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 al- Badawí & 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). - Drwan. lSd. lhsán ‘Abbá
11. lbn Sahí al-Andalusí (d.1251). - 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). - Di’wan. Ed. Muhammad al-Sharff Qáhir Alger 1973. 353 pieces.
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 [heaboye 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 [hehistory 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 ancientpoetry. or [heqasid 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 4- 5%; 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 oídpoetry, 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, Notes on tite history of ‘ArÚ~ in al-Andalus 91
Table 1. Bedouin Metrical Tradition in [he Poetry of al-Mashriq
Meters Hudbayl Zuhayr Hutay’a Jarir Hamása (diwan) of Abo Tanunám
Descending: tawil 41,43 30,18 4531 36,61 56,40 wñjir 18,93 24,53 19,36 20,57 10,67 w¿41r (sh.j 0,59 0,11 hazaj 0,22 mtaaq&rib 5,92 1,89 4,27 1,91 2,25 Total 66,86 66,60 68,94 59,09 69,66
Ascending: basa 11,83 18,87 15,38 15.55 10,90 basikmukh) 0,22 kñmil 13,02 18,87 10,26 17,22 11,46 kñmil(sh.j 0,59 1,71 1,01 rajaz(3) 5,92 0,85 7,90 3,15 rajaz(2) 0,59 sart’ 0,59 0,85 1,12 munsarih 0,59 3,77 0,24 1,12 Total 33,14 31,51 29,05 40,91 28,99
Intermed.: madfd 0,33 ramal 1,89 0,34 ramal(sh.) khafif 1,71 0,67 khaflf(sb.) Total 1,89 1,71 1,35
4 meters 85,80 92,45 92,02 89,95 90,77 short forms 7,69 2,56 7,90 4,82
Pieces 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 al- Buhturi. 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. Table 2, Metrical School of 1-lira in [he Poetry of al-Mashriq” Meters Abc ‘Adj ‘limar flash. Abo Abo Buh. Duád ibn ibn ibn Nuwás Tamn,ám Shár. Zayd Abí Burd Rabia Descendiutg: tawd 12,50 21,25 21,42 27,39 14,07 18,40 21,49 wñfir 8,33 11.25 4,76 7,56 9,18 9,09 9,89 wáfir(sh.) 2,38 0,17 1,70 0,43 0,32 hazal 1,39 2,50 0,59 3,19 4,09 0,87 0,53 mutaqdñb 6,94 3,75 5,06 2,86 ¡.50 0,65 6,28 ,nudñt’i’ 0,10 Total 29.16 38.75 34,21 41,17 30,64 29,44 38,51 Ascettding: basa ¡5,28 8,75 8,63 14,45 12.28 17,10 11,82 basíl(makh) 0,17 1,00 1,51 0,74 1dm,! 12,50 7,50 18,75 11,76 7,49 24,46 17.24 kñmil(sb.) 9,72 1,25 1,19 2,69 2,79 0,65 1,38 rajaz 4,17 1,19 2,35 6,09 1,73 0,74 sari’ 1,39 6,25 1,19 6,39 12,97 5,41 6,06 munsarih 1,39 3,75 4,17 4,54 7,58 3,90 4,36 mujtathth 0,34 3,19 0,43 0,53 muqtadab 0,10 Total 44,45 27,50 35,12 42,69 53,49 55,19 42,87 lotermed.: madre] 1,39 1,25 2,38 0,17 0,90 0,65 0,21 ramal 4,17 11,25 4,16 4,03 2,49 0,22 0,96 ramaKsh.) 1,25 2,38 1,18 4,59 1,08 1,49 khaft~ 19,44 18,75 19,36 9,42 6,49 12,55 15,43 khaftj’(sh.) 1,25 2,08 1,34 1,40 0,87 0,53 Total 25,00 33,75 30,64 16,14 15,87 15,37 18,62 Non- Arszd verse 1,39 4 meters 58,33 50,00 57,13 64,19 48,51 71,64 62,88 short forms 15,28 6,25 10,11 11,26 24,05 4,11 5,31 Pieces 72 80 336 595 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 tradition, followed in bis own poetry another metrical ideal, that of the Easly Abbasid poetry, which contmued Use tradition of 131ra. 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 [hepure Bedouin metrica] traditiotí as [he core of [he poetic art. Tahle 3. Metrical Repertory of al-Mutanabbi and al-Ma’an’i. Meters a]- al-Ma’ani al-Ma’arr¡ Mutanabbi Saqí al-zantí Luzamiyy¿u Descending: tawil 21,83 31,86 23.23 wcifir 16,55 15,04 13,56 hazaj 0,44 ¡nutaqdrib 7,75 3,54 6,55 Total 46,13 50,44 43,88 Ascending: basa 15,14 10,61 25,05 basa(mukh.) 1,76 0,89 1,57 ¡cainil 14,79 16,81 13,82 kulmil(sh.) 0,70 0,56 rajaz 3,17 4,43 0,25 sari’ - 2,46 6,20 - 6,21 rnunsarih 6,34 2,66 2,95 mujtathth 0,35 0,19 Total 44,71 41,60 50,60 Intermediate: ¡nadal 0,19 ramal 1,06 0,57 rarnal(sh.) 0,12 khaftf 8,10 7,07 4,58 ¡cha,ftf(sh.) 0,89 0,06 Total 9,16 7,96 5,52 4 meters 70,77 75,21 77,79 short forms 4,22 4,43 1,62 Pieces (total) 284 1 13 1592 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’ al- Ma’arri. Lazam en> la yalzam. 1-II, Beirut 1961. Notes on tite history of ‘Arúd in al-Andalus 95 Lo [hetwo 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) 4 basic meters 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) 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 al- Andalus, not to count [he strict traditionajisí ¡br> ‘Abd Rabbihi (860-940), wbose literary taste coníd have influenced not only [hecontents and style of his poetry, but aNo bis metricsl We can conclude [hat even hefore [he time of ‘Abd al-Rabman III (912- 96]), [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 (901- 967), [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 [hematter of rational choice [hanof chance and poetical instinct. Both [henormative [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 al- Ghaz.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 al-Andalus 97 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 Ibn Hanl Ibn Darr~j Ibn Zaydún Descending: 20 See RA. Nicholson, A Literary History of Ose Arabs Canibridge 1969, p. 419. Cf Pérés, op.dd, pp. 46, Sl. 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 [beirtechnique 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 [hemark 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 notan 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 See Pérés, op. ch., pp. 46 asid 47, note 4. 22 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>tclear altemative to [hemetrical 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 [beperiod, especially at [betime 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’ al- 5ainá”’ 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 6. Metries of Ibn Zaydún’s Poetry. Meters Cordova Seville nasib mcdli Descending: rawd 20,34 17,32 16,47 26,92 wdfir 9,31 7.69 9,41 11,54 wcifir(sh.) 0,85 1,18 mute qar¡b 8,47 7,69 7,06 11,54 Total 38,97 32,70 34,12 50,00 Ascending: basa 20,34 1,92 24,69 basitónu¡cit.) 0,85 1,18 kaniil 7,63 11,54 5,88 26.92 ¡camil(sh.) 3,39 9,61 3,53 7,69 rajaz(4) 0,85 1,92 1,18 rajaz(3) 0,85 1,18 sari’ 5,08 9,61 4,71 munsarih 0,85 3,85 mujtaíhth 3,39 5,77 4,71 Total 43,23 44,22 47,06 34,61 Intermediate: ramal 3,39 7,69 3,53 15,39 ramol(sh.) 4,24 7,69 4,71 ¡chaftf 8,47 3,85 8,23 khaffl(sh.) 1,70 3,85 2,35 Total 17,80 23,08 18,82 15,39 4 basic 62,71 48,08 62,34 73,07 merers 15,25 28,85 18,93 7,69 - sitorí torms - Pieces 118 52 85 26 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. Notes oit the history of ‘Arlial itt al-Andalus 101 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 [heqasí4 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 ghazalpoerns of Ibn Zaydún. The distribution of meters in lis love poetry looksquite 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 non- Arabic 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] [¡eritageof 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 basís”.‘3 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 [heHispano-Arabie melting-pot produced the standards of [his language between [be nintl and tentl centuries”3<. It is exactly at Wat time we set [beemergence 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 [heearliest ¡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 [hetradition 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 (1091- 1133), 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. Notes on ¡he history of ‘ArÚ~l itt al-Andalus 105 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 Hamdis Meters Ibn ‘Arnnsar al-Mu‘taenid Descending: uzwtl 30,26 17,04. 30,55 w&flr 3,95 4,00 4,05 wqfir(sh.) 1,32 0,57 hazaj 0,57 mutaqárih 9,21 10,79 8,65 ‘l’otal 44,74 32,97 43,25 Ascending: 12,70 hasit 6,58 11,93 2,63 3,41 1,62 has it(mukh.) 17,31 ¡cantil 28,95 17,04 kdníil(sh.) 5,26 5,11 1,89 0,81 rajaz(6) 0,27 rajaz(4) 3,41 0,54 rajaz(3) 0,57 rajaz(2) 1,32 10,79 4,86 sari’ 2,63 1,70 3,51 munsarih 2,63 3,41 0,54 mujtathf/s 2,63 44,05 Total 52,63 57,37 Interinediate: 0,27 toada! 4,32 ramal 2,84 ramal(sh.) 1,70 7,57 kha4 2,63 4,55 khafiflsh.) 0,57 12,16 Total 2,63 9,66 Non- ‘Arad 0,54 meters 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 al- Mu’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> [hepoelry 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 [heclassical 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 Table 8. Poeta of [he 12[h century AD. Meters A’má Ibn Ibm al-Rusafl TullE Khafra al-Zaqqaq Descending: tawfl 30,68 27,69 23,50 27,12 wdJir 9,09 4,61 12,75 6,78 wáfir(sh.) 0,66 1,69 hazaj mu¡oqarib 4,55 8,46 4,70 3,39 TotaJ 44,32 40,76 41,61 38,98 Ascending: basa 27,27 6,15 11,49 11,87 basti(mukh) 1,14 3,08 0,66 8,48 ¡camil 7,95 31,15 24,84 25,43 ¡camil(sit.) 2,27 2,31 0,66 1,69 rajaz(6) 0,39 0,66 rajaz(4) 0,39 rajaz(3) 2,27 1,69 rajaz(2) 0,66 sar, 6,82 8,08 4,70 1,69 rnunsorih 1,14 1,15 2,01 mujtathth 1,92 0,66 Total 48,86 54,62 46,34 50,85 Intermed.: modal 0,77 0,66 ramo! 1,14 1,15 5,37 3,39 ramal(sit,) 0,39 0,66 khafif 5,68 2,31 - 4,70 6,78 ¡chafiftsh.) 0,66 Total 6,82 4,62 12,05 10,17 4 meters 78,40 74,99 74,56 83,06 short forms 4,55 5,01 3,96 3,38 Pieces(total) 88 260 149 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. Notes ott the history of ‘Arlid itt al-A ndalus 109 TaLle 9. Later poets (13[l-14[l cenLuries A.D.) Meters Ibn Sahí Ibn lJazrn Ibn al- ‘Albar al-KhacIb Descending: ¡awfl 29,41 26,94 25,00 33,43 wdf,r 6,62 14,29 5,66 wafir(sh.) 1,22 0,28 hazaj mutaqarib 2,94 2,45 3,97 Total 38,97 44,90 25,00 43,34 Ascending: basa 15,44 11,02 22,73 11,05 bastr&nu¡ch.) 3,27 0,57 kamil 27,94 22,45 38,63 22,66 ¡camil(sit.) 1,22 0,57 rajaz(6) 0,82 0,28 rajaz(4) 0,73 1,22 0,28 rajoz(3) 0,41 rajaz(2) sari’ 6,62 2,45 6,23 rnunsarih 2,21 1,63 4,55 1,13 mujlathih 1,47 1,22 0,57 Total 54,41 45,71 65,91 43,34 Intermidiale: modal 1,22 4,55 0,57 romol 2,21 3,27 2,55 ramal(sit.) 0,41 2,27 1,13 ¡chofif 2,94 3,67 7,93 ¡chafiflsl.) 1,47 Tota] 6,62 8,57 6,82 12,18 Non- ‘Arad meters 0,82 2,27 1,14 4 merers 79,41 80,41 86,36 74,22 Short forms 3,67 4,48 2,27 2,83 Piecesdotal> 136 245 44 353 110 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.