The transformation of poetic representations of the hunt from the qas . ¯ ıda to the t . ardiyya forms the backbone of the bulk of this account. In the qas . ¯ ıda, the hunting theme is present in the second part, the rah . ¯ ıl (the journey through the desert), when the poet appears as the “wretched hunter” who hunts on foot and for subsistence. The protagonist here, however, is the animal he chases. Following the rah . ¯ ıl conventions of form, mood, and narrative, we can assume that since the animal, typically a stock character of the “animal panels” of the rah . ¯ ıl, also stands for the poet’s mount, the prey has to survive and the hunter has to be unsuccessful. An altogether different hunt emerges in the third and final part of the qas . ¯ ıda,whetherfakhr or mad ¯ ıh . . In either conclusion, the protagonist is the heroic and successful hunter whom Stetkevych classifies as “chivalrous” since he hunts on horseback. The technical contrast between the two forms of hunting is reflected in Arabic terminology: while s . ayd or qans . is used for the type of hunt evoked in the rah . ¯ ıl,the chivalrous hunt of the third part is referred to as t . ard.