the theoretical frame is introduced and applied, in summary, to the poetic exchanges between Jarīr and Farazdaq. You have also already drawn a distinction between “tradition- al” settings for this kind of exchange and the kind of audience that attended to Jarīr and Farazdaq’s bouts. This is slighty muddled. Were there ever traditional audiences? Were these poems ever intended literally? My hunch is “no” is the most satisfactory answer to both questions but it isn’t clear where you stand. The thrust of your argument gives the im- pression that you think there may have been at some indeterminate time, a non-cosmopoli- tan audience taking the poems in an exchange of invective literally. Is that what you want to posit? In any case, a lot has been concluded by p. 3 without any examples from primary sources being cited. The structure of the argument itself is therefore not entirely satisfying. Also for example on p. 10, you say that the “emphasis on the individual poet as performer” is a “distinguishing feature” but you never really explain what it’s being distinguished from.
If you want to change selection, open document below and click on "Move attachment"
- (no access) - Article Comments, p2
|status||not read|| ||reprioritisations|
|last reprioritisation on|| ||suggested re-reading day|
|started reading on|| ||finished reading on|