THE ORIGINS OF THE MUNĀẒARA GENRE IN NEW PERSIAN LITERATURE1

F. Abdullaeva

The starting point of my interest in this genre was the study of the unique manuscript of the Anthology of Persian poetry from the Bodle- ian Library.2 This manuscript is remarkable for several reasons; one being that it contains the only copy of the so-called fijifth munāẓara of Asadī Tūsī,3 the Debate between the Arab and the Iranian,4 which has received

1 I thank G.J. van Gelder and Ch. Melville for taking their time reading the draft of this paper and making invaluable suggestions. 2 Bodleian Library Ms. Elliott 73. The title and the name of the author are not mentioned in the manuscript, but were identifijied by one of its previous owners, Sir Gore Ouseley, who wrote in Persian inside the front cover: Daqāʾiq al-ashʿār by ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. In his Cata- logue of the Persian, Turkish, Hindustani and Pushtu manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, 1889, no. 1333, Hermann Ethé suggests that the author could be ʿAbd al-Wahhāb Bukhārī Dawlatābādī (d. 1190/1766), who compiled a Tazkira-i Bīnazīr. In the chapter dedi- cated to the Tadhkira-i Bīnazīr, Aḥmad Gulchīn Maʿānī mentions the Bodleian Ms. as a jung, with reference to the copy of Muʾnis al-aḥrār of Muḥammad b. Badr al-Jājarmī from the Tehran University library. He also mentions the opinion of Mīrzā Muḥammad Qazvīnī, who thought that at least half of the Bodleian Daqāʾiq al-Ashʿār was borrowed from the Muʾnis al-aḥrār (A.G. Maʿānī, Tārīkh-i tazkirahā-i Fārsī, jild-i 1, Intishārāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 1/1236 (Ganjīna-i fijihrist-u kitābshināsī, 12), Tehran, 1929, 200–1). 3 In the past, some doubt has been expressed about the identity of Asadī Tūsī, thought by Hermann Ethé to be two separate authors, father and son (H. Ethé, “Über persische Ten- zonen,” in Verhandlungen des fünften internationalen Orientalisten-Congresses, Berlin, 1882, II/1, 48–9). Constantin Chaykin, however, demonstrated that there was only one Asadī (К.И.Чайкин, Асади-старший и Асади-младший: Фердовси 934–1034, Leningrad, 1934, 119–161), and since then this has been the common opinion among scholars (F. de Blois, . A bio-bibliographical survey, vol. V, Poetry of the pre-Mongol period, London, Routledge 2004, 77–8; J. Khaleghi-Motlagh, “Asadī Tūsī,” in Majalla-i Dānishgāh-i Adabiyāt-u ʿUlūm-i Insānī-i Dānishgāh-i Firdawsī, , 1977, 643–678; 1978, 68–130). However some still consider that there were two authors with the same name (Dr F. Mujtabāʾī, see N. Pourjavady, Zabān-i ḥāl dar ʿIrfān-u adabīyāt-i pārsī, Tehran, 2006, 99 n. 11). F. Abdullaeva, “The Bodleian manuscript of Asadi Tusi’s Debate between an Arab and a Persian: its place in the transition from ancient debate to classical panegyric”, in: , Journal of the British Institute of , vol. XLVII (2009), pp. 69–95. 4 Ms. Elliott 73, fff. 233r–234v, 236r. Asadī Tūsī (ca. 1010–ca. 1070) is known as the author of fijive debates: Munāẓara-i rumḥ-u qaws, (the Debate between Lance and Bow) and Munāẓara-i āsmān-u zamīn (Debate between Heaven and Earth), Munāẓara-i musalmān-u gabr (Debate between the Muslim and the Zoroastrian), Munāẓara bā ʿArab kunad ba faẓl-i ʿajam (Debate between the Arab and the Iranian) and Munāẓara-i Shab-u Rūz (Debate between Night and Day). 250 f. abdullaeva surprisingly mixed attention from the scholars, ranging from deliberate neglect to exclusive interest.5

Contents of the Munāẓara in Brief

The poem is a typical debate between an Arab and an Iranian (techni- cally, ‘ajam means simply a non-Arab, but it is clearly applied here, as usual, to an Iranian), each of whom tries to prove that he is better. But the peculiarities start from the very fijirst bayt. We see that the Iranian is actually the poet himself,6 and he tells the story as if it were a real event in his own life: ɵ ! % ( )*i 23 4 6€ 9  3 P 7. /0 | ɵ

Once upon a time I and several Arabs, fast and eloquent in speech Were at a nobleman’s party, happy and joyful from wine. . . . At fijirst everything is fijine, they all enjoy each other’s company, jokes and music. But when alcohol takes its toll one of the Arabs suddenly shouts: ʿajam chīst?! Fakhr aḥl-i ʿarab-rā rasad ay ablah-i nādān—What is an Iranian? Glory belongs to Arabs only, you, ignorant idiot! This starts a monologue of 21 bayts, in which the Arab contestant mentions all the advantages of his people, such as their religion, language, skills, crafts and features of national character in particular hospitality, courage and generosity. Then comes the turn of the poet to answer, and his part con-

5 Both Ethé (“Über persische Tenzonen,” pp. 48–135) and Riḍā Qulī Khān Hidāyat (Majmaʿ al-fusaḥā, Tehran, 1878, I, 110) chose not to print it in their editions of Asadī’s munāẓaras. Ethé published three of Asadī’s debates using the text in the Bodleian library. He considers the debate under discussion to be the earliest one (Ethé, “Über persische Tenzonen,” p. 70). Riḍā Qulī Khān Hidāyat’s neglect may be due to the fact that the poem existed in only one copy, which he could consider to be rather suspicious. Bertels’s sup- position was that they both thought that the quality of the poem was not good enough to ascribe it to Asadī. E. Wagner followed Ethé in ignoring these two poems, but gave no reason for doing so (see his entry Munāẓara, in Encyclopaedia of Islam). Nevertheless it then attracted special attention from C. Salemann and E. Bertels (Е.Э.Бертельс. Пятое муназере Асади Тусского. История литературы и культуры Ирана. Избранные труды. М., 1988, pp. 207–241) and Dj. Khaleghi-Motlagh published his text (together with the other four munāẓaras) in 1978 in the Journal of Mashhad University (“Asadī Tūsī,” op. cit.). More recently, N. Pourjavady has published fragments of all Asadī’s munāẓaras (Zabān-i ḥāl, pp. 430, 444, 527, 627–632). 6 Obviously Asadī plays both roles, fijirst putting on the mask of the Arab and then tak- ing it offf. The part that he is performing on behalf of the Arabs helps to reveal his sound knowledge and sincere interest in Islamic and pre-Islamic Arab history and culture.