in the sort of knowledge that would seem to be the preserve of kings, to wit, which poems were intoned, which poets they are attributed to, the reasons they were composed, and who put which ones to song, as well as the explanation of the songs’ modes, genres, and fingering on the lute strings. The people of Medina were conspicuous for their virtue, preeminence, and asceticism, and none of their legal experts ignored the fact that they deemed singing licit.
4.5
Nor did they claim preeminence in memorizing the things kings need and inquire about when something catches their eye and they expect to be instantly obliged. I mean, for example, questions about various kinds of drinks and their description, and about the best verses composed on the subject; or on the subject of fruits, fragrant herbs, and the seasons; descriptions of palaces and gardens, artificial lakes and literary gatherings, wine-drinking at morning and evening, clear skies and rain clouds, the sun and the moon, the constellations and rain-bringing stars; descriptions of horses and weaponry; and all the other topics of love poetry and so forth in the manner I have outlined. And they did not claim preeminence in the lore of amusing stories collected for kings or extemporized on the basis of recent events.6
4.6
They did not claim preeminence in the study of the modern poets and the pioneers from the beginning of the Abbasid dynasty (God prolong and safeguard it). And when they turned to this poetry, they did not claim that they had the ability to compose poetry like it. Nor did they claim that they had mastery of its entire lexicon and were able to distinguish between the rare, the mediocre, and the inferior, beyond rejecting a linguistic error or a lexical slip.
4.7
They did not claim that they had a better command than anyone else of the science of prosody and rhyme, genealogy, official and private correspondence, and rhetoric, and of how to spot when poets plagiarize and borrow from one another, and how to recognize which poets did it properly and which badly. Nor did anyone else make this claim on their behalf. What they were preeminent in was knowledge of syntax and lexicography, but they each knew something about these other fields. Neither of them declared, “I do not make mistakes,” or felt embarrassed to say, “I do not know” when he did not know something.
4.8
Think then (God support you) about these two great, preeminent men. Think of how much they did not know of all these subjects I have listed for you. And then think of how highly they are revered among people, since they did not pretend expertise in anything they did not master, nor give answers about anything they did not know.
5.1
None of the contemporary scholars I alluded to is worth a tenth of either al-Mubarrad or Thaʿlab—they do not come close, not even in the eyes of their most ardent and partisan supporters. And yet they claim to know everything and never admit, “We simply do not know.” They are as the poet says:
He dabbles in everything yet masters nothing.
It’s not his insight but his delusion that increases.
5.2
We might turn a blind eye to this as long as the scholarship is good and it is commonly acknowledged that they have studied properly and diligently with experts and scholars and have attended the right gatherings. But if they acquire learning by deceit, or by attacking and pillaging it, then God help us for having to depend on those who are unacceptable and unreliable!
6.1
Some things I dictated long ago about the motifs that poets contend with one another over had not been given a proper and systematic arrangement before I made them available. People had adopted such motifs without understanding them. Now I see that some individuals have broken them up and have made them available in a piecemeal fashion, strewn throughout their dictated lectures with no organization at all. The work that emanates from me is all too obvious when compared with the fruits of their own learning and stands out as distinct in their compilations—the setting speaks volumes that it does not belong.7
6.2
You (God support you) are my witness that Abū Mūsā l-Ḥāmiḍ insulted me in your presence, and you forbade it. He heaped blame and injury upon the other books I dictated, finding no good in any of them. When he passed away, and his books were brought to you, you discovered that he had written out in his own hand most of my Compendium on the Knowledge of the Qurʾan and my Book of Youths and Choice Anecdotes, which I dictated, and the poetry of Abū Nuwās I had gone through. He had used my works as primary sources and would dispense smatterings of them to all who came to study with him and to benefit from his learning. You were astonished and found this offensive.
7.1
I consider next a class of people whose sole intention is to read poems, memorize some strange vocabulary, learn some problems of grammar, dip into a book of lexicography, and then attend literary gatherings, though not one of them has advanced in knowledge or derived any benefit from his reading. If the convener of the gathering has an idea or forgets something, the ignoramus jumps on him and takes him by surprise. He thinks that he is superior and more learned than the convener, because he has memorized a line of poetry or a motif that the convener has not. It may be that the convener knows over a thousand verses by heart. If this ignoramus were made convener and asked a thousand questions (all of which the convener could answer), he would not be able to get a single one right.
7.2
It seems to be the case (God support you) that the one person who knows least about my preeminent and unprecedented compositions is the one most in need of them. He claims my work as his own after I dictated it and makes formal pronouncements about it, after I explained its ideas. He does not make any reference to me or credit me. I do not care one jot about this. I enjoy your favor and have satisfied your request. You know only too well that these pretentious individuals are incapable of accomplishing the charge you gave me, and that none of them is bold enough to recite a single poem of Abū Tammām’s and be sure to get its content right, let alone give an account of the poet’s life and times, rebut his critics, comprehend and defend his entire corpus, preserve it intact, and highlight its merits, such that Abū Tammām’s eminence in poetry and his peerless understanding become known.
7.3
I compiled The Life and Times of al-Farazdaq, a work of three hundred folios in length. I set myself the condition that I would not use a single word from the Flytings except what was absolutely necessary: his genealogy, wives, and so forth. This came to less than thirty folios in toto. I started with al-Farazdaq, and intended to move on to the Life and Times of Jarīr and al-Akhṭal, compiled in exactly the same format. I began with al-Farazdaq because of his noble bearing, powerful and pithy language, rich motifs, and elegant style, and because during the Umayyad dynasty he was a supporter of the opposing Banū Hāshim, openly declaring their excellence and precedence, something I include in the book. I also consider his poetry to be superior to both Jarīr’s and al-Akhṭal’s. Yet I do not criticize anyone who places him second, for we do find that leading scholars hold divergent opinions on these three and prefer one over the other two. I for my part belong to the camp of those who prefer al-Farazdaq. I began to compile the Life and Times of Jarīr, then I learned that others had resolved to compile this according to the condition I had set for myself. They did this to oppose and outmaneuver me. So I held off completing the work, so that I could test their veracity. Some are dead, others still alive, but the work has yet to be compiled.
8
Your request is light indeed, though it would have been heavy if made by anyone else. You and your brothers Abū l-Fatḥ and Abū l-Qāsim (God support you all) are preeminent in knowledge, insight, faith, and truthfulness. I
