Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T10:56:53.150Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A sociolinguistic view of hazl in the Andalusian Arabic muwashshaḥ

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

David Hanlon
David Hanlon
Affiliation:
Birkbeck College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The documented history of the theory of the muwashshaḥ and one of its constituent parts, the kharja, spans almost 800 years: from Ion Sanā' al-Mulk (d. 608/1211) to the present day. Apologists for the various theories broadly belong to one of two schools, which for the sake of convenience I shall label ‘integralist’ and ‘partialist’. The integralist view holds that the muwashshaḥ is an indivisible poetic unit with a coherent internal structure; partialists, on the other hand, divide the muwashshaḥ into two separate units where certain linguistic criteria are applicable: the main body of the muwashshaḥ in Classical Arabic and the kharja if it employs a Romance and/or Arabic vernacular.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , February 1997 , pp. 35 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Van Gelder, G. J. H., Beyond the line: classical Arabic literary critics on the coherence and unity of the poem (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1982).Google Scholar

2 Gelder, Van, Beyond the line, 33–36, 51.Google Scholar

3 Gelder, Van, Beyond the line, transl., 55.Google Scholar

4 Gelder, Van, Beyond the line, transl., 191.Google Scholar

5 Gelder, Van, Beyond the line, 143.Google Scholar

6 al-Mulk, Ibn Sanā', Dār al-ṭirāz fī ՙamal al-muwashshaḥāt, ed. al-Rikābī, Jawdat (2nd ed., Damascus: Dār al-flkr, 1977), 41Google Scholar. All translations are my own unless otherwise stated.

7 Kennedy, Philip F., ‘Thematic relationships between the kharjas, the corpus of Muwaššaḥāt and Eastern lyrical poetry’, in Jones, Alan and Hitchcock, Richard (ed.), Studies on the muwaššaḥ and the kharja (Reading: Ithaca Press, 1991), 68–87Google Scholar; idem, ‘ Thematic patterning in the muwaššaḥāt: the case of the gazelle motif’, in (ed.) F. Corriente and A. Saenz-Badillos, Poesía estrófica, (Madrid: Universidad Complutense–Instituto de Cooperación con el Mundo Arabe, 1991), 201–16.

8 Rosen-Moked, Tova, ‘ Towards the kharja: a study of the penultimate units in Arabic and Hebrew Muwaššaḥāt’, in Poesía Estrófica, op. cit., 279–288.Google Scholar

9 Menocal, María Rosa, The Arabic role in medieval literary history (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987), 91–113.Google Scholar

10 Alonso, Dámaso. ‘Cancioncillas “de amigo” mozárabes (primavera temprana de la lírica europea)’, Revista de Filología Española, 33, 1949, 297–349Google Scholar; Pidal, Ramón Menéndez, ‘Cantos románicos andalusíes, continuadores de una lírica latina vulgar’, Boletín de la Real Academic Española, 31, 1951, 61–153.Google Scholar

11 Dronke, Peter, The medieval lyric (London: Hutchinson, 1968), 86–90.Google Scholar

12 Abu-Haidar, Jareer, ‘The kharja of the muwashshaḥ in a new light’, Journal of Arabic Literature, 9, 1978, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

13 Quzmān, Ibn, Gramática, métrica y texto del cancionero hispanoárabe de Aban Quzmán, ed. Corriente, F. (Madrid: Instituto-Hispano-Árabe de Cultura, 1980), 423.Google Scholar

14 Abu-Haidar, , ‘ The kharja of the muwashshaḥ’, 3–4.Google Scholar

15 cf. Abu-Haidar, , ‘The kharja of the muwashshaḥ’, 7.Google Scholar

16 See Beardsmore, Hugo Baetens, Bilingualism: basic principles (Clevedon: Multilingual matters, 1986), 15–16.Google Scholar

17 Corriente, Federico, Árabe andalusí y lenguas romances (Madrid: Editorial Mapfre, 1992), 34.Google Scholar

18 Fishman, Joshua A., ‘Bilingualism with and without diglossia: diglossia with and without bilingualism’, Journal of Social Issues, 23, 1967, 29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on Wales see Bellin, Wynford, ‘Welsh and English in Wales’, in Trudgill, Peter (ed.), Language in the British Isles (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 449–479Google Scholar, and Williams, Colin H., ‘Language contact and language change in Wales 1901–1971: a study in historical geolinguistics’, Welsh History Review, 10, 1980, 207–238Google Scholar; on al-Andalus see Wasserstein, David J., ‘The language situation in al-Andalus’, in Jones, and Hitchcock, (ed.), Studies on the muwaššaḥ and the kharja, 1–15.Google Scholar

19 cf. Weinreich, Uriel, Languages in contact (The Hague: Mouton, 1968), 84–85Google Scholar on the concept of the ‘unilingual hinterland’ of Rhaeto-Romance in Switzerland.

20 Bellin, , ‘Welsh and English’, 450.Google Scholar

21 Williams, , ‘Language contact’, 215.Google Scholar

22 al-Ḥārith, Muḥammad b. al-Khushanī, Quḍāt Qurṭuba, ed. al-Abyārī, Ibrāhīm (Cairo: Dār al-kitāb al-miṣrī, 1982), 167.Google Scholar

23 Text and translation in Wasserstein, David J., ‘A Latin lament on the prevalence of Arabic in ninth-century Cordoba’, in Jones, Alan (ed.), Arabicus felix: Luminosus Britannicus: Essays in Honour of A. F. L. Beeston on his eightieth birthday (Reading: Ithaca Press, 1990), 1–7Google Scholar; for Arnold's famous translation see Watt, W. Montgomery, A history of Islamic Spain (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1965), 56.Google Scholar

24 Ḥassān, Sulaymān b. b. Juljul, Ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbā' wa-'l-ḥukamā՚, ed. Sayyid, Fu'ād (Cairo: Matba ՙat al-maՙhad al-ՙilmī 'l-faransī li-'l-āthār al-sharqiyya, 1955), 93–101.Google Scholar

25 Qāsim, Aḥmad b. b. Abī Uṣaybiՙa, ՙUyūn al-anbā' fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbā՚, ed. Riḍā', Nizār (Beirut: Dār maktabat al-ḥayāh, 1965), 488.Google Scholar

26 al-Khushanī, , Quḍāt Qurṭuba, 217.Google Scholar

27 Quoted from Palacios, M. Asín, ‘El origen del lenguaje y problemas conexos, en Algazel, Ibn Sīda e Ibn Ḥazm’, Al-Andalus, 4, 1939, 264.Google Scholar

28 Ferguson, Charles A., ‘Diglossia’, Word, 15, 1959, 336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Quoted from al-ՙAzīz, ՙAbd al-Ahwānī, ‘AlfāẔ maghribiyya min kitāb Ibn Hishām al-Lakhmī fī lahn al-ՙamma’, Majallat maՙhad al-makhṭūtāt al-ՙarabiyya, 3, 1957, 133.Google Scholar

30 Labov, William, The social stratification of English in New York City (Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1982), 19.Google Scholar

31 Bentahila, Abdelâli, Language attitudes among Arabic-French bilinguals in Morocco (Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 1983), 31–32.Google Scholar

32 Bellin, , ‘Welsh and English’, 462.Google Scholar

33 Watt, W. M. and Bell, R., Introduction to the Qur'ān (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), 7.Google Scholar

34 Khaldūn, Ibn, al-Muqaddima (Beirut: Dār al-jīl, n.d.), 647–648.Google Scholar

35 Forster, Leonard, The poet's tongues: multilingualism in literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 12.Google Scholar

36 Stern, Charlotte, ‘Sayago and Sayagués in Spanish history and literature’, Hispanic Review, 29, 1961, 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 Text from Gāzī, Sayyid, Dīwān al-muwashshaḥāt al-andalusiyya (Alexandria: Mansha'at al-maՙārif, 1979), I, pp. 169–171Google Scholar. On the identity of this poet see Stern, Samuel M. ‘Muḥammad Ibn ՙUbāda al-Qazzāz, un andaluz autor de muwaššaḥas’, Al-Andalus 15, 1950, 79–109.Google Scholar

38 cf. Rosen-Moked, ‘Towards the kharja’, a study to which I am greatly indebted in the analysis that follows.

39 On the development of Western Arabic nfՙl/nfՙlū see Blau, Joshua, The emergence and linguistic background of Judaeo-Arabic (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 1981), 119–120Google Scholar; Wansbrough, John, ‘A Judaeo-Arabic document from Sicily’, BSOAS, 30/2, 1967, 305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 See Jakobson, Roman, ‘Why “Mama” and “Papa”?’, in Kaplan, B. and Wapner, S. (ed.) Perspectives in psychological theory: Essays in honor of Heinz Werner (New York: International Universities Press, 1960), 124–134Google Scholar. The interpretation ‘titbit’ follows Gómez, Emilio Garcia, ‘Estudio del Dār aṭ-Ṭirāz: preceptiva egipcia de la muwaššaḥa’, Al-Andalus, 27, 1962, 74Google Scholar, rather than ‘sly’ (taimado) as suggested by Stern, , ‘Muḥammad Ibn ՙUbāda al-Qazzāz’, 103.Google Scholar

41 Text from Bishrī, ՙAlī b., ՙUddat al-jalīs, ed. Jones, Alan (Cambridge: E. J. W. Gibb Memorial, 1992), 33–35.Google Scholar

42 For the text of the kharja and its variants, see Jones, Alan, Romance kharjas in Andalusian Arabic muwaššaḥ poetry (London: Ithaca Press, 1988), 25–33Google Scholar. The use of a point is a typographical convenience which serves to indicate a vowel whose approximate quality cannot be determined from the textual evidence, and is equivalent to the schwa used by Jones.

43 de Fuentes, Alvaro Galmés, Dialectología mozárabe (Madrid: Gredos, 1983), 86, 175, 201, 232Google Scholar; Torrejón, Leopoldo Peñarroja, El mozárabe de Valencia (Madrid: Gredos, 1990), 318.Google Scholar

44 Jones, , Romance kharjas, 30.Google Scholar

45 See Abu-Haidar, J. A., ‘Diminutives in the dīwān of Ibn Quzmān: a product of their Hispanic milieu?’, BSOAS, 52/2, 1989, 239–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46 Text from Bishrī, Ibn, ՙUddat al-jalīs, 187–188.Google Scholar

47 Labbayka (‘ at your service’) is a formula addressed to God during the pilgrimage until the stoning at the valley of Minā; ՙUmra is the lesser pilgrimage which may be performed in association with the Ḥajj; hadīy is a sacrificial animal slaughtered on iīd al-aḍḥā; jimār are three heaps of stones in the valley of Minā formed by the stones thrown by pilgrims returning from ՙArafāt, thought to symbolize the stoning of Satan.

48 This is a speculative text eclectically drawn from strands of the complicated manuscript tradition. See the invaluable palaeographical analysis of Jones, , Romance kharjas, 76–95.Google Scholar

49 Quzmān, Ibn, Cancionero hispanoárabe, 144.Google Scholar

50 Whilst I retain full responsibility for the views expressed in this paper, I wish to record my gratitude to Dr Richard Hitchcock of the University of Exeter, Professor Pat Harvey of King's College, London, and Dr Jareer Abu-Haidar of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London, who generously gave their time to comment on the paper at various stages in its development.