Hebrew Invective Poetry: The Debate between Todros Abulafia and Phinehas Halevi

Author(s): ANGEL SÁENZ-BADILLOS

Source: Prooftexts, Vol. 16, No. 1, Readings in Medieval Hebrew Poetry (JANUARY 1996), pp.
49-73
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20689439
Accessed: 28/11/2010 18:23

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Prooftexts.

http://www.jstor.org
 ANGEL S?ENZ-BADILLOS

Hebrew Invective Poetry:

The Debate between Todros Abulaf?a
and Phinehas Halevi

The Character of the Debate

IN HIS GREAT OMAN, the poet Todros ben JudahHalevi Abulafia

collected not only his own compositions/ but also some samples of the
poetryofhis friendsand colleagues/includinga seriesof thirty-five
short
poems constituting a poetic debate between him and the poet Phinehas
Halevi.1
One of the participants in the debate is well known: the Toledo
courtierand poet Todros ben JudahHalevi Abulafia (1247-1306),
probably
thebest andmost prolificHebrew authorof Christian Spain during the
reigns of Alfonso the Learned and Sancho IV. His life and words have
been studied frommany different points of view.2
Who was his opponent, Phinehas Halevi hameshorer? Little about him
is known. He has been identified as a son of Joseph Halevi, a grandson of
Zerahia Gerondi, and a member of a renowned family of liturgical poets
established in Provence and Catalonia.3 If this identification is correct, he
would have been the brother of the notable talmudic scholar Aaron
Halevi and the author of several liturgical and halakhic poems.4 A.
Neubauer thoughtthathe was also called Vidal Profiat,thathe owned
property near Perpignan, and that he was a friend of the Proven?al poet
Abraham Bedersi.5 Such identifications are difficult to prove; we cannot
be certain about any aspect of his life.We know only that he wrote secular
poetry and that he was apparently in the court at Toledo for some time,
PROOFTEXTS16 (1996):49-73 ? 1996by The JohnsHopkins UniversityPress
50 ANGEL S?ENZ-BADILLOS

and probably in Todros's house. Following the usage of the age, he wrote
a long panegyric to themost importantJewof Castile, Don ?ag (Isaac)
ben ?adoq, who would be executedbyAlfonso in 1280on account ofhis
dubious behavior. The poem included some harsh allusions to
political
TodrosAbulafia and won a long replyby the latter.6
with the longerdebatewith
Taking thisexchange of poems together
which we began, we must conclude that the relations between the two
were between and But we cannot
poets always shifting friendship rivalry.
offer a psychological on dated
interpretation of their relations based
written materials; since the chronological order of the poems is unknown,
we cannot establish the real order of the events.

Supposing that the poems in the long series of debate poems are more
or less from the same period, there is no certain way to determine
whether theyprecede or follow thepoems written by both authors in
homage toDon ?ag, forwhich the terminus ante quernis 1280/817 It is
likely that the short poems constituting this poetic debate were written
when bothpoetswere stillyoung,probablyduring thereignofAlfonso X
and before 1280.
It is also difficult to determine whether the series of debate poems
constitutes a single poetic debate or whether it is a collection of composi
tions written at different occasions. The unity of thematerial is uncertain;
for the interpretation of its background, we are dependent upon the
of the poems, and inmany cases we are not sure if these
superscriptions
are historically accurate. The first three poems of the series clearly form a
separate unit consisting of poems of friendship and separation. In its
a
present form in the dtw?n, the rest of the group shows certain unity. But
theOxford manuscript interrupts the debate after poem no. 497, and there
are reasons for believing that the rest of the poems, from no. 498 to
no. 513, form a separate unit consisting of poems on a similar topic, the
nos. 482-97, are much
ability to write poetry. The first sixteen poems,
more vehement and aggressive than the remaining poems, which are
our atten
closer in style to conventional language. We shall concentrate
tionmainly on the firsthalf of thedebate.8
of thisdebate fromthepoint ofview of thehistory
What is the interest
of Hebrew poetry? H. Schirmann observed that the poems have scant
but that are of interest as a reflection of the atmo
literary value, they
sphere of theperiod.9Compared with thegreat lyricalcompositionsof
the Golden Age and even to other major poems written by Todros
Abulafia himself, these poems about trivial, realistic topics, written in a
seen as a low kind of literary text, the kind that
vulgar language, may be
has been called "lyric of realism,"10 or even of what French critics call
"contre-texte,"11 a kind of "underground literature" that was marginal
with respect to high literary composition. However, I consider this series
 Hebrew Invective Poetry 51

of poems to be a representative development of Hebrew poetry in

Christian Spain. Their analysis may uncover the new tendencies of the
period and show towhat degree thepoetryofChristianSpain can be seen
as a continuation of Andalusian patterns and how much itwas open to
the influences of its own times.
The debate took place inChristian Toledo, nearly two hundred years
after the conquest of the cityby Alfonso VI (1085).Although the city
retained much of its earlier Andalusian character even after the conquest,
and althoughArabic was still spoken or understood by many of its
inhabitants, by the time of our poet, the city and particularly, the court,
had been living for generations in a predominantly Romance
atmosphere.
Under the auspices of Alfonso X, poetrywas being written in the
Galician-Portuguese language and genres, and prose was being written in
the Castilian language.

The Structure and Contents of the Debate

The firstthreepoems of theseries are clearlydifferentiated

fromthe
rest, being true Andalusian friendship poems. According to the super
scriptionsin thed?w?n,thefirstpoem (no.479, towhich thereisno reply),
is by Todros, explaininghis change ofmood: he acknowledges thathe
was angryand had stoppedwriting poetry,but says that thearrivalof
Phinehas has made him forget his complaints and return to writing
poetry.12The firstpoem by Phinehas is a single verse couched in the
classical language and employing the standardmotifs of poems of
friendship and separation.13

My soul, when you departed, was torn off and went astray;
itflew to serve you and rebelled against me. (no. 480)

Todros's answer, twelve verses with the same meter and rhyme,
preserves the tone of friendship and esteem. He turns to his friend with
great respect, employing similar expressions and calling him hagevir ("the
lord/' "the knight"), stating thathis own soul had lefthim to serve
Phinehas even of the two poets:
before the separation
Itwas with the knight, and it remained with him;
he, he is its lord, and it is serving him. (no. 481, v. 3)

He plays with thewords and the images,magnifyingthe love ofhis

depictinghis friendshipas resemblinga net
soul forthe illustriousfriend,
with which to hunt hearts. He assumes a of the
Neoplatonic conception
soul:
52 ANGEL S?ENZ-BADILLOS

Iwas like a deceased whose soul ascended to the heavens,

but my corpse descended into she'ol. (v. 9)

Hereare old and new images together in a delicate juxtaposition:

death for the love of the beloved is an ancient image, and the platonic
dualism of body and soul, more recent. Together with the two preceding
an
verses, this poem forms independent unit. By putting these three
poems at the head of the poetic exchange, Todros probably intended to
provide background for understanding the rest of the poems.
The next group, consisting of thirty-two poems, represents a different,
circumstantial dialogue, its tone varying between festive and serious. It
constitutes a well-organized discussion between the two poets, starting
with a personal anecdote and touching on several different aspects of the
same question: Which of them is better qualified towrite poetry? Alter

nating short poems discuss the respective poets' skill in the handling
of language and verse, with each poet subtly trying to praise his own
poetry and ridicule that of his adversary with invective that sometimes
nor are there tragic overtones;
approaches obscenity. The tone is not bitter,
the poets simply mock each other and try to outdo each other with a
one does not answer, the other
sophisticated play of words. When
demands a We can imagine that after the debate, they con
response.14
tinue to be friends as at the beginning.
From a formal point of view, the debate consists of parallel composi
tions of one to five verses, mostly in groups of two poems each (according
to the superscriptions, the verses of Todros followed by the correspond
ing reply of his opponent). In most cases, there is a verbal connection
between the poems: themain motif and often the words themselves are
taken up again in successive compositions, in a kind of chain. Each reply
usually has the same rhyme and meter as the preceding poem, but there
are exceptions. Four basic types of classical meter are used in the
Even ifTodros is the author of the superscriptions, we cannot
exchange.15
be sure that he has preserved the complete debate; sometimes there are
differences inmeter and rhyme that lead us to suspect that one or more
pieces have been lost. In any case, the remnants preserve substantial
homogeneity and unity.
Competitive debates about poets' skills are well known in both
Arabic and Hebrew poetry, but in the history of Hebrew-Spanish poetry,
it isdifficulttofindparallels forthisone. Ifwe searchforpoints of contact
or sources of inspiration?without
forgetting possible Arabic or Hebrew
models?we must bear inmind that both poets were active in the court of
Alfonso theWise, and that Todros, at least, was well integrated into it,
taking active part in economic life in this and the following reign. We
must assume that he was familiar with the language and cultural life at
 Hebrew Invective Poetry 53

court. For these reasons, the courtly Romance poetry of the time should
also be taken into consideration. Schirmann already observed that this
debate was written after the style of the Proven?al tensones.16 To what
degree is that correct?

A. THE SHORT BED

According to the superscription of the first poem, there was a

deep
friendshipbetween the twopoets; itwas an incidentin theirfriendship
that provoked the debate. Todros relates that Phinehas had been a guest
inhis home in Toledo. Assigned a bed thatwas too short forhim, he
an
groaned about his discomfort and made unpleasant comparison with
the height of his host, who was known for his small stature.17 Todros
began thedebate bymocking his guest forbeing tall and fat,and for
lacking good manners:

Ifyour body has grown and you are fat,

in good manners you are small, (no. 482)

From the very beginning of the debate, we can observe a

significant
differenceof tonerelativeto thatof theHebrew poets of theGolden Age,
since theydid not ridicule the physical defects of theiropponents.18
Phinehas answers in an angry mood, an eye for an eye:

Know, my brother, that just as you are small,

you lack human knowledge and intelligence, (no. 483)19

B. ARROWS AND SPEARS

Todros replies:

Ifyour body is tall, and I am small,

you shall labor in vain trying to attainmy end.
Truly, it iswell known that
your spear does not reach the place ofmy arrow, (no. 484)

Is there sexual symbolism in these terms, or are they just a way of

praising thequality and power of his own poetry,in the styleofArabic
fakhr?Words like "spear" or "arrow" are frequent inArabic and Hebrew
poetry. An example: in the poetry of Ibn Gabir l, they are considered,
above all, as weapons for defending oneself or for attacking enemies. But
equivocal language is also very common in Romance satirical poetry,
which employs these terms with a sexual connotation. Phinehas con
tinues the image:20
54 ANGEL S?ENZ-BADILLOS

How can you compare my spear with your arrow?

Even if itwere broken, the spear would be worth double;
Iwould take forpunishing you, wicked one, a half, and from
the rest Iwould make one and even two arrows, (no. 485)

You have not enough, says Todros:

Ifyou made arrows from your spear,

feathers and ironwould be lacking.
They would be like birds without wings
or like corpses without spirits, (no. 486)

Phinehas answers in the typical tone oifakhr:

The breath ofmy lipswill match thewings

for the arrow, and itwill pass like thewinds;
Iwill put my eloquence on its tip,
and it shall pierce heart and entrails, (no. 487)

Todros ridicules his adversary for lacking the metrical technique to

sustain the rhyme and meter until the end; his arrows do not attain the
hearts. In his own case, the opposite is true:

Pleasant is your eloquence, and itwould be very dear

if itwere truthfulto the rhyme and linked.
It is sweet as nectar and honey at the beginning,
but at the end it is bitter as poison.
In all your days, your heart did not aim
or throw the arrows of answers.
But I have words like arrows, and truly
I set thewords as a target, (no. 488)21

Phinehas defends thequality of his poetry:

My poem is like fine gold worn by a gazelle,

or like a golden jewel on a maiden's neck.
You cannot aim your arrow straight at a mountain,
while I hit a hair with my sling and do not miss. (no. 489J22

Todros's answer opens a new way, more and more offensive:

personal

Your poetry is not like a golden jewel;

it is like a yoke that smashes the neck.
How can you say that you don't miss,
when you don't shoot like an arrow? (no. 490)

It is clear now that the "arrow" has sexual connotations. Yellin states,
"you do not have virile potency."23
 Hebrew Invective Poetry 55

C. SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF POETRY

Phinehas replies toboth insults:

It is like a golden jewel for all throats,
but itwill smash your neck.24
The son ofmy poetry will not join the daughter
of your poetry until she goes to the bath. (no. 491)

He rejectsthe accusation of sterilitybutmaintains thathis poem is

masculine, while that of Todros is feminine and impure. It has to pass
throughtheritualbath inorder tobe prepared forsexual unionwith his
own poems. The debate now centers itself on this new
image as Todros
retorts, pushing the terms to extremes:

The son of your poetry is not suitable for taking a woman,

and the daughter ofmy poetry is the fairestof virgins.25
How can you say, "When she takes her bath he will join her"?
He would not be able even if she were a married woman! (no. 492)

Phinehas continues the debate, using the same images:

Your daughter is a virgin, no man has known her,
but she is sick, handicapped, wounded.
My son can have a daughter and two thousands,
and he has a good name, and a peg for sticking in. (no. 493)

The equivocal language is now absolutely clear. The "peg" (m*?) is not
only Jael's in Judg.5:26,but themanly penis.We are not used to finding
such allusions in Hebrew poetry,26 but they are not infrequent in the
or Galicia, or in the
invectives of Provence-Catalonia27 literary atmo
sphere of the Toledo court. Todros accepts the challenge:
The son of your poetry,my brother, is considered to be born of
woman, and in fact itsheart is a woman's heart.
The sons ofmy poems liewith him
every day, with the peg sunk into him. (no. 494)28

Phinehas answers in a similar tone:

With great might you present them as sons,

but they are just dirty,unclean daughters.
My magnificence lies in themany sons, but woe to you,
and woe to the fatherwhose sons are females, (no. 495)29

Todros answers in threeverses that the Bible (Eccles. 12:4) and the
Mishnah speak of "daughters of poetry," not of "sons":

Do you think that the sons beautify your poetry

and do you blame themelodies as being female?
56 ANGEL S?ENZ-BADILLOS

Are they in the Bible or theMishnah "poetry's sons"?

They are just "poetry's daughters."
There are daughters who are like sons,
and sons who are like daughters, (no. 496)30

Phinehas writes three similar verses:

Solomon of old referred to poetry as "daughters,"

revealing a mystery, alluding to something hidden:
He knew that you were going towrite poems, so he chose to
disparage their golden ornaments and their good meaning.
Therefore "the daughters of poetry shall be humbled"?since you are
their father,and they deserve to be humbled, (no. 497)31

D. THE EDIFICE OF POETRY

The debate continues in a new direction, inmore conventional terms.

It now employs images of poetry as construction, and puts the quarrel in
terms of which of the poets is the better builder. Todros appropriates an

epigramby IbnGabir l, in the typicaltoneoffakhr:

"I am poetry/' "the daughters are my daughters,"
and "poetry's daughter's will be humbled" before me.
Written on my heart is the law ofmy eloquence
thatwas given tome at Sinai.
The structure of your poetry is ruined; itpleads,
"Make me healthy, that Imay be well, O Lord!" (no. 498)32

The new theme of the poem as building is taken up again by

Phinehas:

I join lime and carved stones,

and poor men and rich alike desire my edifice.
Your mind does not contain poetry; but poetic ability
is ascribed tome as to David, (no. 499)

E. PEARLS AND WATER

In one of the lengthiestreplies,Todros says thathe builds his poems

out of pearls rather than lime and stones, thus introducing the image of
water, a symbol of fertility:

True, you join lime and limestone,

while I join pearls.
How can you compare my poetry to yours?
Are pearls to be compared to stones?
The brooks of your poetry become scanty and dry,
they almost grow thistles.
 Hebrew Invective Poetry 57

Give me the gullies of your poetry,my friend,

and I'll send fountains to the gullies;
for I am the sea of poetry, a big sea and broad,
fromwhich all the clouds draw. (no. 500)

To this, Phinehas answers:

See, my brother, the truthofmy words!

To join pearls is not truewisdom.
Human insight takes bricks
and turns them into gems and necklaces.
In fact,your poetry is like sea water,
while mine is like thewater of the clouds, (no. 501)

Todros picks up this last image and defendshimselfby drawing out

its negative aspect:

True, like thewaters of clouds, your poetry makes mud, since it looks
like ankle-deep water.33
Beforeme, indeed, thewaters of the sea of poetry were bitter, like
those of every ample sea.
But the Lord showed my mind's eye the tree;
there I put it,and thewaters became sweet, (no. 502)

Phinehas answers with an attack:

Your lips are falsehood, and there is nothing between them;

has a lie a base on which to stand?
They became sweet, but not that the thirstymight drink?
rather they became a flood, whose waters will increase, (no. 503)

For Todros, these words may have a positive

meaning:
In fact,you speak the truthwhen you call my words a flood, since
theirwaters will increase.
But Noah would not have been safe in the ark of your verse,
because your works are not strong, (no. 504)

Phinehas replies with three verses:

Iwill seek tranquillity,and I shall be another Noah;

I shall enter the ark before the deluge.
I'll float over its surface Iwould not fear,
even if thewaters of abyss and of heaven were opened?
They rise and subside, but Iwill only grow and inherit lands and
territories, (no. 505)

In a display of virtuosity, Todros uses in his rhymes the same words

thathis opponenthad employed:
58 ANGEL S?ENZ-BADILLOS

Noah and his ark would have sunk,

had the flood resembled my poems.
Their waters do not cease rising;
they almost wash away themoon and sun in the sky.
Inmy speech is an ocean of nectar, not split;
my poetry's sea has no end or limit like sand. (no. 506)

Phinehas seems not to have replied to this poem, so Todros

provoked
him again, demanding a response:

Is there no word or sound left in your mouth?

Are the small coins finished from your purse?
Your tongue is too short,while my tongue seems like a sword,
polished forkilling.
Set your lips to begging at the ground where my songs are threshed; I
drop some for them to glean.
Iwill rent them a small garret forpoetry,
and there I'll put foryou a table and bed.
But I advise you: ifyou are weak, do not make contention with a
mighty man. (no. 507)

F. THE SPEED OF POETIC COMPOSITION

Phinehas now answers in a different rhyme and meter:

A fool speaks maliciously against me,

saying thatmy verses' cloud gives no rain.
Since he is hasty, I shall be slow
and say that it is not that I lack strength;
rather, thewise heart likes to be deliberate,
while the counsel of the foolhardy is rash. (no. 508)

Todros defends himself against this new charge:

You call me foolhardy,but my soul
answers appropriate words at any time.
She may go fast; but examine all the poems;
see: is there anything in them but insight?
Imay be hasty, but my poetry is better than yours,
even ifyou should work on it for a century, (no. 509)

G. GRAPES, MEAT, AND FIRE

a new
This elicited reply by Phinehas:
Are you rightwhen you maintain that poetry is your legacy, that
language is your acquisition?
 Hebrew Invective Poetry 59

I hold the balance of eloquence inmy hand,

and there is not beside me whose hand is steady.
Your grapes are sour,while I hold whole clusters,
and grapes' blood, pouring festive poems.
I eat my paschal lamb roasted,
but you and your family consume it raw. (no. 510)

Todros replies, praising himself:

This poem ofmine and thesewords

testifythat I am the king of poets.
The wine ofmy poetry is preserved in its grapes,
and the songs are seasoned in the shoots of its vine.
My poems can be consumed raw, but yours cannot be swallowed. It is
like ass meat.
I shall roast it inmy fire,
so that you can eat itwith unleavened bread and bitter herbs, (no. 511)

Phinehas's final reply:

Do you intend to bum the field ofmy poetry with your furorand
with your stormwind?
I have waters thatwould put out the fire and calm thewind, "that
make bum the blaze!" (no. 512)34

Two verses by Todros conclude thedebate:

Stop, lestmy wrath against you grow,
and bring down devouring fire frompoetry's sky,
to consume the house of your verse and its stones,
and even thewater that is in the ditch, (no. 513)

The long referenceto 1Kings 18:38 at theend of thedebate and the

numerous allusions to other biblical verses and to Jewish customs assure
us that the poets have not forgotten their own traditions, and that the new
fashions have not replaced but have been added to traditional Hebrew
elements and to Arabic technique.

The Debate in the Framework of Medieval Invective Poetry

was
What the atmosphere in which this exchange was composed?
Are the poems to be considered a true heritage of Muslim Spain, or do
reflect the new trends of Romance poetry? Hebrew scholars
theymainly
are used to searching for the rootsof thiskind of poetry inArabic or
Hebrew forerunners. I do not deny that both Arabic and Hebrew prece
dents can be found, but there may also be a strong connection with
a curious blend of
Romance poetry. Such a connection would signify
60 angel s?enz-badillos

these quite different traditions, a mixture that, however, would not be

exceptional in the city of Toledo at this time.
We do not need to search out ancient classical models of satiric or
invective poetry such as Horace or Juvenal, though these two poets have
become the embodiment of the two main tendencies in the history of
satire. The trend represented by Horace is summarized as ridentem dicere
verum, seeking to elicit a smile in the face of human defects in order to
avoid thesedefects;thatrepresentedby Juvenalis summarizedas difficile
est suturam non scribere, trying to hurt and destroy as a consequence of the
author's moral indignation and contempt for vice.35 But it is true that late
Latin poetry could have had direct or indirect influence on the literary
atmosphere of Christian Spain.
Itmay be useful to distinguish, as do some of themodern studies of
the genre, between satire?condemnation of the society from the point of
view of an ideal?and invective?an attack on another person.36

a. arabic invective poetry

Among the oldest functions of pre-Islamic poetry, alongside perpetu

ating the fameof the tribe'snoble deeds and dignifyingthememory of
their dead, was attacking their enemies with mockery.37 Hij?y became one
of the traditional major genres of classical Arabic poetry and one of the
most varied in tone and form, "from the lofty,moralistic, and serious, to
the coarse, immoral, obscene, and flippant."38 The hij?* may have had
many variants: curse, invective, diatribe, insulting poem, epigram, satire,
and so on. But in general, it tried to stigmatize the failings of the
adversaries thatwere the antithesis of the qualities glorified by mad?h.39
Goldziher maintains that the hij?' was originally an incantation, a
curse, or an imprecation, and that itwas employed in the battlefield as a
weapon, an insult intended to weaken, dishonor, and humiliate the
authors agree in to a
enemy.40 Many pointing magic pan-Semitic origin.41
In a sense, the hijti* is seen as the poetic expression of rivalry among tribes;
its purpose was to concentrate in a few words the insult thatwould smash
the victim. The poet was motivated by the desire to touch his adversary in
theweakest point?his prestige. This was the case as long as the bedouin
element was significant in Arabic poetry. During the pre-Islamic period,
thereexisted both individual and collective hij?\ the latterbeing the
original 3type.
an
H?/ played important role in the struggles that took place
between Muslims and polytheists during the life of Muhammad. After
the victory of Islam, personal attacks became less frequent, but satire on
kufr, impiety, became frequent.42 Under the early caliphs, such satire was
 Hebrew Invective Poetry 61

considered to be contrary to the teachings of the new religion, but itwas

practiced nevertheless. Sometimes, the sovereigns had poets in their

entourage toproclaim theirglory and attacktheirenemies.After670, this
practice was extended to include diatribes among the princes of poetry,
a group, and so on.43
recalling the shameful past of During the eighth
there were who earned a for foul
century, poets reputation speech, using
crude and obscene observations. For such poets, invective became a
means of sustenance. Such indecent hijtf fell into eclipse in the ninth
century, during the period of neoclassical poetry. The great poets Ibn
al-R?mi, Ab? Tamm?m, and al-Mutanabb? wrote virulent epigrams to
patrons and others, accusing them of avarice, lowly origin, and so on. The
theorists restricted the subject matter of the genre to defects of a moral
order, not physical defects.44
Hija" ranges from moralizing advice to the harshest collective or
individual satire. Also common was blame of Destiny and themen of the
generation (dhamm al-zam?n wa-abn?yih), but this type of impersonal satire
is very different from true personal invective, and may be closer to zuhd
than to hij?\ It is true thatIslamic societyopposed hi?' to some degree,
especially when it descended to the level of personal insult, and that is
probablywhy some anthologistsdid not includeexamples of it in their
works. Renowned poets like Ab? Nuw?s and Ibn al-R?m? were blamed
forhaving written obscene satires. In theWest, hij?' was never among the
most commonly cultivated genres. InMuslim Spain, satire and invective
poetry were held in low regard. Ibn Bass?m stated that he did not include
any hijtfinhis anthology,theDhakh?ra,inordernot to spoil it.Butminor
Western poets like al-Yakk?, al-Abyad, and ab? T-Q?sim al-Sumaysir
wrote many poems of this type, sometimes full of obscenities.45
Ibn Hazm's regret in his latter years for having written satirical
poems in his youth is probably representative of the dominant attitude
toward satire in theMuslim West. Even though themore popular atmo
sphere that gave rise to the zajal would likely have made concessions to
satire, none is found in the d?w?n of Ibn Quzm?n, themost representative
of the zajal authors.
a
Among the characteristics of invective poetry is complete disregard
for the truth. Sometimes the words, especially the obscenities, are so
that no one takes them seriously; the only object is to
exaggerated
Frequently,thehi)Wis followedby passages of
humiliate theadversary.46
fakhr in the same composition.
In summary, there is no doubt thatmany Arabic precedents exist for
invective poetry thatmight well be appropriate models for the composi
tions we are discussing here. But they were not popular in theMuslim
West, including al-Andalus. Besides, the Arabic literary tradition did not
include satirical debates in the form of long dialogues.
62 ANGEL S?ENZ-BADILLOS

.HEBREW SATIRE AND INVECTIVE

Hebrew Andalusian satire follows many Arabic literary traditions,

such as the general complaint about Destiny and themen of the genera
tion. It includes themocking of personal enemies (as in, e.g., the poems of
Ibn Khalfun), of political ormilitary adversaries (Samuel Hanagid), of
plagiarists,of contemptibleor envious people (IbnGabir l), of the igno
rant and arrogant (Moses Ibn Ezra in his exile period). But it rarely goes as
far as personal insult, and even more rarely does it touch on physical
defects or descend to cruel and obscene language.47
In the first Andalusian Hebrew didactic debate poems, those of
Dunash, the disciples ofMenahem, and Yehudi ben Sheshat, the disciple
of Dunash, we already encounter harsh invectives. Ibn Sheshat's mockery
of Ibn Kapron, playing on the Latin and Romance meaning of his name,
reveals a harshness that is not deterred from resorting to personal insults
in order to disqualify the adversary.
The vagabond poet Isaac Ibn Khalfun wrote harsh satires against the
world and destiny, as well as against themen of his generation in general.
But he went beyond that,mercilessly attacking his father-in-law when
trying to divorce his wife.48
Samuel Hanagid has some very intense verses directed against spe
cificfoes such as Ibn cAbb?sor Ibn ab?M?s?, rejoicingat theirdeath;we
must bear in mind that his own life was in danger as long as these
enemies were alive.49 He directed invective also against abuses within the
Jewish community, as in his satire of an ignorant master of talmudic
studies.50 Also to be taken into consideration in this connection is the
well-known series of short verses describing an apple included in the
d?w?n.51

Solomon Ibn Gabir lwrote some satirical poems against themen of

his time in general52 (as was common in Arabic poetry),53 plagiarists,54
and bad poets.55 In some of themore concrete passages,56 it is not easy to
knowwhom he is attacking.The best example of invectiveisprobablyhis
critical remark against Samuel Hanagid's poetry, which he calls "colder
than the snow of the Sierra Nevada."57 Some of the expressions and
used Todros and Phinehas can be found in Ibn Gabirol's
images by
poems, as when he speaks of throwing lances,58 or compares his poetry to
a a
sharp sword.59 In all these satires is tragic, almost cosmic element, that
seems to reflect profound problems in the poet's soul, far from the earthy
humor of the debate with which we are concerned.
We would not expect to find invectives among Judah Halevi's poems,
since they would not have been in character for him. But during his stay
in al-Andalus, he did write harsh satires against the rich and ignorant
men of Seville.60
 Hebrew Invective Poetry 63

Moses Ibn Ezra dedicates the sixth part of his cAnaq to twenty-four
satirical poems on the wickedness of friends and of Destiny. In his exile,
he also wrote many complaints against his fate and about the ignorance of
the men of his generation; these must be classified as satires rather than as
true invectives.
When writing his Kit?b al-muh?dara wa-'l-mudh?kara in his later years,
he saw satire as a kind of excess, a consequence of the uncontrolled
release of the choleric temperament thatmay be observed in poems by
Ibn Gabir l, Ibn Balcam, or Ibn Sahl, and in some of his own poems, which
he now felt ashamed for having composed. Of Ibn Gabir l, he said:

He wrote satirical poetry, and did so in an original way. Though a phi

losopher by nature and knowledge, his choleric soul had uncontrollable
power over his intellect.His uncontrolled temper led him to insult themighty
and to offend them, without excusing their faults. (Kit?b al-muh?dara
wa-'l-mudlt?kara, 38r)

Other poets, such as Ibn Balcam of Toledo, were similarly criticized

for inclining toward invective:

[But he was] a man whose pride affected his philosophic nature and the
balance of his character: nobody escaped his snares or avoided all the insults
that came to his mind; he exposed them in theworst manner, as is obvious to
anyone who reads his works, (ibid., 40r-40v)

About Ab? cAmr Ibn Sahl, he wrote:

He could move one to pain with his elegies and hurtwith his satires. In hij?\
he did not control his passions, but let absolutely free.He directed itabove all
against all thosewho plagiarize and abuse literature,pretending to be poets.
In describing their attitude, he made people laugh and evoked mirth as he
uncovered their lies. However, ifhe had restrained himself, itwould have
been much better forhim. (ibid., 41v)

Recalling the poetry that he himself had written in earlier times, he

says:
As for invective and mocking poetry, they are outside the little that can
be called good and they are within the much that can be considered
mischievous. I did not practice them very much, and I do not like to recall
them. They may be seen as a juvenile mistake, like love poetry, some witty
poems, and muwashshafy?t.(ibid., 57r)

However, he maintains that he has not written any personal

invective:

None against any particular individual has ever passed my lips, even though
it is an easy thing, since it is easier to destroy than to build, (ibid., 57r)
64 ANGEL S?ENZ-BADILLOS

He based his critique of hijtf on general ethics rather than on religion,

on Plato and other ancient Greeks rather than on Torah; on the other
hand, he also referred to it as a desecration of the holy tongue.61
Abraham Ibn Ezra iswell known for his satirical wit. In his case, this
seems to reflect his personal attitude and nonconformity with respect to
the society of his time. However, the characters that appear in his poems
are of men rather than specific individuals.
general types
Ifwe seek series of poems in Andalusian Hebrew poetry, the only
kindwe findis seriesofwordplays thatallow thepoet todisplayhis skill,
like the various descriptions of the apple made by Samuel Hanagid and
his guests, or the literary competitions inwhich Judah Halevi and other
poets were involved. But we never find similar to the chain of
anything
personal attacks and mutual invectives found in Todros's d?w?n.
Therefore, we are not able to see in the Andalusian Hebrew poetic
tradition a direct model for the debate between Todros and Phinehas.
Hebrew invective poetry was not particularly cultivated in al-Andalus.
Even if theHebrew writers ofMuslim Spain were able to find examples of
invectives inArabicpoetry, particularly that of theMuslim East, they did
not imitate that aspect of Arabic literature during the Golden Age.
Though theHebrew authors of thirteenth-century Christian Spain contin
ued many of thetraditionsof thepreceding epoch, theyalso soughtother
models in a different direction.

C. ROMANCE INVECTIVE POETRY

In Toledo, where the debate between Todros and Phinehas took place,
there was a majority of Christian settlers, alongside Muslims, Mozarabs,
and Jews, who were living fully according to the current fashions of
Romance literature. Two centers must be considered the sources of
influence on Alfonso's court: Provence, with its already long tradition of
troubadour poetry in the language of Oc, and the
Galician-Portuguese
center in the northwest.62 This second center doubtless came into being
thanks to the pilgrimages of noblemen and Proven?al troubadours to
Santiago de Compostela, though local poets also contributed with their
own literary genres and traits.
About the origin of Proven?al poetry, there has been and continues to
be a significant debate among scholars as to whether itsmodels were
Arabic or Latin poetry.63 In any case, the court of Alfonso the Learned
was visited by many Proven?al more
troubadours,64 and still by trou
badours and joglars from Galicia. The king wrote his own poetry in
Galician, which became the language of lyric poetry in Castile and Leon.
The Romance poetry that was heard and written in Toledo in this
also had an tradition of satire and
period important invective poetry that
 Hebrew Invective Poetry 65

could not have been unknown to anyone who lived at the court and
breathed the intellectual air of the age. The poems thatwe are discussing,
in theirsatireand insult,apparentlyemploy thesame tone found in the
Proven?al-Catalan personal sirventes and in the literary sirventes that often
include debates among the troubadours.65 They also have many elements
in common with the Galician-Portuguese cantigas d'escarnho e de mal dizer,
which frequently included attacks against other poets. In both traditions,
it was usual to express rivalry in poetic debates, as was the case in
classical Greco-Latin poetry since antiquity.66 It is very likely that the
most immediate models for this poetry may be found in the Galician
Portuguese poetry that played so important a role in the court of
Alfonso X,where thekinghimselfandmany ofhis nobles cultivatedthis
kind of poetry.67 We must recognize that although this poetry reaches a
level of impudence that is not usual inHebrew poetry, the language is still
moderate in comparison with the usual obscenities and rudeness of the

"cantigas de burla" of this time.68

The poetry of the troubadours knew several kinds of poetic genres,
including debates.69 The closest model for this kind of continuous debate
would be the Proven?al tens?, a series of burlesque compositions inwhich
two poets attacked each other in interchanging strophes, the words of
which could include obscenities.70 The number of strophes was not fixed,
but itwas usually not under four, concluding with two shorter strophes
called tornadas. Itwas probably a spontaneous outgrowth of jogral prac
tices; but often the authors were aristocrats who used the form as a way of
expressing their longing for freedom.71 Though the contents of such
debates vary, theyoftenincludea discussion of therelativequalityof the
two poets' verses.
Looking at the corresponding form in Galician-Portuguese literature,
"the ten??o is a poem in dialogue form, derived from the Proven?al tens?,
and, like its model, devoted in essence to a discussion of political,
historical, literary, or moral problems, but most frequently reduced to an
a
exchange of opposing views at very personal level, ifnot outright to an
exchange of insults."72 It has been observed that the ten??o had its golden
age in Toledo during the reign of Alfonso the Learned, that is, between
1250 and 1280, when Todros was a young courtier.73
In a ten??o between Joan Perez D'Avoin and Joan Soarez Coelho, both
a or
poets mock minstrel who cannot sing play the lute, and never had
any talent.74 Derision of minstrels for lack of poetic talent was frequent in
the thirteenth century. Alfonso Eanes do Coton ridicules Suer' Eanes,
a one of his verses that had a
saying that minstrel read good rhyme, and
all doubted that he could really be its author, since he "nunca cantar eguai
nen rimou."75 Pero da Ponte mocks the same Eanes,
saying that "non sab' el
muito de trobar."76 The Portuguese minstrel Louren?o was often ridiculed
66 ANGEL S?ENZ-BADILLOS

for trying to become a troubadour; but he was very much appreciated in

the court of Alfonso X, and he wrote many ten?aos using thewell-known
themes of lack of talent and the corresponding insults.77 In one ten??o,
with the Eanes, a
Louren?o disputes poet Rodrigu' Portuguese nobleman,
disparaging his poetic ability and praising his own.78 In another ten??o,
with Joan Garcia de Guilhade, the latter says to Louren?o:

Ves, Louren?fo], ora m'assanharey,

poys mal i enten?as; e te farey
o citolon na cabe?a quebrar!79

In a new ten??o, Joan Soarez Coelho says to Louren?o:

e tu dizes que entenz?es faes

que poys non riman e son desiguaes.80

Joan d'Avoin says to the same Louren?o:

ben tanto sabes tu que ? trobar

ben quanto sab'o asno de leer.81

Pero Garcia says to Louren?o:

que de trobar nulha rem non sabedes,

nin rrimades nen ssabedes iguar.82

An important aspect of the Proven?al and Catalan satires and invec

tives is that even when the poets insulted one another mercilessly (?s in
the case of Guerau de Cabrera to theminstrel Cabra), there was not real
was a kind of amicable play. The rude
animosity; the whole mockery
was not meant to be taken too seriously, for its real objective
language
was to arouse laughter.83 The same occurred in Galicia.84 Among the
poets of Galicia, it is easy to find a single person writing pious hymns and
verses that are satirical or obscene as a kind of literary fashion or
entertainment.85 In these ways, too, our debate seems to be close to
Romance invective poetry.
Where arewe toplace our poetic debate in the lightof thepreceding
considerations? On the one hand, we are far from the original world of
the old Arabic invective, with itsmagic character; poetry here is not a
an enemy. But the
weapon against possibility cannot be excluded that this
old poetry of the bedouin typemay still be in the background of the
debate. Nevertheless, since no clear model of such a debate can be found
in the Hebrew poetry of al-Andalus, we would have to explain how the
Hebrew poets of thirteenth-century Christian Spain could receive an old
Arabic influence that had not been incorporated into Hebrew poetry
during the Golden Age of al-Andalus. On the other hand, the Hebrew
 Hebrew Invective Poetry 67

debate thatwe have analyzed here seems inmany ways to be closer to the
Romance type of invective than to the Arabic one.
Nevertheless, we cannot exaggerate the similarity of our debate with
the extant types of tensones or ten??os inRomance poetry. Though the tone
may be sim?ar and the invectives may be alike, the Romance composi
tions follow their own manners and usages, which are different from
those of this particular Hebrew debate. The formal differences are signifi
cant: the metric techniques of Todros and Phinehas, their use of verse
and the quantitative meter in numerous mono
patterns and rhymes,
rhymed short compositions all denote Andalusian origin.86 In these
respects, the poems continue to be faithful to their literary roots. The
contrast with the comparatively small number of accentual-syllabic
minstrels and troubadours is very clear.
strophes used by contemporary
We can only describe our present debate as a hybrid type of composi
tion, representing the polycultural ambience of Toledo at that time.
Can we imagine a young Jewish poet in the court of Alfonso the
Learned saying to another Jewish poet: "de trobar nulha rem non sabedes"!
(You don't know anything about composing poetry). No wonder if,after a
silence, he would y*i ysn i?ni ("Is no word or sound
reply:
left in your mouth?" i.e., Are you speechless?)87

Department? de Hebreo
Universidad Complutense de Madrid

NOTES
The research for this article was made a grant from the Direcci?n General
possible by
de Investigaci?nCient?ficay T?cnica of theSpanishMinisterio de Educaci?n y Ciencia. I
wish toexpressmy gratitudetoProfessorR. Scheindlinforthestylisticrevisionof thispaper
and for his excellent suggestions for its improvement.
1. D. ed., Gan nameshalim vehahidot (DTw?n of Don
Yellin, Tadros son of Yehuda

Abu-l-c?fiah) (Jerusalem, 1932), 2,1, pp. 22-30 (nos. 479-513). The poems are quoted here
to their numbers in Yellin's edition, since the previous edition by Moses Gaster
according
was merely a facsimileof themanuscript. The exchange of poems had been editedwith
shortnotes by I.Davidson, "War and Peace" [Hebrew],Tarbiz2 (1931):90-100. Inhis edition,
to the poems. The topic of Jewish satire
Yellin provides important notes and commentaries
and invective has not been systematically studied. For a specific case of it, see J. H.

Lehmann, "Polemic and Satire in the Poetry of theMaimonidean Controversy," Prooftexts 1

(1981):133-51.
2. Cf., for example, S. Bernstein, Mizrah uma'arav 4 (1930): 94-104; H. Brody, Yedi'ot
hamakhonleheqer hashirahHaHvrit1 (1936),1-94;Y. Baer,Zion 2 (1937): 19-55;H. Schirmann,
Hashirahha'ivntbiSfaraduveProvans[Hebrewpoetry inSpain and Provence]Oerusalem and
TelAviv, 1960),2, pp. 366-448; J.Targarona,HelmanHca36 (1985):195-210;A. S?enz-Badillos,
 68 ANGEL S?ENZ-BADILLOS

IV Congreso Internacional "Encuentro de las tres culturas" (Toledo, 1988), pp. 135-46; A. Doron,
TodrosHalevi Abulafia:A HebrewPoet inChristianSpain [Hebrew], 1989.
3. B. Chapira, "Contribution ? l'?tude du divan de Todros Ben Iehouda Hal?vi
Aboulafia," Revue des ?tudesjuifs6 (1941/45):26 f.
4. See E. Hazan, PoetryandHalakha [Hebrew] (RamatGan, 1991),pp. 27?.
5. "Der Dichter Pinehas ha-Levi,"MGWJ 20 (1871):455-59.
6. Yellin, 1, pp. 126 ff.,no. 397 and Todros's no. 398; cf. Schirmann, 2, Hashirah,
reply,
pp. 449-53.
7. I have discussed these panegyrics inmy paper "Poetas menores de la corte Alfonsi/'
Internacional sobre la Cultura Hispano-Judia "El mundo cultural en la
Congreso judio Espa?a
alfonsi"(TelAviv, 1994) (inpress).
8. In his notes, Yellin (2, 2, p. 29) divides nos. 482-513 into five parts: 1. 482-90, about
the arrow; 2. 491-98, about the son and daughter of poetry; 3. 499-500, about the stones and
4. 501-6, about the waters; 5. 507-13, about who has written better poems.
pearls;
9. Schirmann, Hashirah 2, p. 449.
10. See P. Dronke, TheMedieval Lyric,2d ed. (Cambridge,1977),pp. 207ff.
11. P. Bee, Burlesque et obsc?nit? chez les troubadours: Pour une
approche du contre-texte
m?di?val(Paris,1984),pp. 7ff.
?
12. See . 4: ona^ nun Ti?n, "before that time, my wrath was
burning against
poetry."
13. Yellin suggests that in cases when a poem in the dTw?n consists of a single verse, it

may be that the dTw?n preserves only the first verse of a longer composition. There is no way
to prove such a supposition, and it is unnecessary.
14. See no. 507.
15. Shalem: nos. 482, 483, 485, 489, 502-4; mahir: 484, 486-88, 494, 505-6, 509; merubbe:
492, 493, 495-501, 507, 510-13; mishqal hatenu'ot: 490, 491, 508.
16. Schirmann, Hashirah 2, p. 449.
17. See the line by the aristocrat David Ibn Shoshan against Todros and his father, who
was already dead by that time: "Due to the defects of the crippled, I declare improper the
son, / who himself is small, a severe illness" (no. 475).
18. However, such ridicule was frequent in old Arabic invective poetry. Ibn D?w?d
al-Isbah?n? (d. 910) includes in his Kit?b al-zahra a chapter entitled "On Those Reviled for
Their Ugly or Blamed for Their Evil Qualities." See G. J. van Gelder, The Bad and
Physique
Poetry(Hija') inClassicalArabic Literature(Leiden, 1988),
theUgly:AttitudesTowardInvective
index on p. 157 and p. 57. On the other hand, it is not difficult to find parallels in the
sirventes or in the satirical of Galicia. Cf. .R. S?tira e invectiva
Proven?al cantigas Scholberg,
en la Espa?a Medieval (Madrid, 1971), p. 64. Bertr?n de Born wrote a sirventes
against
Alfonso II of Aragon, c. 1185-87, him, among other things, for being thin. See ibid.,
mocking
a a minstrel called Saco
p. 19. Fern?n P?ez de Tamalancos, Galician-Portuguese poet, derides
on account of his great body and his lack of musical talent; see nos. 132-33 of the Cantigas
d'escarnho e de mal dizer dos cancioneiros medievais ed. M. Rodrigues
galego-portugueses, Lapa
(Coimbra, 1965); the Cantiga no. 103 of the same collection is directed against a lawyer, "que
era manco d?a perna e ?opegava del? muito"; others refer to someone who cannot see

(no. 74) or hear (no. 105)well.

19. Remember what l said about himself:
Ibn Gabir "I am despised in your eyes
because I am small" in H.
Brody and H. Schirmann, Solomon Ibn Gabir l: Secular Poems

[Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1974), p. 34, no. 60, v. 2. We refer to this edition below as B-S.
20. Against the accepted usage, he changes the rhyme on this occasion.
21. Mocking the opponent's lack of poetic faculty is common to most literatures. On

hijtf against poets

in the Arabic tradition, cf. van Gelder, pp. 50, 76, etc. In the dTw?n of Ab?
Nuw?s prepared by Hamza al-Isfaham, there is a subdivision of the chapter on hij?3
 Hebrew Invective Poetry 69

dedicated to such against poets. In Romance it is also In the second

compositions frequent.
half of the twelfthcentury,theCatalan noble poet Guerau de Cabrera addresses an
.. . non sabs balar ni
ensenhamen to the
joglar Cabra, saying: "mal saps viular e pitiz chantar
a guiza de juglarguascon" See Scholberg,p. 22.
trasgitar
22. Only two verses answering Todros's four. The first is full of images from the
classicalperiod; the second includes a clear quotation from Judg. 20:16.
23. See his note in Yellin, 2,1, p. 33. Sexual are well
language and obscene expressions
known inArabic invective poetry; cf. van Gelder, index of subjects, s.v. "obscenity," p. 155.
in his sirventes against the non a
In Romance literature: Bergadan, bishop of Urgel, says "q'ei
cotilosen la pel." See Scholberg,p. 28. The Cantiga no. 225 published by Rodrigues Lapa
mocks the sexual of Domingo Caorinha, obscene details; see also
impotency including many
no. 232.KingAlfonsoX, ina cantigademal dizer,playswith theweapons of aMuslim and his
sexual "e de mais ? pre?o que nunca erra / de dar gran con seu [small
organs: colpe tragazeite
spear]." See Rodrigues Lapa, pp. 46f.Cf. J.T. Snow, "The SatiricalPoetry ofAlfonso :A
Look at ItsRelationship to the 'Cantigasde SantaMaria'," inAlfonsoX ofCastile, theLearned
An International Symposium, Harvard 17 November 1984, ed.
King, 1221-1284: University,
F. Marquez Villanueva Mass., 1990), pp. 110-31. See also Rodrigues Lapa,
(Cambridge,
no. 377, where it is said about Fernando Escalho "ouve sabor defoder, efodeu, le perdeu todo o
cantar por?n."
24. The Oxford ms., Bodl. Laud. Or. 115, f. 142v. presents in this verse some textual

readings thatmight be preferableto thoseadopted by Yellin,but thebasicmeaning is the

same.
25. Cf. Ibn Khalfun, xm&ytb, v. 14: nvmr* mirais... wwm in Itzhak Ibn Khalfun:
Poems [Hebrew],ed. A. Mirsky (Jerusalem,1961),p. 87.
26. A few decades earlier,Maimonides maintained that languagewas one of the
faculties thatwas given to human beings, distinguishinghim fromanimals, and that
thereforeitshould not be employed inappropriately,as inobscene expressions.According
to him, Hebrew is called "The Holy Language" because in it no word has been set to

designate either the male or the female organ of copulation, the act of generation, sperm,
urine, or excrement. See Guide of the Perplexed 3:8.
27. See thedescriptionof thebishop of Urgel writtenby Bergadan. Cf. Scholberg,
pp. 27 f. Onthis topic, see P. Bee, who analyzes convincingly several types of obscene
Proven?al compositions.
28. Homosexuality had been a very common topic of Arabic invective poetry since
Abbasid times, and sometimes to be the active partner was a motif of pride; see van Gelder,

p. 11. The same is true in Provence and Galicia; among the insults that Guillem de Bergadan
wrote against his neighbor Pons de Mataplana, he included his homosexuality, which by
this time was seen as a matter of personal offense; but when the latter died, the poet
a pp. 29 f. In the Galician-Portuguese
consecrated planto to him. See Scholberg, Cantigas
d'escarnho e de mal dizer, this accusation was
frequent, with tibe passive partner being a
ridicule. See Rodrigues nos. 101-4,116,131; nos. 363 and 379 deride
particular object of Lapa,
Fern?n Diaz's homosexuality.
29. Themotif appears in theTalmud, Sank 100b;but italso recallsan Arabic verse by
"I do not know... whether the ?1 Hisn are men or women." See van Gelder, p. 16.
Zuhayr:
A well-known verse
by al~Mutanabbl says: "Being feminine is no blemish for the sun, nor is
a matter of for themoon." About this topic, however, recall that "men
being masculine pride
are one step higher than women," Qur'?n 2:228.
30. "The daughtersof poetrywill be humbled" (Eccles. 12:4).
31. Asalready mentioned, the Oxford ms. ends the debate at this point. Possibly, the
to a different series on a similar topic, and this new series was
following poems belong
one.
arbitrarily joined to the preceding
 70 ANGEL S?ENZ-BADILLOS

32. Three biblical quotations frame the poem: Gen. 31:43 and Eccles. 12:4 in the first
verse, and Jer. 17:14 in the last.
33. Ezek. 47:3, probably understood as water that covers the ankles
meaning just
followingIbn Jan?h).
(Yellin's interpretation,
34. Exod. 22:5.
35. Scholberg,p. 11; cf.D. Worcester,TheArt of Satire (New York, 1960),pp. HE; J.
MiddletonMurry,TheProblemofStyle(London,1965),pp. 59 ff.:"it seems tome thatprose is
thepropervehicle of satire.Here again, thehistorical fact is thatmany of themost famous
satires have been written in verse. Horace and Juvenal among the ancients_Nevertheless,
themetrical form no more makes the satire of Horace-The content is
invariably prosaic,
whatever the form may be. Still, there is a meaning in the well-known tag of Juvenal, Tacit
indignatio versus, which makes
itworthwhile to consider for a moment the nature of the
satire_Tacit versus is true But personal
indignatio enough. indignation of this kind, though
in the basis of the satire, does not suffice for the real satirical attitude. Satire is not a matter of
resentment, but of impersonal condemnation."
personal
36. "Truesatire impliesthecondemnationof a societyby referencetoan ideal; itdiffers
from invective in that it is not an attack aimed by a particular at a particular. . . . The
comedian is not . . . satirist is indignant because there is an
indignant. [T]he impassable
the reality and his dream." Murry, p. 60.
abyss between
37. Cf. A. H?mori, On theArt ofMedieval Arabic Literature(Princeton,1975),p. 4.
38. See van Gelder, p. 1.
of Islam,new ed. (Leiden and London, 1971),
39. Cf.C Pellat, "Hidj?'," Encyclopaedia
3:352ff.
40. Cf. I.Goldziher,Abhandlungenzur arabischen PhilologieI (Leiden, 1896),"Ueber die
Vorgeschichte der Hig?-P sie," pp. 1-105. E. Far?s, L'honneur chez les Arabes avant l'Islam:
?tudede sociologie(Paris,1932),pp. 214ff.sees itmore as an invective
meant todishonor and
humiliate the adversary.
41. See, for instance, R. Blach?re, Histoire de la litt?rature Arabe des origins ? la du XVe
fin
si?cle de /.-C. (Paris, 1964), 2:380.
42. Ibid., pp. 417ff.
43. Ibid., 3:572ff.; 686ff.
44. al-'Askar?, SiruTatayn, 105; C. Pellat, "Hidj?\"
45. See van Gelder, pp. 92 ff.
46. Cf. van Gelder, p. 33. For the sexual and moral aspects that appear in the debate,
their consideration in Islamic society, see A. L. Al-Sayyid-Marsot,
and Society and the Sexes in
Medieval Islam (Malibu, Calif., 1979). This work includes, among other contributions:
F. Rosenthal, "Fiction and Reality: Sources for the Role of Sex inMedieval Muslim Society,"
pp. 3-22; J.A. Bellamy, "Sex and Society in Islamic Popular Literature," pp. 23-42; S. D.
Goitein, "The Sexual Mores of the Common People," pp. 43-62.
47. I.Davidson inhis Parody inJewishLiterature(repr.
New York, 1963),pp. 3ff.,states,
"It isonly in the twelfthcenturythatwe first
meet with parody inJewishliterature,"and he
mentions Abraham Ibn Ezra's and other parodies in prose and verse from that
epigrams
century.But his definitionof parody as an imitationof a grave or dignifiedwriting thatis
made ridiculous by themethod of treatmentleads him away from the typeof invective
under discussion here. On medieval Hebrew debates, see W. J.Van Bekkum, "Observations
on the Hebrew Debate inMedieval in Dispute Poems and in theAncient
Europe," Dialogues
and Medieval Near East, ed. G. J.Reinick and H. L. J.Vanstiphout (Leuven, 1991), pp. 77-90.
48. Seemy article "Yishaq ibnJalfuny Semuel ibnNagrella ha-Nagid,"Miscel?nea de
Estudios Arabes y Hebraicos 33,2 (1984): 21-43. Recall the harsh satire against the sons of Earth
in theeditionbyMirsky,pp. 133ff.
bnn "?3D,
49. See S?mu'el el campo de batalla Granada,
ha-Nagid: Poemas, I, "Desde 1038-56," ed.
and trans. Angel S?enz-Badillos and Judit Targarona Borras (Cordoba, 1990), pp. 30 ff.
 Hebrew Invective Poetry 71

50. See my article "Cinco poemas de Semuel ha-Nagid," 37 (1977): 317-26. In

Sefarad
his edition of the d?w?n, D. Jarden includes four poems as row nnp of ironic
("poems
mockery") (D?w?nShemuelhanagid:ben tehilim, 2d ed. [Jerusalem, 1985],pp. 226ff.).
51. Ed. Jarden,pp. 274ff.
52. D. Jarden,for instance,distinguishes, in his edition The SecularPoetryofRabbi
SolomonIbnGabir l [Hebrew] (Jerusalem,1984),a group of thirty-eight poems called ^tvj
row, vol. 1, pp. 252ff.; vol. 2, pp. 501 ff.Pagis, in his introduction to E. Romero's anthology
Selomo Ibn Gabir l: Poes?a Secular (Madrid, 1978),devotes a fewwords to IbnGabirol's
satirical poems, to "wu ira, on his departure from Saragossa, as a
alluding mainly complaint
against Destiny and themen of his generation. Romero devotes a whole section of her book
tohis "satiricalpoems" (pp. 79 ff.),
which she distinguishes fromhis "complaintsagainst
Destiny and poems of self-praise."
53. See ") ?, B-S no. 154, p. 95; d^ano vmw, B-S no. 191, pp. 114 f.
54. Cf. -poti^"u, for instance in nrbpw ib , B-S no. 167, p. 102.
55. For instance, lpt1*nn\ B-S no. 81, p. 43; vrab m nn btmv, B-S no. 115, pp. 65 f., etc.
56. For instance, -? "wmp, B-S no. 97, p. 54.
57. See my article "Selomoh ibn Gabir l y S?mu'el ha-Nagid: de la amistad al
in Corollas in honorem Iosephi Guillen Caba?ero (Salamanca, 1983),
rompimiento," Philologicas
pp. 575-601,
58. In mon nbw, 182, v. 13, p. 110.
B-S no.
59. In r?KWK ,B-S no. 113, v. 5, p. 63; TPn ^ * B-S no. 234, v. 1, p. 152.
60. See Yehuda ha-Levi: Poemas, trans. Angel S?enz-Badillos and Judit Targarona Borr?s
(Madrid, 1994),no. 43.
61. See van Gelder, pp. 94ff.
62. Provence is doubtless the better known. See, for instance, P. Bec, La lyrique fran?aise
? une typobgiedes genrespo?tiquesm?di?vaux (Paris, 1977-78);
au moyen age: contribution
Martin de Riquer, Los Trovadores: Historia literaria y textos (Barcelona, 1975); R. A. Taylor, La
occitanedu moyenage: Bibliographie
litt?rature s?lectiveet critique(Torontoand Buffalo,1977).
On Galician-Portuguese literature, see the introduction and bibliographyby Pilar V?zquez
inDiez Borque,Historiade las literaturas
Hisp?nicas no castellanas(Madrid, 1980),pp. 630ff.
63. Among therecentdefendersof the"Arabichypothesis,"seeMaria Rosa Menocal,
The Arabic Role inMedieval LiteraryHistory:A Forgotten Heritage (Philadelphia, 1987).
However, most scholars see in Latin literary traditions themain explanation of the origin of
that poetry. P. Dronke, Medieval Latin and the Rise of European Love-Lyric, 2d ed. (Oxford,

1968), writes: "Innumerable scholars have claimed that writing poetry of amour courtois is a
convention that Provence and the rest of Europe borrowed from the Arabs. Such a claim

may involve a number of very different things-If itmeans that amour courtois is a 'new
that its notions and motifs and images occur so and in
feeling,' suddenly mysteriously
Western that they must have been borrowed, that basically the character of
Europe
secular songs is detenrdned from outside, by another culture, at one particular
European
point in time?then thewhole of thischapter isevidence to thecontrary"(p. 50).He admits,
however, that "there were fruitful interchanges between Arabic and Romance poets in
Spain
or thatsome of thepoets north of the Pyrenees could have had a certain amount of
acquaintancewith Arabic songs" (p. 54).
en Espa?a y Portugal (Madrid, 1977),pp. 181ff.
64. See C. Alvar, La poes?a trovadoresca
65. Cf.Mart?n de Riquer 1:58.
66. As inTheocritusor Virgil.This tendencyof poetry indialogue continuedduring
theMiddle Ages in the literatureof conflictus.
67. See, forinstance,the ten??oofAlfonsoXwith Pai Gomes Charinho inno. 303 of the
collectionofRodrigues Lapa.
68. See .R. 133ff.
Scholberg, pp. 56ff., 67, 74ff; Bee, pp.
 72 ANGEL S?ENZ-BADILLOS

69. de Riquer 1:67, distinguishes five different kinds of debate poetry: tens?, partim?n,

tornejamen, cobla, and cobla tensonada.

70. Cf. de Riquer l:53ff. and 67. See also D. J. Jones, La tens?n proven?ale (Paris, 1934):
"La tens?n est un pi?ce dialogu?e, de nature satyrique, dans laquelle chaque interlocuteur
son dans des altern?es de m?me mesure, et sur les m?mes rimes que
exprime opinion copias
celles de son adversaire" (p. 50). The closest of the other types is the partim?n, inwhich the
on a topic to debate and on the to be defended
two agree in advance position by each, as a
play. In the tornejamen, several
kind of dialectical troubadours take part.
71. See Bee, p. 161: "Exemple de refoulement . . . comme d'ailleurs la
aristocratique
de nos contre-textes?"
plupart
72. F. Jensen,The EarliestPortugueseLyrics(1978),p. 126.
73. C. Alvar and V. Beltran, Antolog?a de la poes?a (Madrid, 1985),
gallego-portuguesa
pp. 44 ff. See also C. Alvar and A. G?mez Moreno, La poes?a Urica medieval (Madrid, 1987),
p. 61.
74. Cf. Scholberg,pp. 64 ff.Pedr' Amigo de Sevillewrites a cantigatoPero d'Ambroa
insultinghis virility;see ibid.
75. See Scholberg, p. 75.
76. Ibid.
77. Cf. Scholberg, pp. 78ff.
78. Cf. G. Tavani, Louren?o: Poesie e tenzoni (Modena, 1964), pp. 103 ff.
79. "See, Louren?o, now Iwill be angry since you are a very bad ten??o; and I
making
will break your instrument on your head!" Cf. Tavani, p. 92.
80. "And you say that you compose ten??os that do not have the same rhyme
or the
same meter," Tavani, p. 97.
81. "You know about trobar [composing as much as the ass knows about
poetry]
reading." p. 111.
Tavani,
82. "That you don't know anything about trobar [composing poetry]: not how tomake
or to
rhyme how make regular verses," Tavani, p. 135.
83. See P. Bee, Burlesque, pp. 161f.
84. As Men?ndez Pidal said, in these compositions, "el trovador zahiere e insulta a su

pero el no supone la menor animosidad. Estas burlas

juglar despiadadamente, desprecio
amistosas, son muy rudas, las veremos en uso entre los trovadores
aunque luego muy
See Poes?a de las literaturas rom?nicas, 6th ed. (Madrid, 1957),
gallegos." juglaresca y or?genes
a
p. 114; Scholberg, p. 23. Or, as Rodrigues Lapa says, "Como constante dessa poesia, sempre
estocada individual, ou directa ou mais ou menos velada, conforme as regras do bom
humor" (p. xi).
85. Scholberg, p. 52.
86. As iswell known, Todros made other attempts to imitate the strophic forms used
as in the case of the cane?, which he for his poem nan
by the Proven?al troubadours, adopted
aw ,written in honor X. The poem was published H.
of Alphonso by Brody, "G?r
telgedichtedes Todros Abu-rAfija," Mitteilungen des Forschungsinstitut
?r hebr?ische
1 (1933): 92-93; and D. Yellin, Gan hameshalim, II, 2, shirei ezor no. 48, p. 56. Both
Dichtung
authors recognize that this is not a muwashshah. See J.Targarona, "Todros ben Yehudah ha
Levi Abulafia, un poeta hebreo en la cortede Alfonso X el Sabio," Helmantica36 (1985):
195-210, and A. S?enz-Badillos, "Las moaxajas de Todros AbuTafiah," Actas delW Congreso
Internacional "Encuentro de las Tres Culturas (Toledo, 1988), p. 136.
on
The result reached by our analysis dovetails nicely with that of Prof. R. Scheindlin
the stories of Jacob ben Eleazar, another thirteenth-century Toledan Hebrew writer; see his
article "The Love Stories of Jacob ben Eleazar. Between Arabic and Romance" [Hebrew] in
 Hebrew Invective Poetry 73

World Congressof JewishStudies,Division C, vol. 3 (Jerusalem,

Proceedingsof theEleventh
1994), pp. 16-20. He comes to the conclusion that the narratives cultivated by Jacob ben
Eleazar, which belong to quite a different genre from the one that concerns us here, are a
kind ofhybrid literature;thoughhaving clearprecedents inArabic andHebrew literature
of
reflect the spirit of Romance literature.
al-Andalus, they nevertheless
87. As Todros says in poem no. 507, v. 1.