96
83,06
3,38
260
149
3,39
6,78
59
A number of non- ‘Arad meters in drwans of alí poets, included in Table
9, exeepí Ibm Sahí, show [hat cornposing correct verses becaine a difficulty,
probably because [he quantitative rhyíhm of [he ‘Arad was nol already “on [be
ear’ by [hal time.
109
Notes ott the history of ‘Arlid itt al-A ndalus
TaLle 9. Later poets (13[l-14[l cenLuries A.D.)
Meters
Descending:
¡awfl
wdf,r
wafir(sh.)
hazaj
mutaqarib
Total
Ascending:
basa
bastr&nu¡ch.)
kamil
¡camil(sit.)
rajaz(6)
rajaz(4)
rajoz(3)
rajaz(2)
sari’
rnunsarih
mujlathih
Total
Intermidiale:
modal
romol
ramal(sit.)
¡chofif
¡chafiflsl.)
Tota]
Ibn Sahí
Ibn
al- ‘Albar
lJazrn
Ibn
al-KhacIb
29,41
6,62
26,94
14,29
1,22
25,00
33,43
5,66
0,28
2,94
38,97
2,45
44,90
15,44
11,02
3,27
22,45
1,22
0,82
1,22
0,41
27,94
0,73
6,62
2,21
1,47
54,41
2,21
2,94
1,47
6,62
Non- ‘Arad
meters
4 merers
Short forms
Piecesdotal>
79,41
3,67
136
2,45
1,63
1,22
45,71
25,00
22,73
38,63
4,55
65,91
3,97
43,34
11,05
0,57
22,66
0,57
0,28
0,28
6,23
1,13
0,57
43,34
1,22
3,27
0,41
3,67
4,55
8,57
6,82
12,18
0,82
2,27
1,14
80,41
4,48
86,36
2,27
74,22
2,83
245
2,27
44
0,57
2,55
1,13
7,93
353
110
Dmitry Frolov
CONCLUSIONS.
Statistical data, presented and dicussed in [he paper, show [bat [he
metrical repertory of ‘Arad poetry in al-A ndalus exhibits severa] traits witicIs do
nol conforin Lo any of [he [hree metrical types, characrerisíje of rite Oriental
poetry: Bedouin, Abitasid (Hima), and Classical. This fact permits us to speak
abour [be 4[b type Andalusian.
-
Tite Cordova scitool (l?bn 1-lání, Ibn Darráj) set up a ¡netrical model,
whicit became normative for later generarions of poeta. Tite Seville scitooJ (¡bu
Zaydon, al-Mu’tamid, Ibn ‘Ammár) wa.s [he period of attempLs lo find a
compromise between Lite irnported, classical, and itome-bom, muwashshoh
poetical traditions, [he most radical of [hem was underraken by Ibí> Zaydún.
Afterwards [he classical Andaiusian metric was preserved more as parí of
cultural legacy titan as a living tradition.
Severa] questions itave remained unanswered, among titcm -witat caused
[he attested predisposition of Andalusian poetry for ¡cOrnil and ascending rityritm
in general? It ís only natural for [he first approacit Lo a very complex problem.
If we have succetded aL least in d.rawing attention of scitolan to [he imporíance
of [he [beme and Lo tite littks [hat tic [he itistory of metrie witb [hal of poeLry, we
may consider [he task of [lis paper accomplisited.