IN THE KITAB AL-TARBl' WAL-TADWIR OF AL-JA^I?,
MARX ELIZABETH MA1KMUS
Fh.D 1983
SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL AND AFRICAN STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The qu ality of this repro d u ctio n is d e p e n d e n t upon the q u ality of the copy subm itted.
In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u th o r did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be note d . Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved,
a n o te will in d ica te the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10672890
Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). C op yrig ht of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346
A B S T R A C T
T his t h e s i s c o n t a i n s e l e v e n chapters: introduction, nine c h a p t e r s on v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of the K i t a b A t - T a r b i * W a - t - T a d w I r of Jalji?, and conclusion. The A r a b i c text r e f e r r e d to is C h a r l e s P e l l a t ' s e d i t i o n (Damas, 1955), w h i c h has b e e n p h o t o c o p i e d and ad d e d as appendix.
The I n t r o d u c t i o n d i s c u s s e s the f o r m k n o w n as a d a b , an d C h a p t e r One de a l s w i t h Ja^ii^'s v e r s i o n of it in this r i s a l a . U s i n g s y n t a g m a t i c analyses, a n d the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of r e g i s t e r s of d i s c ourse, an o v e r a l l c o h e r e n t tex t u r e
is p o stulated.
C h a p t e r s T w o and T h r e e an a l y s e the s t r u c t u r e of p a s s a g e s of d i r e c t d iscourse, w o r d e d e i t h e r b y q u e s t i o n or by report.
S y n t a c t i c p a t t e r n s are compared, as are s emic fields, in an a p p r o a c h w h i c h w i l l be f o l l o w e d t h r o u g h o u t the thesis.
C h a p t e r s F o u r a n d Fi v e isolate s e c t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d as i n d i r e c t discourse, as a r g u m e n t a t i o n p r e s e n t e d t h r o u g h the p r o b l e m s of language.
C h a p t e r s Six, Seven, and E i g h t deal w i t h the i n t r u s i o n of recipient, author, a n d text, and p o s t u l a t e a s o p h i s t i c a t e d l i t e r a r y f u n c t i o n for these elements.
In C h a p t e r Nine, on the b a s i s of the p r i m a r y i d e n t i f i cations, the t e x t u a l i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e of d i s c o u r s e r e g i s t e r s is t r e a t e d by c o m p a r i s o n w i t h that in o t h e r l i t e r a r y forms, b o t h a n c i e n t and modern.
In the C o n c l u s i o n , b a s e d on the r e - a s s e m b l i n g of e l e m e n t s i s o l a t e d in the a n a l y s e s of C h a p t e r s One to Eight, the
fu n c t i o n and r a i s o n d ' e t r e of this p a r t i c u l a r f o r m is p r e s e n t e d as a h y p o t h e s i s a b o u t its r e l a t i o n s h i p to e x p r e s s i o n of p a r a d i g m a t i c change.
The w r i t i n g of this t h e s i s w o u l d n o t h a v e b e e n p o s s i b l e w i t h o u t the g e n e r o u s a s s i s t a n c e an d a d v i c e for w h i c h I
w o u l d like to e x p r e s s my th a n k s here. Drs M. A r k o u n and J.E. B e n c h e i k h ha v e s u p p o r t e d me w i t h th e i r interest, and Dr. V i n c e n t C r a p a n z a n o has b e e n e s p e c i a l l y h e l p f u l in t e x t u a l matters. Fo r c a r e f u l t y p i n g a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t is due to
Mr. V. Daykin. G r a t i t u d e for e n d l e s s p a t i e n c e a n d e n c o u r a g e m e n t is due to my son and daughter, and p a r t i c u l a r l y to
m y supervisor, Dr. J. W a n s b r o u g h , the s e c o n d P i e r r e Mdnard.
C O N T E N T S
page
I n t r o d u c t i o n THE R I S A L A 9
0.1 R e f e r e n c e 9
0.1.1 Ti t l e - R e c i p i e n t - T e x t 9
0.1.2 A u t h o r 11
0.1.3 1A d a b J 11
0.2 I d e n t i t y 12
0.2.1 S i g n i f i c a t i o n 12
0.2.2 D e f i n i t i o n 13
0.2.3 S t r u c t u r a l i s m 14
C h a p t e r One T H E CASE - I: THE W O R L D 16
1.1 S t a t e m e n t 16
1.1.1 St a s i s 16
1.1.2 M o v e m e n t 17
1.2 R e g i s t e r s of Discourse: Case 19
1.2.1 E v a l u a t i o n 2 0
1.2.2 N o r m s 21
1.2.3 Or d e r 22
1.3 W i t n e s s 22
1.3.1 I n t ernal 22
1.3.2 E x t e r n a l 2 3
C h a p t e r Two THE RID D L E 2 7
2.1 The Q u e s t i o n s 2 7
2.1.1 I n f o r m a t i o n - L i t a n y -
C a t e g o r y 2 7
2.1.2 D e c i p h e r i n g 29
2.2 Register: The R iddle 31
2.2.1 C a t e c h i s m 31
2.2.2 L a n g u a g e 32
2.3 A n s w e r s 34
2.3.1 C r i t e r i a - Lo g i c - A l l u s i o n 34
2.3.2 R e c o g n i t i o n 36
Ch a p t e r Th r e e M E M O R A B I L I A 3 7 3.1 Q u o t a t i o n - C o n t r o v e r s y 37
3.2 C o m m u n i t y 38
3.2.1 A u t h o r i t y 38
3.2.2 A r g u m e n t 3 9
3.3 K n o w l e d g e 4 3
3.3.1 A u t h o r i t y 43
3.3.2 A r g u m e n t 4 4
3.4 F r o m C o m m u n i t y to K n o w l e d g e 47
3.5 D i s c o u r s e R e g i s t e r 49
3.5.1 W i s d o m 49
3.5.2 D o c u m e n t a r y 51
C h a p t e r F o u r THE CASE - II:
T H E S U P R A - S E N S O R Y 55
4.1 O r i g i n s 56
4.1.1 A r k a n e - Ea s t 56
4.1.2 A r k a n e - We s t 57
4.1.3 A r k a n e - ‘Hidden* 57
4.2 S y s t e m s 58
4.2.1 M a t h e m a t i c s 58
4.2.2 M u s i c 59
4.2.3 W o r d s 6^
4.3 S y n t a g m s 66
4.3.1 L i s t s 67
4.3.2 A n e c d o t e 68
4.3.3 Story 6 9
4.4 S y n t a g m and P a r a d i g m 70
4.4.1 R e p o r t 70
4.4.2 R e s e m b l a n c e 71
4.4.3 P r e c e d e n c e 73
4.4.4 Use 74
Ch a p t e r Fi v e THE CASE - III; THE S E N S O R Y 7 9
5.1 K n o w l e d g e - P e r c e p t i o n 7 9
5.2 The W o r l d 80
5.2.1 R e s e m b l a n c e 80
5.2.2 C o n t i g u i t y 85
5.3 The W o r d 89
5.3.1 S yntax 89
5.3.2 S e m a n t i c s 94
5.4 The W o r l d - The W o r d 96
5.4.1 R e l a t i o n s h i p s 96
5.4.2 M a r k - W o r d 97
5.4.3 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 98
C h a p t e r Six JOKE - I: E X E M P L I F I C A T I O N 101 6.1 I d e n t i t y - C o n t r o v e r s y 101
6.1.1 R e f e r e n c e 101
6.1.2 'Preuves hors technique' 102
6.1.3 'Preuves techniques' 103
6.2 S e m a n t i c F o c u s - S e m antic Slide 104
6.2.1 E x c e s s 104
6.2.2 S u r p a s s i n g 105
6.2.3 M i s t a k e 107
6.2.4 P e r m i s s i b l e 111
6.3 E x e m p l u m - T e x t 113
6.3.1 Jo k e 114
6.3.2 N o r m 115
C h a p t e r S e v e n JOKE - II; S Y NTAX 122
7.1 D i f f e r e n t C o n t e x t s - D i f f e r e n t W o r d s ? 122
7.2 R h e t o r i c or 'Ecart' 123
7.3 T e r m s or M a n i p u l a t i o n s 124
7.3.1 I n t e g r i t y of p a s s a g e s 125 7.3.2 I n t e g r i t y of w o r d s 127
7.4 S e m a n t i c B l o c K s 132
7.5 A c t - A t t r i b u t i o n - E s s e n c e 132
C h a p t e r E i g h t JO K E - III: S E M A N T I C S 138
8.1 C o l l o c a t i o n 138
8.1.1 A.W. - W o n d e r - T e x t 139
8.1.2 A.W. - Sign - T e x t 141
8.2 I d e n t i t y 144
8.2.1 E s s e n c e 144
8.2.2 A n t o n y m y 14 4
8.2.3 S y n o n y m y 14 4
8.2.4 P o l y s e m y 145
8.3 M i s t a k e ' 145
8.3.1 V i a lan g u a g e . 145
8.3.2 V i a style 145
8.4 C o n t e x t 146
8.4.1 E n d o x y 146
8.4.2 O r t h o d o x y 148
C h a p t e r N i n e L I T E R A R Y T Y P O L O G I E S 153
9.1 F a c t 154
9.1.1 4E n o n c d ‘ vs. ‘E n o n c i a t i o n 1 154
9.1.2 W i t n e s s 155
9.1.3 S t a t e m e n t 155
9.1.4 R h e t o r 156
9.1.5 S u b v e r s i o n 156
9.2 F i c t i o n 157
9.2.1 R e p r e s e n t a t i o n vs. N a r r a t i o n 157
9.2.2 P e r s o n a 157
9.2.3 Th e W o r l d 158
9.2.4 O t h e r s 158
9.2.5 P o l a r i z a t i o n 160
9.3 N o n - F a c t - N o n - F i c t i o n 161
9.3.1 ‘R e p r e s e n t ^ 1 and
‘Repr e s e n t a t i o n * 161
9.3.2 E x c e s s 161
9.3.3 D i s l o c a t i o n 163
9.3.4 A m b i g u i t y 166
9.3.5 * Hellenication*-<*-Islamisation 168
C o n c l u s i o n S I G N I F I C A T I O N 170
10.1 R e f e r e n c e - I d e ntity 170
10.1.1 A n t i t h e s i s 171
10.1.2 P o l y s e m y 171
10.1.3 S y n o n y m y 173
10.2 S u b v e r s i o n - C o h e s i o n 177
10.2.1 A m b i g u i t y 178
10.2.2 C o n t r a d i t i o n 178
B I B L I O G R A P H Y 180
C h a p t e r Four
C h a p t e r Five
C h a p t e r Six
C h a p t e r S e v e n
C o n c l u s i o n
LIST OF CHARTS
(i£>
C A S E - II: THE S U P R A - S E N S O R Y
C h a r t I The S u p r a - s e n s o r y 76
C h a r t II The W o r d 77
C h a r t III The S y n t a g m 78
CA S E - III: THE SEN S O R Y
C h a r t I I d e n t i t y 99
C h a r t II A n a l o g y 100
JO K E - I: E X E M P L I F I C A T I O N
C h a r t I The D e s c r i b e d 117 C h a r t II D e s c r i b e d - D e s c r i b e r -
D e s c r i p t i o n 118
C h a r t III S u r p a s s i n g 119 C h a r t IV P e r m i s s i b l e 120 C h a r t V The D e s c r i b e r 121
J O K E - II: S Y N T A X
C h a r t I A c t - A t t r i b u t e - E s s e n c e 137
S I G N I F I C A T I O N
C h a r t I I n c o h e r e n c e 171 C h a r t II A n t i t h e s e s 172
C h a r t III P o l y s e m y 174
C h a r t IV S y n o n y m y 175
C h a r t V E p i s t e m o l o g y 176
C h a r t VI S y n t a x 177
C h a r t VII C o h e r e n c e 179
I n t r o d u c t i o n
THE R I S A L A
0.1 R e f e r e n c e
The te x t I wi l l a n a l y s e here is C h a r l e s P e l l a t ' s e d i t i o n
— t ** 1
of Le K i t a b at-Tarbl* w a - t - T a d w I r de Gafrig, p u b l i s h e d in 1955. A t the end of his i n t r o d u c t i o n to this text, P e l l a t d e p l o r e s the fact that no i n t e l l i g e n t w r i t e r s *ai e n t po i n t songd h s ' i n t e r r o g e r s i n c e r e m e n t et a f o u r n i r des rdp o n s e s r a i s o n n a b l e s aux q u e s t i o n s de S a h iz'.^ He i d e n t i f i e s these q u e s t i o n s as 'des p r o b l e m e s les plus d d l i c a t s q u i se p o s e n t a la c o n s c i e n c e d' u n m u s u l m a n r a t i o n a l i s t e du Illfe s. de
3
l ’Hegire.' Hence, w h a t is implied are q u e s t i o n s to w h i c h there are answers: p r o b l e m s of r e f e r e n c e a n d identity.
0.1.1 T i t l e - R e c i p i e n t - T e x t
A t th e i r m o s t superficial, p r o b l e m s of r e f e r e n c e and i d e n t i t y arise in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h title, r e c i p i e n t (of the
'letter') and te x t u a l variants. Pe l l a t is no t h a p p y wi t h the title, h a v i n g seen it c o r r o b o r a t e d n o w h e r e else. As for the r e c i pient, P e l l a t takes J a h i z ' s i n f o r m a t i o n in the
ic.
text at face value, and scrapes t o g e t h e r h i s t o r a l ane c d o t e for fu r t h e r clar i f i c a t i o n . The t e xtual v a r i a n t s mi g h t be 1 I w i l l re f e r to this text as the r i s a l a (letter) and will use the m o s t s i m p l i f i e d E n g l i s h t r a n s c r i p t i o n of the aut h o r ' s name, viz. Jahiz.
2 P e l l a t ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n to the text, p. XVII.
3 I b i d ., p . X-
e xplained, as m i g h t the title, he thinks, by the w h i m s y of copyists; at any rate, the v a r i a n t s are a p p e n d e d as
f o o t n o t e s .
The m a j o r r e f e r e n c e p r o blem, however, c o n c e r n s the m a t erial of the text itself, and w h a t P e l l a t c o n s i d e r s the m a i n themes of the text: the q u e s t i o n s posed. He pro v i d e s , thus, an
e x t e n s i v e in d e x of p r o p e r n a m e s d e r i v i n g f r o m 1le vi e u x
fonds b d d o u i n de l d g e n d e s e x p l i c a t i v e s o u m e r v e i l l e u s e s . . . les l d g e n d e s e m p r u n t d e s aux r e l i g i o n s s c r i p t u a i r e s . . .
m y t h e s inv e n t d s pa r des M u s u l m a n s zdlds, le fol k l o r e Y d m d n i t e . . . les c r o y a n c e s m a z d d e n e s et m a n i c h d e n n e s . . . le m agie
i c h a l d d e n n e . . . la m y t h o l o g i e shi'ite . . .'
M u c h of this m a t e r i a l is t r e a t e d by P e l l a t as p o t e n t i a l a c c r e t i o n s to an earlier, p u r e r Islam. He e x p l a i n s its a p p e a r ance as r e f l e c t i n g v a r i o u s groups* c o n c e r n w i t h t heir p o l i t i c a l
2
p o s i t i o n (‘A d n a n i t e supremacy), r e l i g i o u s o r t h o d o x y {'pour e x p l i q u e r q u e l q u e s o b s c u r i t d s du C o r a n et de la S u n n a '); 3
or s c i e n t i f i c c o m p e t e n c e ('probldmes qui se p r d s e n t e n t A
1 * e s p r i t des M u s u l m a n s e n c l i n s a s ' i n t e r r o g e r sur les m y s t e r e s de la Nat u r e ) . 4 R e p r e s e n t e d here, then, are e l e m e n t s for
co n t e x t s in w h i c h l e g i t i m a c y or o r d e r m a y be found.
R e f e r e n c e problems, however, run into i d e n t i t y p r o b l e m s in his g l o s s a r y of c o m m o n nouns, as these issues slide into the d e f i n i t i o n s of words. Thus, m a n y of the p r o b l e m s h i g h l i g h t e d are those a s s u m e d to separate a m a n of M u ' t a z i l i vi e w s (author) f r o m a m a n of Shi'i v i e w s (recipient). For
instance, b o t h the e n t r y on the 'long-lived' ( and 1 Ibid., p. XV.
^ Ibid.
^ Ibid.
4 Ibid., p. XIV.
that on ‘m e t a m o r p h o s i s ' ( ) are c o n n e c t e d by P e l l a t wi t h the m y t h o l o g y of the life and de a t h of Shi*i imams.
0.1.2 A u t h o r
T h e r e are two w a y s of a p p r o a c h i n g this p r o b l e m of identity or d e f i n i t i o n of words. The first i n v olves c e r t a i n a s s u m p t i o n s ab o u t the a u t h o r w h i c h lead to an a p p r o p r i a t e r e a d i n g of
his text. The s e c o n d r e q u i r e s an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the text i t s e l f , an d its i n t e r n a l dynamics. T a k i n g the first approach, Pellat, a k n o w n e x p e r t on Jahiz, sees s e veral of his c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in this text: as r a t i o n a l i s t and sceptic (though
1
no t v e r y o r i g i n a l b e c a u s e i n f l u e n c e d by the Greeks)^ he puts in q u e s t i o n as m u c h as p o s s i b l e ; also, as c o m p e t e n t ironist, he p a i n t s a p o r t r a i t (of the recipient) w o r t h y of La Bruyere. 2
However, this ironic style c r eates d i s o r i e n t a t i o n , b y the i m p r e s s i o n of m u l t i p l e r e g i s t e r s of d i s c ourse. S p e c i f i c ally, the w h o l e 'debate' w i t h the r e c i p i e n t of the letter is seen by P e l l a t as one of 'deux p a r t i e s q u i s ' i m b r i q u e n t l'une dans 1 ' a u t r e sans aucun p l a n p r d congu, sans au c u n ordre v isible'. 3 M o r e g e n e rally, not on l y is Ja h i z r e p u t e d to
ha v e a style in w h i c h ' le coq & l'ctne fait p a r t i e de sa 4
m a n i e r e ', b u t P e l l a t feels that in this text, he w r o t e 'au fil de la p l u m e et a c c u m u l a n t les id£es qui lui v i e n n e n t a 1 ' e s p r i t '.5
0.1.3 *Adab *
In fact, Ja h i z is c h a r a c t e r i z e d as being, perhaps, the I b i d . , p. XVI.
I b i d . , p. X.
I b i d ., p. XIV.
I b i d . , p. V.
I b i d ., p. XIV.
o r i g i n a t o r of the genre c a l l e d 'A d a b ' , w h o s e style is consid- e r e d an a m a s s i n g of a 'variety' of e l e m e n t s in 'random'
1 2
order, an d w h i c h 'does not r e quire the t a k i n g of a stand'.
So, on the one hand, there are the v i e w s of Ja h i z here, but, on the o t h e r hand, this type of text, by its e x c e s s of
r e f e r e n t i a l elements, a p p a r e n t lack of subordi n a t i o n , and u n s t e a d y sem a n t i c focus, can n o t r e p r e s e n t views.
P e l l a t ' s sol u t i o n is to e s t a b l i s h his o w n focus, by h i e r a r c h i e s of r e f e r e n c e and rela t i o n s h i p , i n d i c a t i n g the areas of p r i m a r y concern, ‘le texte e ssential, les questions, qui c o n s t i t u e n t la r a i s o n d 'etre du Tarbi*' « 3 w i t h a he a v y v e r t i c a l line, those of q u e s t i o n a b l e a u t h o r s h i p w i t h a d o t t e d line, and t hose of 'neutral' s t a nding w i t h n o m a r k at all.
This leads to an a d m i t t e d l y pa r t i a l text, 4 a l o n g the f o l l o w i n g
lines:
aut h o r 'view' -► s i g n i f i c a t i o n of w o r d s = 'excess' w o r d s -> p a r t i a l text
0.2 Ide n t i t y
0.2.1 S i g n i f i c a t i o n
T a k i n g the w o r d s and their s i g n i f i c a t i o n as the vi t a l link in the above equation, and a p p r o a c h i n g the text i n s t e a d t h r o u g h its int e r n a l dynamics, in order to a r r i v e at s i g n i f ication, the q u e s t i o n arises: w h i c h domina t e s , a w o r d or its c o n t e x t ? E x a m p l e s fr o m a few 'neutral' p a r a g r a p h s at T I. Gol d z i h e r , A Short H i s t o r y of C l a s s i c a l A r a b i a C L i t e r a t u r e (Hildesheim, 1966), p. 82.
2 G. v o n G runebaum, M e d i e v a l I s l a m (Chicago, 1971), p. 251.
3 Pellat, o? cit., p. VIII.
4 A
C o m p a r e J.M. C o h e n ' s i n t r o d u c t i o n to C e r v a n t e s , Don Q u i x o t e (London, 1954), p. 17: 'My ad v i c e to a n yone wh o
finds h i m s e l f b o g g e d do w n by . . . is to skip it . . . then to r e a d on fr o m . . . to skip the . . . a n d to cut out the
I
the e n d of the r i s a l a indicate that there are obv i o u s g l o s sary p r o b l e m s in this edition, and c r i t e r i a of d e f i n i t i o n are unclear.
0.2.2 D e f i n i t i o n
(a) w o r d and d i f f e r e n t contexts: § 196, w o r d { ) use in § 196: (
g l o s s a r y d e f i n i t i o n for § 196: 'forme, genre' g l o s s a r y d e f i n i t i o n for §72: 1 r e s s e m b l a n c e 1 my comment: by c o n t e x t (paired o p p o s i t i o n wi t h
‘contraries') d e f i n i t i o n for § 72 is more a p p r o p r i a t e .
(b) w o r d a n d p a i r i n g context: § 198, w o r d s j )
use in § 1 9 8 : ( I J i L N ^ JU \
g l o s s a r y d e f i n i t i o n s for § 198:
1 t r a n s e n d a n t , inaccessible' ( ) 'subtil, ddlicat' ( jj-ij)
g l o s s a r y c o m m e n t for §198, un d e r ( ) : 1 opp. k ( <3-5 J ) ' my comment: this (pairing) c o n t e x t m i g h t imply
oppo s i t i o n , bu t the d e f i n i t i o n s do not.
(c) w o r d and w r o n g context: § , w o r d ( » -*■ )
use in § 203: J i— li ^ . . .)
/
g l o s s a r y d e f i n i t i o n for § .: 'd e v e n i r blancs, chevaux' (— <--L;)
m y comment: f r o m this c o n t e x t (of o p p o s i t i o n to 'unmixed') a p r e f e r a b l e fo r m is: 'to mix' ( w L i )
T h e s e p r o b l e m s in the g l o s s a r y se e m to s t e m fr o m a s s u m p tions that d e f i n i t i o n s of w o r d s are e i t h e r static, or
d e t e r m i n e d b y a style w h i c h a u t o m a t i c a l l y p a i r s by o p p o s i t i o n or identity, or of little significance, since they a ppear
in p a r a g r a p h s w h i c h are not c o n s i d e r e d of m a j o r interest.
In the above examples, I p u r p o s e l y chose w o r d s from ‘neutral' p a r a g r a p h s to u n d e r l i n e the fact that s i g n i f i c a t i o n of wo r d s in a te x t d e p e n d s on th e i r use in the w h o l e of th a t text
(syntagmatic relationships), as we l l as the n u a n c e s they ma y have c a r r i e d w i t h t h e m into that text (paradigmatic r e l a t i o n ships) . Th i s m e a n s l o o k i n g at ov e r a l l s y n t a c t i c m a n i p u l a t i o n s an d c o n s e q u e n t semic fields, a n d so I p r o p o s e to use
‘s t r u c t u r a l i s t ’ p r i n c i p l e s for my analysis.
0.2.3 S t r u c t u r a l i s m
Th i s a p p r o a c h w i l l be b a s e d on p r i n c i p l e s d r a w n from:
Saussure, Jakobson, Valery, and Todorov, in the f o l l o w i n g w a y :
F r o m S a u s s u r e ' s princi p l e s , I take the idea of the a r b i t r a r y l i n g u i s t i c sign; 'The b o n d b e t w e e n the s i g nifier
i I 1
and the s i g n i f i e d is arbtrary' - A
also, the idea of s i g n i f i c a t i o n b y opposition;
'Language is c h a r a c t e r i z e d as a s y s t e m b a s e d on the o p p o s i t i o n of its c o n c r e t e u n i t s 12
and the p r i m a c y of s y n t a g m a t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s * 'In fact, sp a t i a l c o o r d i n a t i o n s h e l p to cr e a t e a s s o c i a t i v e
c o o r d i n a t i o n s . 13
F r o m those of Jakobson, I e x t e n d S a u s s u r e ' s lingui s t i c axes, of the s y n t a g m a t i c and p a r a d i g m a t i c , i n t o c o n c e p t u a l axes: the axis of 'combination' r e l a t e d to 'discours
c o n t e x t u e l ' , the axis of 'selection' r e l a t e d to 'operations _
F. de Saussure, A C o u r s e in G e n e r a l L i n g u i s t i c s (New York, 1966), p. 67.
3 I b i d . , p. 105.
3 I b i d . , p. 128.
m d t a l i n g u i s t i q u e s '.1
F r o m a r e f l e c t i o n by Valery, I e x t e n d p r i n c i p l e s of l a n guage into literature; 'La liit^rature est, et ne peut pas dtre autre chose q u ' u n e sorte d 1e x t e n s i o n et
d 'a p p l i c a t i o n de c e r t a i n e s p r o p r i d t d s du language'. 2
And, finally, f r o m Todorov, I adopt a p a r t i c u l a r m a n n e r of n e g a t i n g the f o r m / c o n t e n t dichotomy; 'Le l a ngage . . .
3
est & la fois m £ d i a t e u r et m £ d i a t i s d 1.
4
In this way, I i ntend to use the 'particular' style of Jahiz to analyse his r i s a l a .
R. Jakobson, L a n g a g e e n f a n t i n et a p h a s i e (Paris, 1980), p . 142.
2 Q u o t e d in Todorov, P o e t i g u e de la Pr o s e (Paris, 1971), p. 32.
^ Todorov, op. c i t . , p. 32.
^ C. P e l l a t (ed.), The Life and W o r k s of Ja h i z (London, 1969), p. 18.
C h a p t e r One
THE CASE - I: THE W O R L D
1.1 S t a t e m e n t
As m e n t i o n e d in the introduction, the ge n r e c a l l e d 'Adab' is a p r o b l e m a t i c a l one, and is p r o b a b l y b e s t t r a n s l a t e d as
' b e l l e s - l e t t r e s ’ . U n f o r t u n a t e l y this t e r m is a c c o m p a n i e d by an aura of ephemera, and in the A r a b i c v e r sion, the
i m p r e s s i o n is o f t e n that w h a t st a t e m e n t th e r e is v a c i l l a t e s b e t w e e n ant o n y m i e s , b e c o m e s b o g g e d d o w n in r e p etitions, and ends up stasis. Therefore, one of the fi r s t p r o b l e m s I w a n t to c o n s i d e r is style an d argument, t a k i n g a p a s s a g e b e t w e e n p a g e s 65 and 70. 1 This d eals w i t h the 'argument*
o n 'joking' ( ) and 'seriousness' ( . P e l l a t ' s sure feel for the language, in d i v i d i n g the t e x t into p a r a graphs, m a r k s out, here, 9 d i s c u r s i v e u n i t s (§§115-123),
5 of w h i c h e x a m i n e the a r g u m e n t fr o m one p o i n t of view, 4 from a n o t h e r .
1.1.1 St a s i s (a ) a n t o n y m y
In the first 5 para g r a p h s , 115-119, th e r e is an i m p r ession of stasis b e c a u s e of J a h i z ‘s use of a large n u m b e r of ev e n l y b a l a n c e d o p p o s i n g terms. P a r a g r a p h 116 is a g o o d example, the first ha l f c o n t a i n s a n t o n y m i a l nouns:
a f f l u e n c e ( ) vs n e e d (3^-U- )
F r o m n o w on, I will re f e r only to p a r a g r a p h s , not to pages.
r e c u p e r a t i o n ( p M " ) vs.
w
love { "
c o m f o r t ( ) "
The s e cond c o n t a i n s a n t o n y m i a l verbs d i s t i n g u i s h f r o m it vs.
( )
to r e l a x ) "
to jest ( Jj-* ) "
a g g r a n d i z e ) 11
to r e s t ( "
f a t i g u e ( ) h a t r e d ( )
a f f l i c t i o n ( )
share w i t h it ( ^ L i )
to e x e r t o n e s e l f ( )
m
to be s e rious ( ^ )
w
d e b a s e ( JJ Jc ) to toil ( j5*)
This i m p r e s s i o n of stasis is r e i n f o r c e d b y J a h i z 's use of r e d u n d a n t s y n o n y m s or o u t r i g h t r e p e t i t i o n s , to p r o v i d e a n e u t r a l g r o u n d for the a n t o n y m i a l e l e ments. A n e x a m p l e of this can be seen in p a r a g r a p h 115:
to go al o n g ( till**) = wa y s ( )
d i f f e r e n t ( iAJLLi*) to c l a i m ( ^ )
all )
two h a l v e s ( )
1.1.2 M o v e m e n t
to go (w-fc j ) s e n s e s ( &
o p p o s i n g ( S j U . ) to c l a i m ( ^ ) all
two p a r t s ( )
1
(a ) s y n o n y m y
However, it is also by s y n o n y m y that J a h i z d i s s o l v e s stasis, and f u r t h e r s the argument, e n l a r g i n g the space of ea c h c o n t e s t e d word, or p a i r of words, by t h e i r a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h others. Th i s is s o m e t i m e s done by i n f e c t i o n th r o u g h contiguity, as in the f o l l o w i n g ways:
For the r e c u r r e n t ideas of d i s s o l u t i o n , c o l lapse, d e a d end, see below: 2.1.2(c), 7.3, and 10.1.2(b).
by a shared (identical) conjlement;P
§116: 'joking' ( ) is c alled 'recuperation' ( )
§118: 'permissible' ( £-1*) is c a l l e d 'recuperation' ( by a sh a r e d (synonymous) verb:
§119: 'remembering* ( j ^ ) - ' to be wretched' ( ) 'seriousness' ( ^ ) - ' to be broken' (*^Ll) by a s h a r e d (identical) association:
«v
§119: 'joking and seriousness ( ?-[>Jl)
; \
' w ithholding and s p e n d i n g >- 'path' ( J .. ) ( J I? ^ ^
(b) a n a l o g y
Jahiz, sometimes, on the ot h e r hand, b r i n g s ab o u t this sy n o n y m i t y b y i n f e c t i o n t h r o u g h analogy:
explicit, by the particle ‘just as* (LS*):
§ 1 1 8 : 'joking has its p l a c e - just as - s e r i o u s n e s s
has its p l a c e (. * . l
just as ( uf) . . .
withholding has its validity - as - spending has its validity' ( a— **- J JLJ ^ i ^ t)
implicit, by the phrase 'and on that' (dJ J Jl*>);
§119: 'seriousness' vs. 'joking'
'spending' vs. 'withholding!^ ^ T ( dJ j
( J 1 J I) 'P a t h '
'contraction' vs. 'expansion' ^ ^
( u ^ l ) ‘c o u r s e 1
(c) space
So Ja h i z a d v a n c e s the argument, by e n l a r g i n g the space of w o r d s that at first se e m e d static and u n i v o c a l in their
a n t o n y m i a l pairings. However, each p a r a g r a p h here has a v e r s i o n of stasis at the end, p r e c i s e l y in the e n l a r g i n g of space, there o c c u r s the c o l l a p s e of a n t o n ymies. S c h e m a t i c ally, it a p p e a r s thus:
§115i J a h i z ' s way:
all sides wi l l be heard, X's as w e l l as Y ‘s
§ 116; w a y of the world:
p e o p l e o n l y do X to a c h i e v e Y (§117: o r d e r :
can X a f f e c t Y?)^
§ 11 8; G o d 1 s w a y :
X has b e c o m e like Y
§ 11 9: w a y of N a t u r e : X c o - e x i s t s w i t h Y
It is c l e a r that in all of these paragr a p h s , w i t h p e r h a p s the e x c e p t i o n of ^117, X and Y co-exist.
1.2 R e g i s t e r s of D i s c o u r s e : Ca s e
As m e n t i o n e d in the introduction, one of the d i s o r i e n t ing a s p e c t s of the r i s a l a is the i m p r e s s i o n of d i f f e r e n t r e g i s t e r s of d i s c ourse, and the fu r t h e r p r o b l e m a t i c of their i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e . I i n t e n d to treat this in a p o s i t i v e manner, a t t e m p t i n g an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of these d i f f e r e n t r e g i s t e r s in terms of A n d r £ Jolles' 'Simple Forms', 2 w i t h the idea that
it is these i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s w h i c h wi l l th e n c l a r i f y depend- e n c i e s of discourse, an d eve n t u a l s i g n i f i c a t i o n . 3 Thus, _
Th i s p a r a g r a p h c a n be r e l a t e d to the f o l l o w i n g issues:
e x c e s s and limit, see below: 6.2
hyp e r b o l e , blame, a n d act, see below: 7:4 c a u s a l i t y a n d con t i g u i t y , see below: 5.2.2.
2 A. Jolles, F o r m e s S i m p l e s (Paris, 1972).
3 I al s o i n t e n d to indicate, by o c c a s i o n a l footnotes, various r e c u r r e n t e l e m e n t s w h i c h cr e a t e d i s c o u r s e d e p e n d e n c i e s .
be f o r e any f u r t h e r a n a l y s i s of the c o l l a p s e s just des c r i b e d and the a s s o c i a t i o n s w h i c h ma k e th e m possible, one should c o n s i d e r the o v e r a l l f o r m of a r g u m e n t here. C o l l a p s e does not a p p e a r in the n e x t four paragraphs; the m a t e r i a l there is anecdote, an d the p a r a g r a p h s do n o t c o n c l u d e in terms of g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s , b u t in terms of s p e c i f i c testimony.
P a r a g r a p h s 115 to 123 thus se e m d i v i d e d by th e i r n a t u r e at p a r a g r a p h 120; however, they b e l o n g t o g e t h e r as two d i f f e r e n t p o i n t s of v i e w w i t h i n the 'simple form' J o l l e s calls the C a s e .i
1.2.1 E v a l u a t i o n
In the Case, issues, or a n t i n o m i a l t e r m s such as those m e n t i o n e d earlier, are set up in o p p o s i t i o n a n d evaluated.
A n a p p r o p r i a t e v o c a b u l a r y e m e r g e s in the f o l l o w i n g .p a r a g r a p h s
§117:
'in these scales' ^ )
'in this estimation' ( j-j&JI IJla
'o v e r s t e p p i n g the extent'
'cutting between* { )
§118:
' b a l ancing between* J ^ )
^ 'equals it' )
'differs f r o m it (
F u r t h e r m o r e , it is one of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Case that th i s is a q u a n t i t a t i v e e v a l u ation, 'le cas . . . m e s u r e des qua n t i t d s , ou plut6t, el l e les p & s e ' . E v a l u a t i v e
\
v o c a b u l a r y is thus m a t c h e d by q u a n t i t a t i v e v o c a b u l a r y :
Op. cit.
2 Ibid., p. 140.
§115:
'most of it' ( d^5t) 'least of it' ( Jif)
'two parts' )
‘two halves' ( (jILaJ )
§116:
'surplus' ( J-^)
§117:
'excess'
§120: a v e r t i g i n o u s r e p e t i t i o n of:
' sums ' ( J*->- ) ' u n i t 1 ) ' m a s s e s ' ( 'multitude' 'all' ( ^ r )
1.2.2 N o r m s
A n o t h e r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the Case is the no r m s it sets up to e v a l u a t e these antonymies. W h e n w r i t i n g of stories in w h i c h e v a l u a t i o n of a case is difficult, J o l l e s says,
'. . . o n r e c l a m e p o u r t a n t des normes: le d o m a i n e des
sensations, du sentiment, d u g6ut'. Here, 'sentiment' appears o n l y rarely, as in
§116: ' hate ' 1) vs . ' l o v e ' ( I )
'Gdut' a p p e a r s on l y in the e x t e n d e d u n d e r s t a n d i n g of:
§116: b e a u t y of state' ( JU J !
§117: lud i c r o u s r e p e t i t i o n s of: 'ugly' { ) and 'uglier' (
It is b y the n o r m of 'sensation' that m o s t e v a l u a t i o n is made, as seen in the rich v o c a b u l a r y l i s t e d u n d e r 'a n t o n y m y '
(1 .1 .1 ).
I b i d ., p. 153.
1.2.3 O r d e r
These no r m s are u s e d for the e v a l u a t i o n of the m erits of ' j o k i n g 1 and 'seriousness', of their s hare of:
§115:
' g o o d ' I)
‘e v i l ' { JLfJI) For this, there is:
§116:
'a defender' (
'a preferrer' )
§118:
'recompense' ( W e r e there not:
§119: Go d ' s p r o v i s i o n of:
'the c o r r e c t . . . the real . . . the true
( (3^*^ ^ *-UaJ I . . . , l^aJ I )
'purely . . . si m p l y . . . b r o a d l y
{ ... U __ )
'surely the m a s s e s w o u l d perish' ( I dJL^J ) 'and the o r d e r of the dlite w o u l d fade away
1.3 W i t n e s s
1.3.1 I n t e r n a l
D e s p i t e this l e xical m i x t u r e of the j u d i c i a l and moral, this is n o t a r g u m e n t a t i o n of an e i t h e r / o r type. O n a cosmic level, the w a y of the w o r l d (end §116) a n d the w a y of nature
(end §119) b y a s s o c i a t i o n , su p p o r t the o r d e r of God, the m o r a l order. This type of syn o n y m y a l lows c o l l a p s e of
F o r i m b a l a n c e and norm, see below: 6.3.2 and 9.3.2.
a n t o n y m i e s at all levels. Hence, for instance, in p a r a g r a p h 119, the $act th a t a 'stream' ) (world of nature) is of c o n s t a n t 'expansion' and 'contraction' im p l i e s that in its r e l a t i o n s h i p to 'joking' and 'seriousness' (world of discourse) and 'withholding' and 'spending' (world of culture), th e i r o p p o s i t i o n s may, equally, co-exist.
T h i s sense of o r d e r in balance, n o t in e xclusion, is the 'morale E q u i l i b r i s t e ' which Jolles identifies as
'c a s u i s t i c s 1 , or the use of the case in m o r a l theology, . . . 1 ‘o p p o s i t i o n me p a r & i t nette entre cette m o r a l e et une s c o l a s t i q u e qui cherchait, a u t a n t que p o s s i b l e a a p p r e h e n d e r les v e r t u s et les v i c e s c o m m e objets, et il m e parci.it t o u t a u s s i ne t que c e t t e E v a l u a t i o n se v o u l a i t p a r f a i t e m e n t humaine.
1.3.2 E x t e r n a l
C a s u i s t i c s h a d as one of its m a i n t e n e t s th a t . o f 'prob- a b i l i s m ' , an d in a p a s s a g e f r o m I. v o n D o l l i n g e r c i t e d by Jolles, it is c l e a r that in the a b s e n c e of a b s o l u t e certainty, p r o b a b i l i s m r e c o g n i z e d e x t e r n a l as w e l l as i n t e r n a l argument:
1. . . c'est h dire sur 1'autoritE des gens considErEs comme
3
compEtents'. Thus, this is the other point of view; para- 4
g r a p h s 121 to 123 wi l l ar g u e it f r o m e x t e r n a l witness.
T h o u g h these later p a r a g r a p h s m i g h t at f i r s t look like a r b i t r a r y anecdote, there is p r o g r e s s i o n in the argument, w h i c h can be se e n if one f o llows it p a r a g r a p h b y paragraph, e x t r a c t i n g , again, the a n t o n ymies, the p a r t i c u l a r c o n c e p t u a l o p p o s i t i o n s .
(a) g e n e r a l - p a r t i c u l a r
T h e s e c o n c e p t u a l o p p o s i t i o n s d i f f e r f r o m the p r e c e d i n g Fo r e x c l u s i o n by r e d u c t i o n in argument, see below: 5.3.1.
2 Jolles, op. cit., p. 155.
^ I b i d ., p . 156.
4 For a n o t h e r m a n i f e s t a t i o n of this, see below: 3.2.
a n t o n y m i a l p a i r s in that they are not explicit, but they
are none the less operative. P a r a g r a p h 120 is a t r a n s i t i o n a l paragraph, m a r k i n g the s witch from a r g u m e n t b y i n t ernal m e r i t to that of e x t e r n a l witness. Jahiz sets up the g e n e r a l c l aims of people, a n d then e x p o s e s his own i n d i v i d u a l claims:
( J. . . I jJ-j 151 )
He scrambles, b y repetit i o n s , wo r d s for g e n e r a l and p a r t i c u l a r (. . . <u U
. . .
and then caps this by two single lines f r o m a n o n y m o u s poets.
Thus, fr o m the g e n e r a l c o n s e n s u s there is m o v e m e n t to p a r t i c u l a r testimony.
(b) A r a b - I s l a m i c
In the n e x t p a r a graph, the c o n t r a s t is a g a i n b e t w e e n
the general, m a n y gr o u p s (Arab) and the p a r t i c u l a r , one leader ( M u h a m m a d ) , w i t h the a d d e d issue of the r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n name and event. If (otherwise) a n o n y m o u s g r o u p s we r e g i v e n s o b r i q u e t s for s c o w l i n g and l a u g h i n g ( unattested event)(. w h a t ab o u t Muhammad, w h o jo k e d (attested event) b u t w a s not n a m e d a *great joker' ( }* )? This'Sf o l l o w e d by the attested, three
A,
o b s c u r e jokes b y M u h a m m a d . F r o m the u n a t t e s t e d ev e n t t here is m o v e m e n t to the a t t e s t e d event.
(c) p u b l i c - p r i v a t e
The n e x t par a g r a p h , 122, follows up the p r e v i o u s m e n t i o n of c o m m u n i t y l e aders an d is mo r e specific. E v e n t is b r o k e n do w n into p u b l i c v e r s u s private, leaders b r o k e n d o w n into v i r t u o u s v e r s u s u n - v i r t u o u s . C o m m e n t a r y m o v e s f r o m the ge n e r a l m e n t i o n (unnamed event) of *Ali, to the specific qu o t e (named event) by a l-Hajjaj. A t the e n d of this p a r a gr a p h t here is the type of c o l lapse seen before, that of indulgence: Ja h i z p o i n t s out that he has i n c l u d e d all m a n n e r
of m e n in hi s a r g u m e n t for joking.
(d) w o r l d - l e a d e r - c o m m u n i t yi
Th i s sp i r i t of ind u l g e n c e is wh a t wi l l n o w be e l a b o r a t e d in the ne x t paragr a p h , 123, and it is w o r t h m o r e detail,
a l b e i t schematic, 2 as it is a good e x a m p l e of the w a y the
a r g u m e n t p r o g r e s s e s in this section.
1 n o r m of sensation:
e a s e - u n r e s t r a i n t 2 o r d e r of nature:
b r a n c h - b o u g h
3 M u h a m m a d - c o n c e p t s - g e n e r a l
positive: m a g n a n i m o u s r e l i g i o n n e g a t i v e : c o n t r a d i c t i o n - h a r s h n e s s 4 M u h a m m a d - w o r d s - i n d i r e c t
(a) g e n e r a l i m p l e mentation:
s p r e a d p e a c e - g o o d t i dings (b) s p e cific implementation:
e x c h a n g e v i s i t s - s h a k e h a n d s - e x c h a n g e p r e s e n t s 5 M u h a m m a d - a c t s - g e n e r a l
la u g h s m i l i n g l y - n o t disapprove, l a u g h i n g l y 6 M u h a m m a d - w o r d s - d i r e c t :
be c o u r t e o u s to c o m p a n i o n s
time of eating, drinking, d i v e r s i o n 7 M u h a m m a d - a c t s - s p e c i f i c
his family: not r e p r o v e s e r v a n t g i r l ' s dru m m i n g his ' o r i g i n s ’ : not reprove A r a b (named) tracking 8 o r d e r of n a t u r e - n a t u r e of A r a b ( u n n a m e d ) : honey
-
For c o m m u n i t y as brot h e r h o o d , see below: 3.2.2.
2 No r m a l l y , I e x p e c t to pr o v i d e the A r a b i c w o r d s fr o m the text for m y i n t e n t i o n a l l y literal t r a n s l a t i o n s , but here s u p p l y i n g the A r a b i c w o u l d be t a n t a m o u n t to r e c o p y i n g the w h o l e p aragraph.
Thus, in these last p a r a g r a p h s of e x t e r n a l witness, a ne c d o t e not on l y c a n n o t be c o n f u s e d wi t h stasis, but its a r g u m e n t c a n be seen to m o v e f r o m the g e n e r a l (joking) to the p a r t i c u l a r ( j o k e s ) , f r o m the u n a t t e s t e d e v e n t (laughing) to the a t t e s t e d ev e n t (laughed), from the A r a b (poets, groups) to the Islamic (community leaders, M u h a m m a d ) , all d e v e l o p e d as w i t n e s s for the side in a c e r t a i n 'case*. Also, it is i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t t h o u g h there are t e x t u a l v a r i a n t s for the last w o r d in the sec o n d section, 'honey' ( J ^ J I ) seems a p p r o p r i a t e to me, as it b r i n g s the d i s c u s s i o n full c i r c l e b a c k to nature, and is a s econd s t a t e m e n t on m u t u a l c o m p a t i b i l i t i e s , a l r e a d y seen in the p a r a g r a p h s of internal w i t ness, viz. n a t u r e - m a n - G o d .
In con c l u s i o n , the 'joking' v e r s u s 'seriousness' issue w h i c h m i g h t at fi r s t se e m r e p e t i t i o u s in its terms and static
in its a r g u m e n t ('Adab' problem) is, rather, a d y n a m i c argument. Th e first p a r t is 'case' by i n t e r n a l evidence, a r g u e d t h r o u g h e x p l i c i t a n t o n y m i a l e l e m e n t s w h o s e scope is e x p a n d e d by the i n f e c t i o n s of synonymy, a n d w h o s e c o n c l u s i o n s are in line w i t h g e n e r a l i s t p r i n c i p l e s of endoxy, 'the w a y of the world'. T h e s e c o n d p a r t is 'case* b y e x t e r n a l witness, a r g u e d t h r o u g h i m p l i c i t c o n t r a s t s w h o s e scope is c o n t r a c t e d t o w a r d the specific: time, place, person, event, the p a r t i c - u l a r i s t b a s e s of ' o r t h o d o x y ' , the pa t h of Islam. The
li n g u i s t i c m a n i p u l a t i o n s and c o n c e p t u a l s u b o r d i n a t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d here in the r e g i s t e r of 'case' w i l l be stu d i e d in e v e r y c h a p t e r as m a n i f e s t a t i o n s of o t h e r registers.
To be c o m p a r e d w i t h the t r a j e c t o r y of 'historical' data on the s u b j e c t of si n g i n g g i r l s : A.F.L. B e e s t o n ( e d ) , The E p i s t l e on S i n g i n g Gi r l s by Jahiz (Warminster, 1980).
Ch a p t e r Two
TH E RIDDLE
2.1 The Q u e s t i o n s
The q u e s t i o n s in this text have a l r e a d y b e e n m e n t i o n e d in c o n n e c t i o n w i t h i ndex and glossary, r e f e r e n c e and identity.
P e l l a t sees t h e m as a p r o b l e m of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and d i f f e r entiation. In ot h e r words, a d d r e s s i n g h i m s e l f o s t e n s i b l y to c o r r e c t i o n of the r e c i p i e n t of the letter, A h m a d cA b d
1 2
a l-Wahhab, a k n o w n Rafiglite, Jahiz w o u l d i d e n t i f y h e t e r o d o x Sh i ' i m a t e r i a l in or d e r to d i s p a r a g e it. H o w e v e r ,'f r o m the i ndex a n d g l o s s a r y it is cl e a r that c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e than m e r e l y S h i ' i m a t e r i a l is t r e a t e d in these questi o n s , and
it b e c o m e s d i f f i c u l t to k n o w h o w to deal w i t h these d a n g l i n g facts an d figures, this p l e t h o r a of a n t i - i n f o r m a t i o n .
2.1.1 I n f o r m a t i o n - L i t a n y - C a t e g o r y
T h e r e are several p o s s i b l e a p p r o a c h e s a n d as exa m p l e s 1 wi l l use two b l o c k s of p a r a g r a p h s : j}63 to 77 and^l 3 3 to 138, f o l l o w i n g the m e s in their argument, as w e l l as the s w i t c h e s w i t h i n or b e t w e e n d i s c o u r s e register. The initial a p p r o a c h to this m a t e r i a l m i g h t be to see it as simple t r a n s m i s s i o n of information. Thus, in the fi r s t s e q u e n c e of p a r a g r a p h s the m a i n s u bject is v a r i e t i e s of d i v i n a t i o n , and the m a i n q u e s t i o n s a s k e d are: ‘w h o ’ and 'what*. B e c a u s e the
_ —
R e f e r r e d to f r o m n o w on as A.W.
2 Pellat, op. cit., p. XVI.
n ames and terms have be c o m e no less arcane w i t h time, one is i m m e d i a t e l y d e p e n d e n t on P e l l a t 1s index and glossary.
However, here one is struck by the fact th a t the e v e r - p r e s e n t a u t h o r i t y for J a h i z ' s m a t e r i a l is Jahiz himself, m a i n l y from an o t h e r work, K. a l - H a y a w a n . In fact, P e l l a t c ites a p a s s a g e t here in w h i c h J a h i z states that these w o r k s are c o m p lementary.
Of course, there are a l s o later a u t h o r i t i e s w h o use this m a t e rial, b u t one c a n n o t be sure that t h e i r source was not also Jahiz. Finally, there is the simple fact that there are m a n y te r m s w h i c h P e l l a t w a s ne v e r able to trace at all.
Thus, as information, this m a t e r i a l is p r o b l e m a t i c a l , b u t there is a n o t h e r a p p r o a c h to these q u e s t i o n s . The li t a n y of na m e s of p e o p l e and things, s u p p o s e d l y r e p l y i n g to 'who' and 'what' has c o n j u r i n g power. Th e s e ha v e b e e n named, t h e r e f o r e t h e y exist. 2 T h e y are also p r e s e n t e d as names a bout w h o m one m i g h t ma k e some judgement:
§63; 'where w a s . . . w i t h r e s p e c t to . . .'
{. . . )
or a b o u t w h i c h the l e t t e r ’s r e c i p i e n t has a l r e a d y made some judgement:
§63: 'why d i d y o u d e c i d e in favour of . . .'
{ . . . ^ . C 1^3,9 J j J
This rela t i o n s h i p , of course, w o u l d lead one to t hink that the issue f i g u r e d in the ' S h u ‘ubi' c o n t r o v e r s i e s , but this m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d b y t hose who turn t h e i r a t t e n t i o n to the p a r a d i g m a t i c , the non - l i n e a r , open-ended, u n o r d e r e d a s s o c i at i o n s o u t s i d e the text.
M y a p p r o a c h h e r e is l i m i t e d to the syn t a g m a t i c : the
I b i d ., p . X I .
See below: 4.1 and 4.4.4.
linear, limited, 'ordered' e x p o s i t i o n of the text. W i t h i n these limits, however, there is also the p o s s i b i l i t y that Jahiz, t h o u g h t to be 'Greek influenced', w a s f o r m u l a t i n g some set of c a tegories. Is there an a t t e m p t to arrive at an es s e n c e of t hings t h r o u g h their c l a s s i f i c a t i o n in the
-]
text? F o r this p a r t i c u l a r set of p a r a g r a p h s , that h y p o t h e s i s is unlikely. Si n c e the c a t e g o r y r e p l y i n g to 'who' is g e n
e r a l l y i n d i v i d u a l diviners, d e m o n s and l e g e n d a r y figures, and the c a t e g o r y r e p l y i n g to 'what' is m e t h o d s of divination, k i n d s of d e m o n s and r e l i c s of l e g e n d a r y figures, one can d i s c e r n some g e n u s / s p e c i e s rela t i o n s h i p , b u t it is at best evanescent.
2.1.2 D e c i p h e r i n g
T h e r e is y e t a n o t h e r a p p r o a c h to th e s e q u e s t i o n s s y n t a g m a t i c a l l y ; th a t is, n o t as b a c k g r o u n d for an o rder of c a t e g ories, b u t as an o r d e r of its own. J a h i z seems to be a n s w e r i n g his own q u e s t i o n s as he p r o c e e d s . F i r s t of all, the d o m i n a n t s u b j e c t m a t t e r of this s e c t i o n is d i v i n ations, or d e c i p h e r i n g , a p a r t i c u l a r w a y of g o i n g about k n o w i n g things. Secondly, t h o u g h this is t r e a t e d in terms of s imple i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ('who'/ ' w h a t ') s u c h i d e n t i f i c a t i o n is a c t u a l l y put in q u e s t i o n in three ways.
(a) a m b i g u i t y
One of these wa y s lies in a m b i g u i t y of identities. In p a r a g r a p h 7 3 t here is a series of t h ings w h i c h are hybrids:
w i t h i n and b e t w e e n the a n imal and p l a n t kingdoms:
(ii )
in o t h e r words: X p l u s Y
In p a r a g r a p h 70, it is a m a t t e r not of d o u b l e form, but of For c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , see below: 5.3.1(c).
change of form, w h e r e there are d i f f e r e n t types of change:
'materializing* . . . 'changing colour* ( and de m o n i c changes:
'the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of Iblis into the f o r m of . . . and the f o r m of* (. . ^
in o t h e r words, X into Y
S o m e t i m e s this i d e n t i t y p r o b l e m is ev e n a r t i c u l a t e d on the basic level of polysemy:
§6 3: 'Siqq* as p r o p e r n o u n (<3-^ )
§6 4: 'Siqq* as c o m m o n n o u n 'hemisphere* {i5-^ ) in o t h e r w o r d s , X = x?
(b) r e d u n d a n c y
A s e c o n d w a y in w h i c h i d e n t i t i e s are u n d e r m i n e d is in a u d i t o r y r e d u n d a n c i e s , r e s u l t i n g f r o m the s lurs of homophony.
C o n g r u e n c e of so u n d puts in q u e s t i o n (i n ) c o n g r u e n c e of sign:
§66: (j
La • * « d La f
§69:
i>s .y * * • o-i
§63: L . . . eL^J1
Ev e n if it is g r a n t e d that some of these are folk h o m o p h o n i e s w h i c h Ja h i z used, their s i n g - s o n g e f f e c t is a n y w a y quite
apparent, and tends to d i s s o l v e i n d i v i d u a l identities.
(c) c o l l a p s e
The t h i r d wa y in w h i c h i d e n t i t i e s are u n d e r m i n e d is by c o l l a p s e a n d i n c o nsequence. In p a r a g r a p h 73, this is
y
done b^f anticlimax: the p a r a g r a p h b e g i n s w i t h q u e s t i o n s on hybrids, p r o c e e d s t h r o u g h strange e v e n t s of nature, signs
by w i l d animals, k n o w l e d g e of the occult, to a last que s t i o n ab o u t the acts of two d o m e s t i c a t e d fa r m animals.
A n t i c l i m a x ap p e a r s ag a i n in p a r a g r a p h 77; the sequence co n s i s t s of questions: to i d entify names, to identify
qualities, to i d e n t i f y species, to i d e n t i f y reasons, then to i d e n t i f y the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n two h o m o p h o n o u s things:
'the d i s h an d the glass' ( UaJI )
P e l l a t h i m s e l f says this m u s t be a ‘jeu de mots'.
P a r a g r a p h 66 also c o n c l u d e s w i t h a dead-end, i n s t e a d of loss of i d e n t i t y by c o l l a p s e in similar sound, it p r e s e n t s loss of i d e n t i t y — by s i milar e f f e c t — for one thing. A f t e r q u e s t i o n s on n a m e s of a n c i e n t idols, places, things,
treasures, fame, Jahiz turns to the p a r a d o x of:
'that w e a l t h which, he w h o takes of it repents, and he w h o leaves it a lone repents'
( ^ •0—. Cj*? f | ^ JLJI J I e!J j )
2.2. Register: T h e R iddle
2.2.1 C a t e c h i s m
This e n i g m a t i c p h r a s e is us e f u l for c o n j e c t u r e on the d i s c o u r s e r e g i s t e r of these para g r a p h s . Q u e s t i o n s in t erms of d e c i p h e r i n g i d e n t i t i e s have b e e n l a r g e l y unr e w a r d i n g , and ma y co v e r a n o t h e r type of i n t e r r o g a t i o n , a n o t h e r level of inquiry. T h e r e are two m a i n p o i n t s J o l l e s m a k e s about the Riddle. The f irst is that it is a m a t t e r of catechism;
there is a k n o w l e d g e a l r e a d y extant, 'le s a v o i r comme
p o ssession' and it is up to the q u e s t i o n e d to sh o w h i mself2 m a s t e r of it to the que s t i o n e r . Th i s 'savoir' is o s t e n s i b l y the a i m of the search, but e v e n mo r e so is the m a s t e r of it,
Jolles, op. cit., p. 113.
as C l a u d e B r d m o n d writes, '1'enqudte ici . . . co n s i s t e &
chercher, n o n la v d r i t d d' u n e chose, ma i s la p e r s o n n e qui sait la v d r i t d des choses.' i So, w h e n Ja h i z announces, in
p a r a g r a p h 4:
'that I ask h i m h u n d r e d s of questions, jestingly, an d let the p e o p l e k n o w the e x t e n t of his ignorance
• • • I
( ^ ^ ^ iy * U 1 11 ^ ( dJ Lm4 £L< I* t dJ Lu 1 ^ ^ )
it m e a n s th a t if one p e r s o n is shown to be ignorant, the o t h e r is not, and a t t e n t i o n is s o l i c i t e d for an s w e r s by Jahiz, as m u c h as q u e s t i o n s to A.W.
2.2.2 L a n g u a g e
Jolles' s e c o n d p o i n t ab o u t the R i d d l e is t h a t this k n o w l e d g e is a r t i c u l a t e d t h r o u g h a s p ecial language. He qu o t e s P o r z i g w h o d i f f e r e n t i a t e s b e t w e e n a c o m m o n language in w h i c h thi n g s are u n d e r s t o o d as p h e n o m e n a (a foot is an appendage) a n d a s p ecial la n g u a g e in w h i c h t h e i r f u n c t i o n m u s t be d e t e c t e d (a foot f u n c t i o n s as s u p p o r t ) . 2 T h o u g h
A r i s t o t l e c o m m e n t e d o n the a f f i l i a t i o n b e t w e e n m e t a p h o r and riddle, 'on p e u t t irer de b o n n e s m d t a p h o r e s des d n i g m e s bi e n faites, car les m d t a p h o r e s i m p l i q u e n t des dnigmes' p r o b a b l y on the b a s i s of t heir c o m m o n g r o u n d in p o l y s e m y , the e l e m e n t of r e s e m b l a n c e is l a c k i n g here. As C.F. M e n e s t r i e r writes,
'c'est a d i r e q u ' e l l e c esse d'etre r e s s e m b l a n c e parce que d ' a b o r d on y d d c o u v r e des r d p u g n a n c e s et des c o n t r a r i d t d s , en qu o i c o n s i s t e le m y s t d r e des d n i g m e s . ' 4 In o t h e r words, -
C. B r d mond, 'Pourquoi le p o i s s o n a ri', P o d t i q u e , 45 (Paris, 1981) ,p.12.
2 Q u o t e d in Jolles, op. cit., p. 115.
3 A r i s t o t e , L a Rhd t o r i q u e , III (Paris, 1 9 8 0 ),r 45.
4 r
C.F. M e n e s t r i e r , 'Podtique de l'dnigme', P o d t i q u e , 45 (Paris , 1 981) ,f>. 42 .
