A number of recent scholarly works have made significant contributions to our understanding of the performative aspects of the Arabic ode in its political, social, and literary contexts. Scholars such as Suzanne Stetkevych, Beatrice Gruendler, Raymond Farrin, Jaroslav Stetkevych, and Stefan Sperl have shown how the Jāhilī (pre-Islamic ) and early Muslim poets manipulated themes, motifs, and the structure of the classical Arabic qasida to achieve a variety of social, political, intellectual, cultural, and poetic goals.Footnote 1 This paper similarly aims to demonstrate the poetic and political functions served by the poems of the obscure but important 8th- and 9th-century poet ʿAli ibn Jabala, also known as al-ʿAkawwak. My analysis of his poems, in which he praises two well-known military commanders serving the caliph al-Maʾmun (r. 813–33) during the Abbasid historical period, attempts to reveal the nature and motivation of the caliph's harsh reaction to the poet's praise of the two commanders.
Previous scholarship has understood the qasida as a means to explore the effects of a given poem on the poet and his patron. That is, panegyric poems have been interpreted by scholars as a negotiating tool in the relationship between the poet and the patron. The poet's “benefit rather derived from an exchange of his literary services for protection and compensation from the patron. The poet invested his talent and renown to justify his patron's claims to rank and merit and to portray him favorably, and the patron accepted and rewarded this portrayal of himself.”Footnote 2 As long as the two parties were satisfied with each other, such a mutual exchange might last far into the future and constitute a long, successful patronage system.
However, this approach to the Arabic qasida has its limitations. That is, we should explore the performative aspects of a given poem or selected verses not only with regard to the hierarchy of the poem's official and immediate addressee. Scholars also must consider the attitudes and status of other parties involved in that hierarchy, whether they are peers, superiors, or subordinates of the poet's patron.
There are an abundance of cases in Arabic poetry that can be analyzed using this approach. For example, it is fruitful to focus on the exaggerated and dedicated praise of the Abbasid poets to the Barmakids and the role of that praise in provoking the caliph al-Rashid (r. 786–809), ultimately leading him to turn against them. In addition to the political tyranny of the Barmakids, it is likely that literary tyranny led to their downfall.Footnote 3 The same could be said about the relationship of the Banu Sahl with the caliph al-Maʾmun. It may be argued that the poems that praised the Banu Sahl and demonstrated their massive power may have contributed in some way to their downfall. Ahmad F. Rifaʿi comments on the following verse,
saying that it would be impossible for al-Maʾmun to hear this verse and not be hurt, in exactly the same way as the caliph al-Rashid was extremely annoyed when he heard the exaggerated panegyrics of poets praising their Persian patrons, the Barmakids.Footnote 4 It is important to note that the verse above was composed by the poet Muslim ibn al-Walid in praise of al-Fadl ibn Sahl, and was a part of a longer poem. Only this verse remains.Footnote 5 According to one version of a prose narrative about Fadl ibn Sahl's death, he was murdered by the caliph al-Maʾmun in the year 817.Footnote 6
This approach, widely adopted in modern scholarship, depends primarily on prose anecdotes to demonstrate the effects of a given poem. Prose anecdotes should not be interpreted as reflections of historical facts, but rather as an analytical tool to help us perceive the role of poetry in the political and social milieu of the Abbasid historical period. In literary analysis, our goal is not to discern the historical events surrounding a given poem, but rather to understand poetry as described in its associated prose narratives. Given that these prose narratives were written at a later time, we can clearly perceive how scholars, especially Abbasid scholars and critics, evaluated a given poetic text and “how it was remembered” by scholars and critics.Footnote 7 These prose works are valuable because they give us insight into how scholars and critics understood and interpreted a given poem.Footnote 8
In a recent article, ʿAbd al-Muʿin Balfas compares a poem by al-ʿAkawwak with one by Aʿsha Hamadan (d. 702).Footnote 9 The poem by al-ʿAkawwak begins with the verse below:
Balfas claims that the poem is the sole reason for the deterioration of the relationship between the poet and the caliph, as the poem aims to positively affect the rank of his patron, the commander Abu Dulaf al-Qasim ibn ʿIsa al-ʿIjli, within the community. The poem lowers the status of the absolute authority, the caliph, by conferring absolute preference on the patron. Al-ʿAkawwak composed a panegyric poem in a tone suitable for speaking of the caliph, but instead devoted it to an authority inferior to the caliph in power and status. Balfas concludes that the covert message of al-ʿAkawwak's poem was to reorder power relations between leading political figures within the society. To support his argument, Balfas refers to Peter Brown's assertion that the role of the literary elite and poets in late antiquity was to establish a fixed and stable relationship between the political authority and the people. Balfas also refers to Suzanne Stetkevych's understanding of the classical Arabic panegyric ode and its ritual role in negotiations within the Islamic caliphate court.Footnote 10
Although Balfas's article approaches a topic related to this study, he does not actually provide any analysis of the poem, only of the events surrounding it. Balfas does not engage with the structural and thematic elements of al-ʿAkawwak's poem, preventing him from properly revealing the rift that he claims existed in the relationship between the poet and the caliph. In this study I provide the historical background of political events that occurred during al-ʿAkawwak's lifetime, with an intense focus on the relationship between the poet and the Abbasid caliphs and their commanders. Then, I further explore the poetry of al-ʿAkawwak, providing structural and thematic analysis of representative poems to clarify the nature of the deterioration of the poet's relationship with the caliph. My study begins with a brief biography of al-ʿAkawwak.
The poet's full name was Abu al-Hasan ʿAli ibn Jabala ibn Muslim ibn ʿAbd al-Rahman.Footnote 11 However, in Kitab al-Aghani (The Book of Songs), the poet's name is given as ʿAli ibn Jabala ibn ʿAbd Allah, from the abnāʾ (the sons) of the Khurasani Shiʿa.Footnote 12 It is said that the poet was born in Baghdad in 777, where he lived up until his death in 828.Footnote 13 It is further stated that the poet was born blind, although his family claimed that he became blind during his childhood.Footnote 14 The poet is described by several early scholars as a maṭbūʿ (naturally gifted) poet and a talented panegyrist.Footnote 15 As I will describe later, some of his poetry has been lost.
During his youth, al-ʿAkawwak managed to enter the court of the caliph al-Rashid and recite a poem that gained him the caliph's admiration. That, in turn, made the famous linguist al-Asmaʿi (d. 831) jealous of al-ʿAkawwak, causing al-Asmaʿi to insult him, saying: “yes, O al-ʿAkawwak [short pudge].”Footnote 16 However, there are no poems or scattered verses addressed to the caliph al-Rashid in al-ʿAkawwak's Diwan. In addition, there is no record of any communication between the poet and the caliph al-Amin (r. 809–13), although it is said that the family of al-ʿAkawwak sided with al-Amin against al-Maʾmun. The commander ʿAbd al-Rahman ibn Jabala, one of the poet's relatives, fought valiantly up until his death, defending al-Amin against al-Maʾmun's army.Footnote 17
Historically, the main dispute between al-Amin and al-Maʾmun was related to the controversy of centrality versus independence. ʿAli ibn ʿIsa ibn Mahan, the representative of the abnāʾ, was assigned by al-Amin to restore the caliphial authority over Khurasan. Importantly, their privileges were threatened by the success of territorial self-independence. It is no surprise that a large number of the abnāʾ joined al-Amin's army to fight against his brother's army.Footnote 18 However, their defeat by the army of Tahir ibn al-Husayn and the killing of their representative, ʿAli ibn Mahan, was a colossal disaster for them. That is, “their prestige and power were damaged beyond repair and their most experienced and dynamic leader was dead. From this point, they were struggling for survival.”Footnote 19
Under the pressures of consecutive defeats, the relationship between al-Amin and the abnāʾ started to deteriorate. During the siege of Baghdad, al-Amin showed compassion toward the people of Baghdad, the ʿayyārūn (vagabonds or scoundrels), giving them gifts, weapons, and supplies at the expense of the abnāʾ. The abnāʾ believed that al-Amin had abandoned them, and subsequently they joined the army of Tahir ibn al-Husayn. This cooperation between, on one side, Tahir and his family, and, on the other, the abnāʾ, lasted for a long time after the end of the civil war.Footnote 20
Between the years 814 and 819 (the year in which al-Maʾmun entered Baghdad), the regions in the Near East that had been living in peace for a half-century, and in particular Baghdad witnessed a series of protracted conflicts and devastating wars in the pursuit of new power and influence. This chaos did not erupt in other regions, such as Khurasan and other states bordering the Byzantine Empire. These disputes were due to the policies of al-Fadl ibn Sahl, who was trying to convince al-Maʾmun to declare Marw the capital city of the caliphate instead of Baghdad. Such a declaration would diminish the influence of groups who had been powerful in the past, such as the abnāʾ and the Qaysi Arabs. Baghdad, in this new order, would be no more than a town.Footnote 21
During the years before al-Maʾmun's arrival in Baghdad, the abnāʾ had been demanding that political authority remain in the capital city of Baghdad. They had supported al-Maʾmun, while also demanding that he remove his advisers and repeal some of his policies. However, from the year 817 onward, they pledged their allegiance to al-Maʾmun's competitor, Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi. The latter's caliphate did not gain popular support. Al-Fadl ibn Sahl had tried to confront revolts in the region, but he did not fully succeed in his mission.Footnote 22
In 817, al-Maʾmun realized that the policies of al-Fadl ibn Sahl were causing chaos and endless disputes. As a result, he disposed of al-Fadl ibn Sahl and set off for Baghdad. Upon al-Maʾmun's arrival in Baghdad, all the disputes dissipated. He also annulled all controversial policies. However, al-Maʾmun was facing difficulty establishing a loyal and powerful army, so he began negotiating to win military support. He found a solution in Tahir ibn al-Husayn and his family. A series of agreements made between Tahir and the abnāʾ during the siege of Baghdad made it possible for Tahir to successfully pressure the abnāʾ into supporting al-Maʾmun.Footnote 23 But their support of al-Maʾmun did not guarantee them an elevated status: “Many of the groups who had sustained the caliphate during the early years now disappeared from the scene. The most important of these were the abnāʾ of Baghdad.”Footnote 24
This historical context reminds us that the region at the time was subject to quickly shifting alliances and changing political attitudes. Indeed, the relationship between the abnāʾ and al-Maʾmun shifted back and forth between hostile resentment and friendly alliance. One may surmise that this influenced the fluctuating stances held by both the caliph and the poet as a member of the abnāʾ; this relationship is a key to understanding the attitude of the poet toward the caliph and vice versa. It was feelings of resentment that heavily informed the relationship between the caliph and the abnāʾ. Likewise, the nature of the relationship between al-Maʾmun and al-ʿAkawwak was uncertain, as both parties held deep doubts about each other. Al-Maʾmun's army had killed the poet's brother, the commander ʿAbd al-Rahman ibn Jabala. Al-ʿAkawwak's cautious if not adversarial attitude toward al-Maʾmun is reflected in the fact that he refrained from praising al-Maʾmun until later, as I discuss below.Footnote 25
Al-ʿAkawwak's stance toward al-Maʾmun is unrelated to the caliph's personality or morals. In fact, al-Maʾmun was known for his generosity. It was said that “al-Maʾmun said to Muhammad ibn al-Jahm, ‘Recite to me three verses in praise, satire, and elegy, and I will give you for each verse a district.’”Footnote 26 One of his governors also described him as “more generous than the cloud full of water and a blast of wind,” although the governor's objectivity was questionable.Footnote 27 Ahmad Rifaʿi also presents an image of al-Maʾmun as generous in his book ʿAsr al-Maʾmun (The Reign of al-Maʾmun).Footnote 28 In addition to being generous, al-Maʾmun was interested in literature and poetry. Indeed, he supported poets and encouraged them to compose excellent verse. It was said that al-Maʾmun was a caliph who possessed superior knowledge of language and its secrets. He frequently asked about particular poets and showed his admiration for certain poems and verses, and held a literary council where poetry was recited before him.Footnote 29 One anecdote states:
One day in his majlis, al-Maʾmun said, where there was a group of people from Quraysh: “Who among you has memorized the verses by `Abd Allah ibn al-Zibʿara in which he apologized to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon Him.” “I did, O Commander of the Faithful,” Mus`ab ibn `Abd Allah al-Zubayri replied. [Al-Ma'mun] replied: “Recite it for us.” [The man] recited the poem. . . . [When the man finished reciting the poem] al-Ma'mun rewarded him with thirty thousand dirhams, and said, “The Qurayshi man should be like you.”Footnote 30
This anecdote demonstrates the caliph's literary acumen. According to al-Tabari in Tarikh al-Rusul wa-l-Muluk (History of the Prophets and Kings), the poet “ʿUmarah ibn ʿAqil said that I recited a panegyric poem of one hundred verses before al-Maʾmun, but when I started a verse, he preceded me to its rhyme, as I rhymed it.”Footnote 31 On this point, it is helpful to refer to Rifaʿi's book, mentioned earlier, that contains prose narratives about al-Maʾmun that attest to the caliph's encouragement of poets and illustrate his nuanced ability to discriminate between good and bad poetry.Footnote 32 Generally speaking, “the Abbasid patron was no longer only an object of poetry but an active partner and participant.”Footnote 33 In the aforementioned narrative, al-Maʾmun assumes the role of a partner to the poet and participates in composing a poem. This active role taken by al-Maʾmun would lead other poets to try their luck and stand before the caliph.
It seems likely that the surrounding atmosphere encouraged al-ʿAkawwak to praise al-Maʾmun and receive gifts and support from him. However, for a long time the poet refrained from visiting al-Maʾmun and praising him, possibly indicating that the poet was concealing an antagonistic political attitude toward the caliph. Indeed, this was exactly what the caliph felt about the poet, a result of the mere fact that the poet praised his two powerful commanders. The first anecdote that leads us to this conclusion tells us that the poet, during a later stage in his life, expressed his desire to connect with the caliph by first composing a panegyric poem for the caliph and reciting it to the commander Humayd ibn ʿAbd al-Hamid ibn Ribʿi al-Taʾi al-Tusi. Subsequently, the poet asked him to mediate between him and al-Maʾmun so that he could recite the poem before the caliph. The caliph accepted the commander's intercession, allowing the poet to recite his poem. However, the caliph gave the poet two options. The first option was to compare this poem with those poems the poet had composed in praise of al-Tusi and Abu Dulaf. If this poem was found to be of better or higher quality than those poems, the caliph would reward the poet generously, but if this poem failed to surpass said poems the poet would be subject to a harsh punishment. The second option was to quit praising the caliph. Due to the distinctive and exalted nature of his praise of the two commanders, the poet chose the second option.Footnote 34
The second anecdote attests to the caliph's deep understanding of al-ʿAkawwak's poetry and his political attitude, ultimately leading to the execution of the poet. According to Kitab al-Aghani:
One day, al-Ma'mun said to some of his companions: “I adjure him, he who is attending now and memorizing the blind `Ali ibn Jabala's [panegyric poem to] al-Qasim ibn `Isa, [Abu Dulaf], to recite it to me.” One companion said: “The Commander of the Faithful has adjured, so his oath must be fulfilled; I did not memorize the poem, but I have it written.” [The caliph said:] “Go and bring it to me.” So the man went and brought the poem and recited it to him. . . .Footnote 35 [After the poem was recited,] al-Ma'mun became furious. He said: “I do not belong to my father if I do not cut [al-`Akawwak's] tongue or shed his blood!”Footnote 36
Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani (d. 967) presented a prose narrative similar to the one above. He recounts that when al-Maʾmun heard the following two verses by ʿAli ibn Jabala praising [Abu Dulaf] al-ʿIjli, the caliph became furious.
In response to hearing these verses, the caliph ordered his people to “bring him wherever he was.” When the poet was presented before the caliph, the latter said:
O son of a stinking mother, are you the one who said to al-Qasim ibn `Isa [Abu Dulaf] [the two verses above]?! You made us as those who borrow a virtue from him! The poet said to him: “O Commander of the Faithful, you are the family of the House, no one is compared to you because almighty Allah prefers you over His creatures and chose you for Himself. Therefore, what I meant in my praise of al-Qasim ibn `Isa was [just meant to refer to] his equals.” [The caliph] said: “I swear by Allah you did not exclude anyone. Pull his [the poet's] tongue from its back [al-Ma'mun ordered his people].”Footnote 37
The prose narratives recounting how the poet died differ widely. Al-Isfahani lists different narratives about the poet's death. The first narrative, presented above, claims that the poet was killed by al-Maʾmun in retaliation for his praise of the commander Abu Dulaf.Footnote 38 The second narrative, preferred by al-Isfahani, indicates that al-Maʾmun was irate at the poet for his exaggerated praise of Abu Dulaf, and that the poet died during an attempt to escape from al-Maʾmun.Footnote 39 The last narrative claims that al-Maʾmun killed the poet only because he was deemed an infidel for his encroachment on the prerogative of Allah. That is, he praised Abu Dulaf with a tone suitable for addressing Allah only, not his creatures. The poet writes:
Balfas comments on the last narrative, stating that it was the political cunning of the caliph that led him to seek a good religious reason to execute the poet, which he did because, if he had killed him only because the poet had praised the commander in a way that downgraded the caliph, he would be blamed by society and his status as a just ruler would be greatly affected.Footnote 41
ʿAbd Allah ibn al-Muʿtazz (d. 908), who served as a caliph for only a whole day or some hours, presents several narratives about al-ʿAkawwak's death in his book Tabaqat al-Shuʿaraʾ (The Classes of Poets). The first narrative, which Ibn al-Muʿtazz prefers, claims that al-Maʾmun was mad at the poet for his exaggerated praise of Abu Dulaf, but that the caliph ultimately forgave him and spared his life. In other words, the poet died a natural death. The second narrative claims that the caliph murdered the poet in retaliation for his violation of the prerogative of Allah, not due to his exaggerated praise of Abu Dulaf.Footnote 42
Regardless of how the poet died, the most important point here is that al-Maʾmun was undoubtedly extremely irate at the poet for his dedicated praise of the two commanders. Indeed, all the prose narratives in the primary sources agree on this point. However, we should not limit our search for reasons for the caliph's anger to particular verses or even a whole poem. Rather, we must look at the entire picture, considering the political context and poetic oeuvre of al-ʿAkawwak.
Reviewing the akhbār (prose narratives) surrounding the relationship between the poet and the caliph clearly reveals that the Abbasid critics could not construct an integrated and coherent literary narrative regarding the relationship between the two parties, as a comparison of the prose narratives reveals numerous discrepancies and ambiguities. First, the primary sources do not tell us why al-ʿAkawwak took such a risk and asked to recite his poem before al-Maʾmun, especially when he must have known that his extreme praise of the two commanders would irritate the caliph. In addition to what has been said about the changing relationship between al-Maʾmun and the abnāʾ which, in one way or another, reflects the relationship between al-Maʾmun and al-ʿAkawwak, another possible interpretation of this action by the poet is possible. As was common for poets, the poet may have thought that once the political situation began to stabilize, the best way to redeem himself after unduly praising the commanders was to recite a panegyric poem to the caliph because this had worked for other poets, as in the story of al-Nabigha al-Dhubyani and the king al-Nuʿman ibn al-Mundhir.Footnote 43 Second, the primary sources do not tell us when al-ʿAkawwak asked to recite his poem before al-Maʾmun. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the akhbār is that the request happened at a later time, as the refusal of the poet's request was a response to his exaggerated and dedicated praise of the two commanders. Furthermore, the verses conjured up by the caliph at the time of his refusal of the poet are from the same poem that prompted him to murder the poet at a later date. So, why was the caliph not furious at the poet the first time around?Footnote 44 It is possible that the whole poem did not reach the caliph's ears in the first place, or that the caliph did hear the whole poem but it was only when the poem became so well-known by different members of the community that al-Maʾmun was no longer able to tolerate it. At that moment, he may have proceeded to furiously question the poet and killed him, as we have seen.Footnote 45
As is apparent from the poet's Diwan and as al-Isfahani also indicates, the poet dedicates most of his poetry to the two commanders, or quwwād Abu Dulaf and al-Tusi. A qāʾid (pl. quwwād) in the early Abbasid historical period was a professional soldier, but also a contractor who was in charge of employing people to serve in the army. The qāʾid was a fundamental figure who served as a mediator between the troops and their caliphs and leaders in war field. The quwwād were like tribal chiefs from pre- and early-Islamic times in the sense that they were able to recruit people to their armies.Footnote 46 The first qāʾid, Abu Dulaf, was well known for his chivalry, prestige, and mastery.Footnote 47 He had been a prominent and loyal commander for the caliph al-Amin, as evidenced by the fact that he rejected the request of al-Maʾmun's commander Tahir ibn al-Husayn to renounce his pledge of allegiance to al-Amin and give his loyalty to al-Maʾmun. However, consider, the following prose narrative:
When al-Ma'mun went to al-Rayy, he contacted Abu Dulaf and asked him to join him. When his people and companions saw that Abu Dulaf, who was planning to go to al-Ma'mun, was extremely frightened, they said: “You are the chief of the Arabs, and all of them obey you, so if you are afraid [of al-Ma'mun] stay here, and we will protect you.” However, Abu Dulaf did not stay and went to al-Ma'mun. . . . Having done that, al-Ma'mun promised him safety. He, moreover, provided him with a substantial amount of money in order to raise his social status.Footnote 48
According to various prose narratives, al-Maʾmun grimly questioned Abu Dulaf about his opinion of and consent to our poet's praise of him (which was quite exaggerated, as we will see later). Abu Dulaf responded by either denying knowledge of the verses al-Maʾmun recited or defending himself by reciting satiric verses against himself that were composed by his nephew, claiming that “what the poet said about me is merely false testimony.”Footnote 49 Al-Maʾmun sometimes saw Abu Dulaf as a commander who did not fulfill his duty of loyalty. That is, one day al-Maʾmun said to Abu Dulaf, “are you the one who composes,
I do not see you presenting us the right of obedience nor fulfilling the duty of sanctity.” Footnote 51 The implication of the caliph's response is that conjuring and celebrating a persona who is a cultural and courtly competitor to the caliph, in the form of a figure representing the ideal form of loyalty (a military commander), serves as a frank violation of the political and social authority of the caliph and a repudiation of the pledge of allegiance.
On the doctrinal level, J. E. Bencheikh claims that the suspicious attitude of al-Maʾmun toward Abu Dulaf was a result of al-Maʾmun adopting a policy that limited cooperation with the ʿAlids at a time when Abu Dulaf was pro-ʿAlid.Footnote 52 However, Michael Cooperson explains that for the purpose of affirming the notion that a legitimate ruler of the Muslim umma comes only from the members of the Prophet's house, al-Maʾmun was in fact pro-ʿAlid, which is reflected in his adoption of several policies in their favor. Examples of his policies were his plan for the public cursing of the first Umayyad caliph, Muʿawiya ibn Abi Sufyan, and his announcement that ʿAli ibn Abi Talib was the best among men after the Prophet. Cooperson asserts that al-Maʾmun did do away with some of the pro-ʿAlid policies at a later time, as they were seen as possibly making the common people and proto-Sunnis resistant and antagonistic. It is important to highlight that al-Maʾmun never adopted any extreme pro-ʿAlid policies. Moreover, he waited for a long time before deciding to adopt such controversial policies.Footnote 53 Finally, it should be recognized that there are certain examples of pro-ʿAlid tendencies in al-Maʾmun's poetry.Footnote 54 Based on what has been demonstrated, I assert that the doctrinal factor was not decisive in fomenting or exacerbating the distrust between al-Maʾmun and Abu Dulaf.
Al-Tusi, like Abu Dulaf, also was well-known as a powerful military commander who al-Maʾmun called upon to undertake especially dangerous missions. It is said that al-Tusi's fame as a prominent commander started during al-Maʾmun's caliphate.Footnote 55 However, it also has been stated that “Humayd [al-Tusi] often said that: al-Maʾmun has no favor for me. All favors go to Abu Muhammad al-Hasan ibn Sahl [the minister and commander of al-Maʾmun].’”Footnote 56 Finally, as Muhammad ibn Habib recounted, al-Tusi was executed as a result of an order given by al-Maʾmun.Footnote 57
Here we should highlight Tayeb el-Hibri's comments on al-Tusi's statement about his relationship to al-Maʾmun and al-Hasan ibn Sahl. El-Hibri discussed the role played by Khurasani leaders in the Abbasid state during al-Maʾmun's reign before his arrival in Baghdad. He claims that this statement by al-Tusi clearly demonstrates the dependence of al-Maʾmun on the Khurasani leaders for securing broad support. Al-Maʾmun's control of political and military affairs during his time in Marw al-Rudh rested on his ability to secure alliances with the Khurasani nobles.Footnote 58 Al-Tusi's statement reveals not only the power, leverage, and influence that Khurasani leaders enjoyed, but also how weak and anxious al-Maʾmun was before them. In this context, al-Maʾmun's harsh reaction to the poetry of al-ʿAkawwak dedicated to the two powerful commanders appears more understandable; such poetry exacerbated al-Maʾmun's worries and doubts.
As I have illustrated, al-Maʾmun's attitudes toward Abu Dulaf and al-Tusi injected mutual doubt and distrust into the relationship between the two parties. Even though these commanders made great efforts to defend him and his regime, the caliph was skeptical of his commanders and constantly questioned the veracity of their loyalty. Likely the caliph was right to do so, because, as has been shown, neither of the commanders was truly loyal to him. Al-Tusi denied any favor from the caliph, and Abu Dulaf took the side of al-Maʾmun's enemy and did not join his army until the last moment, when the commander's life was at stake. Al-Maʾmun's suspicions toward the two commanders were also understandable in light of the fact that some of the military leaders at the border regions did actually revolt against al-Maʾmun, such as Mansur al-Tanbadhi in Africa and Abu al-Saraya al-Sari ibn Mansur al-Shaybani.Footnote 59
In the context of al-Maʾmun's suspicions regarding the loyalties of his commanders, we also must consider al-Maʾmun's paranoia about his own rule. For example, in the “Mecca documents” laid out by the fifth Abbasid caliph, al-Rashid, and signed by the brothers al-Amin and al-Maʾmun in 802, there is an unusual order in which al-Maʾmun takes complete power over the province of Khurasan without the intervention of his brother al-Amin.Footnote 60 Michael Cooperson presents historians’ explanations for the existence of this order in the succession documents. One explanation is that this portion of the documents was a mere forgery inserted later to cast al-Amin as a criminal.Footnote 61 If true, this fact alone says much about al-Maʾmun's increasing worry about his rule. That is, he went to great lengths to secure and legitimize his rule against potential challengers. Furthermore, the controversial policies of al-Maʾmun were resisted by a large portion of the population, who saw him as a dangerous innovator radically different from his father al-Rashid, who was deemed “a loyal champion of ḥadīth .”Footnote 62 This popular opposition to al-Maʾmun led him to be suspicious and anxious concerning anything that might disrupt his rule. Put simply, al-Maʾmun's stance toward his followers was characterized by mistrust and suspicion.
It is essential to place the poet's works within their political context. Indeed, when viewed within this particular political context, the very manner of praise adopted in the poet's dedicated panegyric to the two commanders articulates the tensions pregnant in the relationship between the poet and al-Maʾmun. Qudama ibn Jaʿfar (d. 948) illustrates the ideal panegyric for a patron based on his status. He says that:
For a military commander, he should be praised for his strength, succor, ability to attack with violence, and valor. If the poet adds in his panegyric praise of the patron for his generosity, magnanimity and breaking limits in giving boons, that would be a perfect praise and a complete work because generosity and bravery have been seen as brothers.Footnote 63
Therefore, deviating from this standard when praising a military commander should be undertaken with great caution to avoid unexpected reactions not only from the patron, but also from other officials in the hierarchy.
So the patronage relationship between a poet and a military commander took place under confined and restricted conditions; violating these conditions could lead to suspicion or punishment for the parties of that relationship. Here, it is worth reminding readers that the Abbasid caliphs adopted the Sasanian Iranian practice of kingship, which was based on a total and absolute authority.Footnote 64 In his article “The Rise of the Abbasid Public Sphere,” Samir Ali states:
The Abbasids in 750 did not bring salvation. Rather, a new form of Islamic kingship emerged, modeled on Sasanian Iranian rulership, which paradoxically preserved the ceremonials of absolute authority for the caliph, while requiring him tacitly to earn the legitimacy of subordinates who could promote or demote his reputation in life, as well as his legacy after death. Nevertheless, this Sasanian model of kingship enabled a measure of absolutism.Footnote 65
For al-Maʾmun, al-ʿAkawwak's praising of two figures who were beneath the caliph in status violated his absolute authority. In response, he reacted harshly to this patronage relationship between the poet and the two military commanders. In the 9th century and earlier, the Abbasid caliphs enjoyed absolute power, appropriating the praise ode to legitimize their authority and increase their power.Footnote 66 Therefore, after fully restoring his power, al-Maʾmun was no longer able to tolerate this improper patronage relationship between the poet and the two commanders. He could not tolerate the relationship because it enabled the commanders to appropriate the panegyric poem and thereby exercise influence and redefine the values of idealism, principles of governance, and standards of leadership. This is clearly demonstrated in the previous prose narrative, in which the caliph angrily questions Abu Dulaf about his approval of the exaggerated praise the poet dedicated to the two commanders.
The very manner of praise the poet adopts in his dedicated panegyric to the two commanders lies in his repeated usage of different forms of hyperbole and exaggeration. At this point, it will be helpful to present a quick theoretical and historical background of this literary device. There are several definitions of the poetic term mubālagha (hyperbole), but all of these definitions are rooted in a recognition that the poet's words exceed the limits of logic or permissibility.Footnote 67 The early scholars divide mubālagha into three different types: tablīgh (mild), ighrāq (moderate), and ghuluww (extreme). Whereas tablīgh means being possible in both the mind and daily life, ighrāq means being possible only in the mind and not in daily life. The term ghuluww means being possible in neither the mind nor daily life.Footnote 68
The early scholars and critics differ in their acceptance and rejection of the divisions of mubālagha mentioned above. Applying the adage "aḥsanū al-shiʿrī akdhabuh" (the best poetry is at its extreme lie), Qudama ibn Jaʿfar prefers ghuluww, the most extreme of the three, claiming that it is the most superior form among the three kinds of the mubālagha.Footnote 69 However, ʿAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjani (d. 1078) rejected the interpretation of the adage above, stating:
They did not say aḥsanū al-shiʿrī akdhabuh, meaning stupid simple speech in which the speaker simply lies and exaggerates, such as when he describes a guardian with descriptions suitable for a caliph, or praises a poor miserable man by saying you are the prince of al-`Irāqayn (Kufa and Basra). [Rather, the adage refers to] that speech having Ṣanʿa [artificiality or complexity] and subtlety in meanings, which, in turn, need cleverness, profound grasp, and exhausting digging.Footnote 70
ʿAbd Allah ʿAsilan comments on this, claiming that it seems that ʿAbd al-Qahir al-Jurjani “rejects the mubālagha that contradicts truth and established facts.”Footnote 71
Other scholars, including al-Qadi al-Jurjani (d. 1001), Ibn Rashiq al-Qayrawani (d. 1063), and Ibn Sinan al-Khafaji (d. 1078) did not reject the mubālagha as long as it did not go too far and exceed the limit of possibility or enter the domain of the unthinkable.Footnote 72 A verse by the Jāhilī poet al-Aʿsha (d. 628) demonstrates the regular level of acceptable hyperbole:
Here, the poet describes a woman that can resurrect a dead man through her beauty. However, he imposes several restrictions to render such hyperbole acceptable. First, the poet forms a conditional sentence using the term “if” (law) to introduce a hypothetical clause. Secondly, the conditional clause is followed by the past form of the verb asnadat (leaned someone/something on); present form: tusnidu), which makes this hypothetical statement completely invalid and in turn renders hyperbole at its mildest level.
However, the aforementioned critics were not in favor of extreme hyperbole, such as the famous verse below by the Abbasid poet Abu Nuwas (d. 813):
In this verse, the poet espouses his patron's power by claiming that each and every polytheist is afraid of him to the degree that uncreated sperm cells also are frightened of him. In rendering the hyperbole more extreme, the poet uses emphasis devices, such as inna (indeed) and lām before the present tense verb takhāf (frighten), all of which render the hyperbole totally unacceptable. Al-Qadi al-Jurjani comments on this verse, stating: “It is among the corrupted and impossible [poetry] . . . and the scholars consider poetry of this kind to be defective, rejected, denied, and repugnant.”Footnote 75
There were some examples of mubālagha before the Abbasid historical period, but it was rarely used, especially in Jāhilī poetry. The early Islamic and Umayyad poets avoided using the ghuluww (extreme hyperbole), as it could lead the poet toward infidelity. However, particularly during the Abbasid historical period, mubālagha has assumed a more concrete form and taken on various forms and degrees. Unlike previous eras, the extreme type of mubālagha (ghuluww) was often exploited by the poets of the Abbasid historical period.Footnote 76 Therefore, our poet's usage of hyperbole at the time was not innovative or unprecedented; however, his case was particular for its employment of this literary device in a tense political atmosphere, resulting in the caliph's heightened angry reaction to him.
Discussion of the Poems
The first poem I will discuss here was composed sometime between 813 and 823. This same period is relevant to all the poems and other verses discussed later in this paper; Abbasid era scholars have connected some verses of the poem above and other verses discussed later with al-Maʾmun's caliphate through several literary narratives.Footnote 77 The poem is composed in al-madīd meter (the extended) and rhymed using –h. It is a poem with a bipartite structure, comprised of a nasīb (prelude) in verses 1 through 16 and a main gharaḍ (goal) in verses 17 through 53. The second section praises Abu Dulaf for his generosity, high noble lineage, reformist role on the earth, and bravery and power. The poem ends by mentioning the three insurgents vanquished by the patron. However, the poem reads as if the final section is missing, as it suddenly ends when describing Abu Dulaf's defeat of the mugger Qarqur. Selected verses of the poem are presented below. They are numbered according to the Diwan's order, as I will do in the subsequent poems as well.
In the verses above, the poet alternates between using the mild and extreme types of hyperbole. In verses 30 through 34, he claims that the patron (Abu Dulaf) is the cradle of society's existence and the people, saying that while the patron is alive the world is under his protection, and that if it becomes corrupted he will fix it. However, if he dies, this earthly world will disappear. Also, in verses 35 and 36, the poet claims that all people, including the caliph himself, are a burden on Abu Dulaf, who lends them virtues. In these two verses, others are represented not as competitors of the poet's patron but rather as followers and inferiors receiving and borrowing virtue from the patron. The poet uses the word istiʿāra (borrowing) to convey a sense of the deficiency of the other (the caliph). That is, one needs to borrow something only when he lacks it. However, the lack of the other (the caliph) is a lack of moral values, which leads to the conclusion that the personality of the other (the caliph) must be questioned, and by extension a large amount of skepticism should be cast on his legitimacy as a caliph.
The second poem I will examine here is an ideal example of the extreme type of hyperbole. Comprised of eight verses, the poem is composed in al-madīd meter (the extended) and rhymed using –lī. Aside from the first verse, which is a quick amatory prelude, the verses of the poem are devoted to praising the commander Abu Dulaf. Selected verses of the poem are presented here:
It is obvious that the verses above employ extreme hyperbole. However, from a radical poetic point of view, such hyperbole is possibly acceptable when devoted to a caliph and not merely a commander. Such a stance can be justified by recalling the celebrated image of the Abbasid caliph as an actual deputy of God on earth.Footnote 81 Stefan Sperl identifies three elements that Abbasid poets commonly utilized to legitimize the Abbasid caliphs. The first element employed was the morality of the caliph, including generosity, justice, and nobility.Footnote 82 The second element used by poets was divine sanction, which referred to the claim of the Abbasids and their supporters that “the caliph assumes his office by divine sanction.”Footnote 83 The third element, mythic power, was a classic element of ancient Near Eastern kingship, which held that “the king defeats the forces of darkness and death and brings justice, fertility, and happiness to the world.”Footnote 84 The Abbasid caliph was always portrayed by poets to possess a mythic power similar to that of the ancient kings.Footnote 85 Here, our poet endows a commander, not a caliph, with this mythical power. This indicates that the poet sees his patron as a true caliph empowered by God and granted an extraordinary power on earth. Therefore, at least on a political level, such hyperbole is completely unacceptable and certainly contributed to aggravating the caliph's anger with the poet.
In the third poem examined here, the poet employs hyperbole while ascribing moral qualities to his patrons. The poem is composed of 40 verses in al-rajaz meter (the trembling) and is rhymed using –b. Structurally, it is a bipartite poem consisting of a prelude in verses 1 through 27 and praise dedicated to Abu Dulaf in verses 28 through 40. Selected verses of the poem are presented here:
Before initiating a discussion of these verses, I will present other relevant scattered verses in the Diwan. The following verses are composed in majzūʾ al-kāmil meter (the portioned of the perfect):
In al-kāmil meter (the perfect), the poet composes the following:
In all the previous verses, the poet has claimed that his patron represents all the longstanding Arab values of nobleness, decency, generosity, glory, and virtue. Here, the poet adds that society would collapse if his patron did not exist. Indeed, the poet does not just ascribe moral qualities to his patron, but he employs hyperbole to claim that these qualities are exclusive to the patron and are lacking in all other people, which implicitly includes the caliph. Moreover, in verse 38, the poet exaggerates this hyperbolic claim, stating that his patron is the one who has established these values among all Arabs. He is not talking exclusively about the Arabs of the time, but all Arabs throughout time. Instead of just claiming that the patron represents the moral qualities which were held by the early Arabs, he actually asserts that the patron inspired these values in all Arabs, both in the past and now. Therefore, he establishes his patron as the founder of all moral virtue, a claim which is impossible even in the imagination of the mind. The poet aims, by exploiting such hyperbole, to create a distinctive identity for his patron, constructing him as a model that should be imitated and followed. This distinctive identity created by the poet denies the possibility of anyone being equal or superior to the patron (for example, the caliph).
The fourth poem is a short piece composed in al-basīṭ meter (the outspread) and rhymed using –nī. The poem consists of ten verses, all of which praise the patron al-Tusi. Selected verses of the poem are presented below:
Beatrice Gruendler speaks of the three roles that the Abbasid poets generally ascribe to patrons. First, the patron is described as a ruler who is in charge of his people. In this role, the patron does not discriminate between the poet and the rest of his people. The patron keeps his promises and fosters ties with his people by giving boons and gifts while protecting them from the vicissitudes of the time. He is a qualified ruler, fully conscious of his responsibilities. Second, the patron is a sponsor of the poet, motivating the poet to compose great poems through his generosity. The patron's boons and gifts are exchanged for the poet's panegyrics. Third, the patron is constructed as a model. According to Gruendler, this occurs when harmony is achieved between the poet's words and the patron's acts. In this role, the relationship between the poet and his patron reaches its highest level. The patron provides the necessary support for the poet to create poems while also realizing the positive claims made about him by the poet.Footnote 90
In verse 2 of the poem, the patron is portrayed as a ruler, but not one who rules over a group of people. Instead, the patron rules over the entire cosmos, endowed with the extraordinary power to carry out two oppositional acts: reward his subjects with boons and bring destruction to his enemies. However, in verse 3, the poet compares his patron as cosmic ruler to the time that delivers prosperity and calamity to the people. Here, regardless of the religious judgment of such extreme hyperbole, the poet, in my opinion, does not present a successful comparison on the poetic level. That is, time is usually portrayed as an enemy against which the Arab poet fights and struggles. Time is associated with a sense of danger, tyranny, and authoritarianism. Indeed, during periods of crisis, we see the Arab man used to abuse time, as time is always blamed for any calamity that happens to him.Footnote 91 In a Qurʾanic verse, Allah the almighty says: “They say, there is only our life in this world: we die, we live, nothing but time destroys us.”Footnote 92 This clearly indicates that time is not an element to be used in the context of praise. It is a failure of the poet to praise his patron as a ruler randomly distributing good and bad acts without discriminating between his subjects and his enemies. In verse 9, the poet claims that his patron is a chief or a qualified ruler carrying on the kingship not only during times of prosperity but also in times of hardship. The word ʿarānīn (singular: ʿirnīn) appearing in the second hemistich means noses, but the poet means heads, so although he uses the part, yet he means the whole. The expression is used to convey the idea that his patron kills not only his enemies, but also undermines their dignity, as the nose has always been a symbol of dignity in Arab culture.Footnote 93 The poet ends his poem in verse 10 with a description of the second role of the patron, portraying the poet basking in the boons of the patron. The ritual exchange of gifts operates to demonstrate the patron's superiority over the poet.Footnote 94
The next two poems also feature illustrations of the first role of the patron through the hyperbolic usage of the word mālik (king, plural: mulūk). Since the early Abbasid period (roughly 750–847), the word had gradually lost its negative association with tyranny and authoritarianism, a contrast to the word khalīfa (caliph), associated with justice and piety. That is, jurists and the pious accused the Umayyad caliphs of following the path of kings in politics and administrations. The Umayyads, for their part, saw the jurists’ religious views in a number of cases as true threats to their political status, and therefore ignored their views and acted according to their own political interests, even if it contradicted Islamic principles and rules. Therefore, Muʿawiya ibn Abu Sufyan and his successors were deemed kings, not caliphs. ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAziz, however, was considered by some religious scholars to be the fifth rightly guided caliph. Additionally, although the era of the four rightly guided was described as a caliphate, the Umayyad state was described as a mulk ʿaḍūḍ (biting kingship). However, as stated, the word mālik in the early Abbasid period started to lose its negative connation. This was reflected in the fact that the caliph al-Maʾmun used it without hesitation in place of the word khalīfa in his commandment to the caliph al-Muʿtasim (d. 842).Footnote 95 Also, he used this term in his poetry to refer to him, such as in the verse below:
The title mālik was not confined to descriptions of the Abbasid caliphs. For example, the local princes of the Tibetan kingdom in Khurasan were called mulūk (kings). It is said that al-Maʾmun exchanged gifts and presents with some of these kings, who were followers of the Abbasid caliphs in name only.Footnote 97 The title mālik also was used to refer to Arab leaders who settled in the lands of Fars, such as the Arab leader ʿAbd Allah ibn Humayd ibn Qurtuba al-Taʾi.Footnote 98 Finally, some of the Abbasid poets frequently used the word to refer to the Abbasid caliphs. Others used it to refer to figures under the caliph. For example, Ashjaʿ al-Sulami used the term to refer to the Persian minister Jaʿfar al-Barmaki in the following verse:
To give more examples from poems, the next verses are a part of a short poem consisting of 16 verses in majzūʾ al-madīd meter (the portioned of the extended) and rhymed using –lā. The poem is composed of an amatory prelude in verses 1 through 9 and praise for the patron in verses 10 through 16. Selected verses are presented here:
These verses are a clear illustration of the first role of the patron as a cosmic ruler and sponsor, responsible for all the sons of the cosmos. Under his kingship, everybody lives perpetually in peace. Foregrounding the cosmic dimension of his patron as a ruler, the poet claims here that the patron is a king unlike other so-called kings because Allah has not created a being parallel to him. In other words, although it would have been acceptable for the poet to claim his patron to be a king, he provokes the anger of the real king (caliph) when he emphasizes that the patron is a king without equal while ascribing a cosmic aspect to his kingship. In verses 12 and 13, the poet emphasizes that his patron does not differentiate between his people when it comes to his patronage. Under his patronage, social strata become invisible.
The next poem is long, consisting of 60 verses in majzūʾ al-ramal meter (the portioned of the running) and rhymed using –rū. The poem features a bipartite structure and is composed of a prelude in verses 1 through 24 and praise for the patron in verses 24 through 60. Selected verses of the poem are as follows:
In verse 25, the poet presents an implicit comparison between the current status quo as represented by the caliph and a hope for change as reflected by the patron's characteristics. He states that if the patron were ruler, there would no longer be poor people in the world. In fact, such a comparison is not confined to this verse, but is found throughout his poetry, such as in the verse below written in al-ṭawīl meter (the long) and rhymed using –bī:
In the first hemistich of verse 43, the prepositional phrase bika (thanks to you) is preceded by the verb yarsū (to be stable), and at the same time the prepositional phrase precedes the subject rukn al-arḍ (the basis of earth), so that the prepositional phrase bika precedes all the main constituents of the sentence. Likewise, in the second hemistich of verse 44, the prepositional phrase laka (for you) is preceded by the term naṣīr (supporter), and at the same time it precedes the subject, the word Allah. Additionally, in the first hemistich of verse 44, the prepositional phrase precedes the predicate naṣīr. As established by the early Arab scholars of rhetoric, the precedence of the prepositional phrase conveys encirclement and enclosure.Footnote 103 In fact, the first hemistich of verse 43 and the second hemistich of verse 44 have double enclosure or emphasis of enclosure, as the prepositional phrase precedes all the sentence pillars.
The poet, therefore, says something similar: "O, al-Tusi (the patron), by you and not by others (including the caliph), the world is stable and prosperous; and if the patron does not exist, the world will fall into disorder and chaos will dominate." Verse 44 may be interpreted as “you” (the patron) are the one who supports and protects the kingship, represented by the caliph; this verse thereby succinctly reinforces the commander's obedience and subordination to the caliph. In response, it may be said that this interpretation would only have been possible if the poet did not explicitly call the patron malik in verse 26. Therefore, the mulk (kingship) is represented by the patron himself, and not the caliph. In this way, the obvious interpretation of the verse is that “you” (the patron) are the one who establishes, stabilizes, and supports the kingship.
Through surveying the Diwan, it is obvious that the poet's two patrons most commonly inhabit the first role—the patron as a ruler—even though both patrons were merely military commanders. There are few illustrations of the second role of the patron as a sponsor or benefactor of the poet. Moreover, there are even fewer depictions of the third role of the patron, modeling the praise he receives. The following two verses of a short panegyric poem composed in mukhallaʿ al-basīṭ meter (the detached of the outspread) and rhymed using –mī serve as an example:
This verse represents a clear harmony between the poet's words and the patron's deeds. However, in verse 6, the poet declares his failure by portraying his inability to reflect the patron's deeds as they are far too good to be reflected in poetry. In other words, the poet's hyperbolic claim is that the poetry itself is powerless to keep up with his patron's acts, granting his patron a very unique identity. In summary, the dominance of the first role in praising the two patrons indicates that the relationships between the poet and his two patrons were not simply bilateral relationships. Rather, the poet's praise and his use of the first role overwhelmingly and hyperbolically endows the relationship with a broader dimension. The poet's play on this broader dimension is what ultimately led to the caliph's fury against him.
Acknowledgments
The author expresses his deepest appreciation and thanks to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University, represented by the Research Centre at the College of Arts, for funding this research. He also extends his thanks to RSSU at King Saud University for their technical support.
