on 27-Aug-2017 (Sun)

. I will show direct allegorical parallels between Abbasid and Sasanian kings, which render the iwan Kisra ode not a critique but a redemption for the troubled Abbasids by a poet who was deeply invested in the institution he served

Rather than rebuking the Abbasids, al-Buhturi in effect mythologizes the first regicide of the Abbasid dynasty in order to pre- vent schism (fitna) in a community already traumatized by civil wars.

The poet dedicates his tears to the mighty who fall tragically. In light of the parallel he establishes between the Sasanians and their Arab Abbasid suc- cessors, those tears extend to the Abbasids allegorical

is the “traditional” naqāʾiḍ audience perhaps an historical invention? Was the audience perhaps always mixed as in the Umayyad period? I’m not suggesting we can know this, rather to ask if it makes any difference to your analysis.

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.

The sentence “These insults are not necessarily to be taken literally” should be rethought. What would it mean to take these insults literally? Do you mean their fantastic content or the fact that they serve to wound the target? Also here you use the term “poet” to describe one of the interlocutors in the dozens. Is this a term of art? Is it taken from Bronner? Are you taking a deliberate position on the artistic merit of this artform? I assume it’s the latter, but you don’t make it clear. If you’re taking a position, then it’s perhaps better to do so clearly