# Deciphering Disregarded Verses: Ibn Nubāta's (d. 768/1366) Unique bullayqa in Two Autographs by Ibn Ḥağar al-cAsqalānī (d. 852/1449)

Hakan Özkan

► To cite this version:

Hakan Özkan. Deciphering Disregarded Verses: Ibn Nubāta's (d. 768/1366) Unique bullayqa in Two Autographs by Ibn Ḥağar al-cAsqalānī (d. 852/1449). Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asiatiques, 2025, 79 (1), pp.75-99. 10.1515/asia-2025-0038. hal-05465873

HAL Id: hal-05465873

https://hal.science/hal-05465873v1

Submitted on 9 Feb 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Research Article

Hakan Özkan*

# Deciphering Disregarded Verses: Ibn Nubāta's (d. 768/1366) Unique *bullayqa* in Two Autographs by Ibn Ḥağar al-ʻAsqalānī (d. 852/1449)

https://doi.org/10.1515/asia-2025-0038

Received May 11, 2025; accepted June 18, 2025

**Abstract:** This study examines a little-known *bullayqa* – a playful variant of the *zağal* – by Ibn Nubāta al-Mişrī (d. 768/1366), preserved solely in two draft manuscripts (*muswadda*) compiled by the famous ḫadīt-scholar Ibn Ḥağar al-ʻAsqalānī (d. 852/1449) himself, in which he collected additional poems beyond Ibn Nubāta's established *dīwān*. Absent from the *dīwān*, the *bullayqa* survives through the autographs of Ibn Ḥağar, which, by his own repeated attestations, are drawn largely from Ibn Nubāta's original autographs. It is reported that Ibn Ḥağar admired Ibn Nubāta's calligraphy and sought to emulate his script, cultivating a handwriting style that – while aesthetically refined – poses significant challenges to paleographic analysis, particularly in a *muswadda*. The article opens with a concise overview of the literary history of the *bullayq*, Ibn Nubāta's involvement with this form, a short analysis of Ibn Ḥağar's autographs, followed by a critical edition of the poem, a translation, and finally a close textual commentary. Facsimiles of Ibn Ḥağar's autographs accompany the paleographic study.

**Keywords:** *zağal*; *bullayq*; Ibn Nubāta; Ibn Ḥağar al-ʻAsqalānī; Mamluk poetry; vernacular strophic poetry

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<footnote>*Corresponding author: Hakan Özkan, DEMO, Aix-Marseille Université, 29 Avenue Robert Schuman, 13100 Aix-en-Provence, France; and IREMAM, 5 rue du Château de l'Horloge, 13097 Aix-en-Provence, France, E-mail: hakan.ozkan@univ-amu.fr. https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2557-9797</footnote>
# 1 Synchronicities – the *bullayq* and the Emergence of the Eastern *zağal*<fnref n="1" />

The historical origins of Eastern *zağal* present a complex challenge for scholars, largely due to the paucity of surviving documentation that limits our ability to reconstruct its early development with precision.<fnref n="2" /> The earliest extant references to Eastern *zağal* appear in the late 6th/12th or early 7th/13th century, at a time when this poetic form seems already well established and widely practiced, particularly within the cultural milieus of the Ayyubid and Artuqid courts in Syria and northern Mesopotamia. Contemporary poets vying for patronage were expected not only to excel in the traditional *qaşîd* form but also to demonstrate competence in newer, innovative genres such as the *muwaššah* and *zağal*.<fnref n="3" /> Similar patterns can be observed in Egypt during the same period, where *zağal* appears to have enjoyed considerable favor. The testimony of the historian al-Udfuwī, writing from Edfu in Upper Egypt, further attests to the spread of *zağal* beyond Cairo, indicating that it was already practiced in Upper Egypt by the 7th/13th century, if not earlier. This geographical diffusion, coupled with the genre's Andalusian origins, underscores its remarkable dissemination across the Arabic-speaking world during that period.<fnref n="4" />

Among the earliest poets associated with Eastern *zağal*, two figures stand out: Ibn an-Nabīh (560–619/1164–1222), an Egyptian poet and senior chancery official, and al-Ġa‘barī (d. 623/1226), son of a judge and governor of Damascus under al-Malik al-‘Ādil (538–615/1145–1218). Both appear to have played a pioneering role in the development of the genre, at least as far as current sources allow us to determine.<fnref n="5" /> Alongside them, poets such as al-Qawsān and an-Nūšādir (or an-Nušādir), active in the early 7th/13th century, left their mark particularly on the subgenre known as *bullayq*, often regarded as a distinctively Egyptian form of *zağal*.<fnref n="6" /> A subgenre to which the Ibn Nubāta poem analyzed here belongs.

Modern scholarship on the *bullayq* has documented multiple readings of the term *bilāl*, reflecting the ambiguity of its orthography. Variants such as *ballīq*, *balīq*, and *billīq* appear in various studies to this day.<fnref n="7" /> However, since Hoenerbach’s 1955 publication of *Şafiyyaddīn al-Ḥillī’s* (677–750/1278–1349) *Kitāb al-‘Ātil al-ḥālī*

<footnote n="1">1 I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Nefeli Papoutsakis, whose invaluable insights greatly contributed to clarifying several nuanced issues in the readings and translations.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 Larkin 2006: 201.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 Al-Qurayšī 1977: II: 120–128; Fahraddīn 2010: 120–128.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 For example the *zağal*-poet Hüd b. Muḥammad al-Udfuwī (d. ca. 670/1272), al-Udfuwī 1966: 705.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">5 Ibn aš-Ša‘ār 2005: VII: 9–21, al-Qurayšī 1977: II:37.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 Özkan 2022: 339–350.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 For ex. *ballīq*: Guo 2017: 189–200, *balīq*: Haydar 1989: 192, *billīq*: Lagrange 2024.</footnote>
wa-l-muraḥḥaṣ al-ġālī, the vocalization *bullayq* has been established as the author-
itative reading.<fnref n="8" /> The plural is *balālīq*, while an individual poem is termed *bullayqa*
(pl. *bullayqāt*). Occasional deviations from this terminology are attested, as in the
autograph examined here, where the individual poem is referred to as *bullayq*.<fnref n="9" />

Al-Ḥillī appears to be the earliest Arabic literary figure to define this zağal subtype. His definition describes the *bullayq* as comprising humorous or licentious compositions:

وقد قسمه [الزجل] مختبر عوها على أربعة أقسام يقرق بينها بمضمونها المفهوم، لا بالآوزان والزلزوم؛ فلقيوا ما تضمن الغزل والنسب الخضرني والزفرني زجلا وما تضمن الهزل والخلاعة والإحماض بليقا وما تضمن الهجاء والثلب قرقيا وما تضمن المواظب والحكمة مكفر.

The originators of the *zağal* divided it into four categories, distinguished by their content rather than by fixed metrical patterns. Thus, they called *zağal* that which contains elements of love poetry, romantic elegy, wine poetry, and floral verse; *bullayq* that which contains jest, licentiousness, and lighthearted entertainment; *qarqī* that which contains invective and blame; and *mukaffīr* that which contains moral exhortations and words of wisdom.<fnref n="10" />

From this definition two key insights emerge. First, al-Ḥillī uses the term zağal in a dual sense: both as a general term encompassing the four subtypes, and as a specific label for a subtype focusing on love and wine. Second, his typology is explicitly thematic rather than metrical or structural.

Contemporaries of al-Ḥillī, such as aş-Ṣafadī al-Barīdī (active late 13th–mid-14th century), affirm this classification. In his *Maqāma al-Qūṣiyya*, aş-Ṣafadī al-Barīdī states that the *bullayq* follows the structural pattern of the *zağal* ('alā *tartīb az-zağal*), and he highlights Egyptian poets' distinctive contributions to both forms, as well as to the *qarqī*.<fnref n="11" /> Later writers – such as Ibn Ḥiğğa, al-Muḥibbī, and al-Muqaddasī – incorporated al-Ḥillī's typology into their own discussions.<fnref n="12" />

<footnote n="8">8 Al-Ḥillī 1955: 10 and *passim*. This reading is corroborated by the oldest manuscript evidence, particularly by the codex held at the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, copied during the author's lifetime and based on an autograph: *Kitāb al-‘Ātil al-ḥālī wa-l-muraḥḥaṣ al-ġālī*, ms. Bayrische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. or. 528, fol. 51v (*bullayq*); ms. Istanbul, Beyazıt B5542/4, fol. 18r (*bullayq* fī ṣakwā mašaqqat aş-ṣawm), fol. 66v (*bullayq* ṭarīqat al-miṣriyyīn), fol. 67v (*bullayq* ṭarīqat al-baġādida).</footnote>

<footnote n="9">9 Ms. Göttingen 80 Cod. Ms. arab. 179, fols. 59r, ms. Reisülküttab 953, fol. 57v.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 Al-Ḥillī 1955: 10, see also aş-Ṣafadī al-Barīdī, *al-Maqāmāt al-ġalāliyya*, ms. Istanbul Laleli 1929, fol. 170v.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 Aş-Şafadī al-Barīdī, *al-Maqāmāt al-ġalāliyya*, ms. Istanbul Laleli 1929, fols. 170v–171r.</footnote>

<footnote n="12">12 Ibn Ḥiğğa 1974: 128; al-Muqaddasī, *al-Ġawhar al-maknūn*, ms. Escorial árabe 459, fol. 28r–28v; al-Muḥibbī 1867–1868: I:108–109.</footnote>
Unlike *qarqī* and *mukaffir*, whose use remained largely theoretical and confined to technical treatises, *bullayq* enjoyed wider circulation. It frequently appears as a title for poems in anthologies and biographical sources, often juxtaposed with *zağal*. Ibn Sa‘īd al-Mağribī (d. 685/1286), writing before al-Ḥillī, already knew the term *bullayq* and noted its popularity in the East. He cites a *bullayqa* by his contemporary al-Ḥawlī (d. ca. late 7th/13th century) addressing themes of wine and homoerotic desire, attesting to its early diffusion.<fnref n="13" /> In another work, Ibn Sa‘īd describes the *bullayq* as equivalent to the Andalusian *zağal*, noting its practice in Fusṭāt.<fnref n="14" /> Similarly, al-Udfuwī (d. 748/1347) lists *balālīq* alongside *azğāl* in his biographical entry on Ibn Daqīq al-‘īd (d. 702/1303), implying their distinction as separate poetic forms.<fnref n="15" /> Aş-Şafadī likewise differentiates the two in his biography of Šihābaddīn Ibn Faqllāh al-‘Umarī (d. 749/1349), describing him as a composer of *qaşā’id, arāğız, epigrams, dūbayt, muwaşşahāt, azğāl, and balālīq*.<fnref n="16" /> As-Saḥāwī reports similar information about Ibn al-Munağğim (d. 1410).<fnref n="17" />

Al-Ḥillī’s definition emphasizes humor (*hazl*) and licentiousness (*halā’a*) as the thematic core of the *bullayq*. Aş-Şafadī al-Barīdī specifies that the content of a *bullayqa* must be coherent and unified, adding that the *bullayq* focuses on humorous themes (*tulzamu fīhi muṭābaqat al-ma’nā wa-kulluhu hazl*). However, this humor could at times be so bold that his tongue would not comply in explaining it, and his sense of decency would not permit him to elucidate it because of the strength or crudeness of the humor (*lisānī mā tuṭāwi’unī ‘alā šarḥihi li-quwwat hazlihī*).<fnref n="18" /> Poets like al-Ḥillī, al-Qawsān (d. after 635/1237), an-Nūšāḍir (d. after 635/1237), al-Mi’mār (d. 749/1348), and Ibn Nubāta – whose *bullayq* forms the focus of this article – stand as representative figures of this literary tradition.

The *bullayq* also found its way into prose collections like *1001 Nights* and erotic works such as *al-Māğārāyāt*, where female characters recite *balālīq* to narrate their extramarital escapades.<fnref n="19" /> Beyond licentiousness, some *balālīq* adopt absurd or satirical tones, as seen in works by Ḥāriğ aš-Šām (fl. pre-1386)<fnref n="20" /> and Ibn Sūdūn (810–868/1407–1464).<fnref n="21" /> Others lament personal or social hardships with biting wit, exemplified by al-Mi’mār and aš-Šaraf Ibn aṭ-Ṭaffāl (d. 722/1322).<fnref n="22" />

<footnote n="13">13 Ibn Sa‘īd al-Mağribī 1983: 291.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 Ibn Sa‘īd al-Mağribī 1953: 365.</footnote>

<footnote n="15">15 Al-Udfuwī 1966: 583.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 Aş-Şafadī 1931–: VIII:255.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 As-Saḥāwī 1992: XI:40.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 Aş-Şafadī al-Barīdī, *al-Maqāmāt al-ġalāliyya*, fol. 171v.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">19 Anonymous 2021: 34, n. 1, 166–167, 218–219, 229–231.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 An-Nawāğī 1999: 329.</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 Ibn Sūdūn 1988: 80–117.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">22 Al-Udfuwī 1966: 456–457, Ibn Ḥağar al-‘Asqalānī 1993: III:192, aș-Şafadî 1997–: 661–662.</footnote>
Furthermore, the theme of sexuality is often intertwined with that of wine or drugs – *balālīq* on this subject are found in the *bullayqa* of Ibn Nubāta, al-Miʿmār,<fnref n="23" /> al-Ḥawli,<fnref n="24" /> aṣ-Ṣāḥib Tāğaddīn Ibn aṣ-Ṣāḥib Bahā’addīn b. Ḥinnā’ (640–707/1243–1308),<fnref n="25" /> and ‘Abdalkarīm as-Suhrawardī (aṣ-Ṣahrazūrī) al-Qūṣī (d. 720/1320).<fnref n="26" />

Thematically, the *bullayq* overlaps with the *zağal*, especially regarding wine, jest, and sensuality. This blurring complicates efforts to define the *bullayq* purely by content, as poetic practice and anthological classification often disregard rigid distinctions. Even formal boundaries prove porous: some *muwaššaḥāt* are misidentified as *balālīq* and vice versa. Examples from al-Miʿmār’s *Dīwān* and an-Nawāġī’s *Uqūd* underscore the fluidity of these labels.<fnref n="27" />

Egyptian poets in particular cultivated the *bullayq* as a hallmark of their playful, ironic sensibility – a connection noted by modern scholars such as Muṣṭafā Ṣādiq ar-Rāfiʿī, who attributed its inventiveness to “the sweetness of the Nile.”<fnref n="28" /> While al-Ḥillī acknowledged a Baghdad variant of the *bullayq*, his description contrasts it with the bold irreverence characteristic of the Egyptian form.<fnref n="29" />

## 2 Ibn Nubāta and his Involvement with Strophic Vernacular Poetry

Ibn Nubāta al-Miṣrī (686–768/1287–1366) is universally presented in Mamluk biographical literature as the pre-eminent littérateur of his generation and, in some assessments, of the entire period. His upbringing in Cairo within a family of ḥadīṭ-scholars from Mayyāfāriqīn afforded him early access to learned circles. Immersion in these milieus produced a man of letters who combined impeccable command of classical Arabic with an almost playful eagerness to test the limits of rhetorical virtuosity. The extant *dīwān* – preserved in several recensions, two of which were compiled by Ibn Nubāta himself and two others after his death by Badraddīn al-Baštakī (748–830/1347–1427) – offers a wide panorama of his poetic craft, ranging from panegyric *qaṣā’id* and elegiac *martiyyāt* to *ġazal* and *arāġīz*. Across this corpus Ibn Nubāta deploys *tawrīya*, *ġinās*, *isti’āra*, *iltifāt* and other devices in profusion, yet

<footnote n="23">23 Al-Mi‘mār 2018: 293–313</footnote>

<footnote n="24">24 Ibn Sā’īd al-Mağribi 1983: 265.</footnote>

<footnote n="25">25 Ibn Tağrībirdī 1984–: XI:57.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">26 Aṣ-Ṣafadī 1997–: III:137, aṣ-Ṣafadī 1931–: XXX:241–242; al-Udfuwī 1966: 334, Ibn Ḥağar al-‘Asqalānī 1993: X:400–401.</footnote>

<footnote n="27">27 An-Nawāġī 1999: 322–325, 327–331; al-Mi‘mār 2018: 289–293.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">28 Ar-Rāfiʿī 1940: II:156.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29 Al-Ḥillī 1955: 126, cf. Larkin 2006: 206–207.</footnote>
rarely at the expense of semantic precision – a balance that drew praise from critics such as aș-Șafadî, Tâğaddîn as-Subkî (728–771/1327–1370), and Waliyyaddîn Ibn al-ʻIrāqî (762–826/1360–1423).<fnref n="30" />

Indeed, aș-Șafadî’s appraisal of Ibn Nubāta is nothing short of effusive: he describes him as “unique in the elegance of his poetry, the sweetness of his expression, the excellence of his poetic compositions, the astonishing quality of his themes, the clarity of his language, and the gracefulness of his writing”.<fnref n="31" /> Nor does his admiration stop at verse: Ibn Nubāta’s prose, aș-Șafadî asserts, “embodies the pinnacle of eloquence. He followed [al-Qāḍī] al-Fāḍil, adopting his style; he extinguished the light of Ibn ‘Abdaẓẓāhir, leaving no favored place for him in the hearts of men”.<fnref n="32" /> Ibn Nubāta is primarily remembered as a poet – second in renown in his era only to Șafiyyaddîn al-Ḥillî (677–749/1278–1349) – yet he must also be recognized as one of the foremost exponents of ornate prose within the premodern Arabic literary tradition. Tâğaddîn as-Subkî included his handwriting in this eulogy: “If anyone in our century tried to equal Ibn Nubāta in poetry, prose, or handwriting, he would attempt something impossible and aspire to something that will in no way occur.”<fnref n="33" />

Alongside the inheritance of esteemed elite literature, the poet engaged – selectively but significantly – with the strophic genres that had become fashionable in Ayyubid and early-Mamluk urban settings. Learned poets of the eighth/fourteenth century, while continuing to regard the *muwaššaḥa* as the most dignified strophic structure, increasingly experimented with the *zağal*, whose vernacular coloring and intricate rhyme-scheme produced a different sonic effect, often employed in musical performance. Figures trained in the *adab* tradition, but also religious scholars – among them Ibn Ḩiġġa, Fahraddīn Ibn Makānis (745–794/1345–1393) and Ibn al-Ḥarrāṭ (777–840/1375–1436) – normally restricted themselves to one or two specimens, treating the form as an occasional display of ingenuity rather than a core mode of expression. It is plausible, therefore, that earlier masters of the *muwaššaḥ* such as Ibn Sanā’ al-Mulk, whose *Dār aṭ-ṭirāz* codified strophic poetics, or the chancery stylist al-Qāḍī al-Fāḍil (529–1134/569–1199), also tried their hand at *azġāl* now lost.

Ibn Nubāta conforms to this pattern. To our knowledge he composed eighteen *muwaššaḥāt* that confirm his comfort with the *fuṣḥā* leaning variant of strophic writing.<fnref n="34" /> Comparison of their prosodic architecture with his two *zağals* indicates that he considered the *muwaššaḥa* a more natural extension of his learned literary training. Ibn Nubāta’s first *zağal* is cited in its entirety – among other sources – in Ibn

<footnote n="30">30 For an extensive biography of Ibn Nubāta see Bauer 2009, and Bauer/Osigus/Özkan 2018: 11–142.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">31 Aș-Şafadî 1931–: I:311–312.</footnote>

<footnote n="32">32 Aș-Şafadî 1931–: I:312.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">33 Bauer 2008a: 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">34 Bauer 2008b: 64, n. 67.</footnote>
Ḥiġġa's *Bulūġ al-amal*, where it appears as a *muʻārada* (literary response) to the well-known *zağal* by Ibn an-Nabīh, which opens with *az-zamān saʻīd muwātī*. Ibn Ḩiġġa, who rarely quotes *zağals* in full, describes the poem as an unparalleled example of formal correctness.<fnref n="35" /> The composition is panegyrical in nature, praising the Ayyubids broadly while focusing on Abū l-Fidā' al-Malik al-Mu'ayyad (672–732/1273–1331). Linguistically, it adheres closely to *fuṣḥā*, exhibiting only minimal dialectal features; indeed, with slight modifications, the poem could be classified as a *muwaššaḥa*. Ibn Nubāta's decision to model his sole *zağal* on Ibn an-Nabīh's established exemplar, while avoiding heavy vernacular influences, indicates an engagement with the formal conventions of the genre without departing too far from classical norms. This choice may reflect an intention to align with contemporary literary fashions and to satisfy patronal expectations, while maintaining his commitment to the rhetorical and linguistic standards characteristic of his broader poetic oeuvre.<fnref n="36" />

Interestingly, Ibn Nubāta acted also as a referee in *zağal* competitions, that appear to have been a prominent feature of *zağal* practice during this period: a courtly episode at the *mağlis* of Abū l-Fidā' al-Malik al-Mu'ayyad (r. 710–732/1310–1331) illustrates Ibn Nubāta's authority in matters of poetic taste and genre conventions. On this occasion, the poet Ibn Muqātil performed a *zağal* beginning with the line *qalbī yuḥibb tayyāh*. At the conclusion of the performance, al-Ḥillī – present at the gathering and regarded, along with Ibn Nubāta, as one of the most refined stylists of the time – praised the text as *malḥūn bi-alf muʻrab*, a composition “inflected with a thousand elements of formal Arabic.” Ibn Nubāta, turning to the sultan and gesturing toward al-Ḥillī, repeated the expression *bi-alf muʻrab* with hardly veiled irony, suggesting that the excessive use of *fuṣḥā* contravened the vernacular spirit of the *zağal* form. The sultan reportedly received this comment with a smile, implicitly endorsing Ibn Nubāta's judgment.<fnref n="37" />

This anecdote, recorded in multiple literary sources, is instructive on several fronts. It reveals the degree to which the *zağal* had become integrated into the courtly culture of the Mamluk elite – a repertoire cultivated and appreciated by leading figures such as al-Malik an-Nāşir Muḥammad b. Qalāwūn, al-Malik al-Mu'ayyad, al-Ḥillī, Ibn Makānis, Ibn Ḥabīb, and aș-Ṣafadī. More specifically, it illustrates how Ibn Nubāta, though himself sparing in the use of dialectal features, was nonetheless able to invoke genre norms as a rhetorical strategy to critique competitors, in this case targeting al-Ḥillī's stylistic excesses. Notably, Ibn Nubāta's own surviving *zağal* is similarly limited in its use of colloquial Arabic. Yet, as the

<footnote n="35">35 Özkan 2022: 82–83.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">36 Özkan 2022: 267–287.</footnote>

<footnote n="37">37 Özkan 2022: 90.</footnote>
sources suggest, this did not preclude him from policing the boundaries of the form when it served to enhance his critical authority or courtly standing.

An important factor in the possible background of this anecdote is his relationship with al-Ḥillī, marked by mutual competitiveness and stylistic divergence. In his verdict on the poetic tribunal involving al-Amšāṭī, Ibn Nubāta again adopted a critical stance – perhaps colored by personal estrangement after an earlier friendship deteriorated when al-Amšāṭī’s fame eclipsed his.38 Ibn Nubāta thus appears not only as a masterful craftsman, but also as a discerning – and at times caustic – critic of strophic experimentation.

This brings us to Ibn Nubāta’s second *zağal*, a *bullayq* whose analysis will allow us to evaluate his own adherence to the conventions of *bullayq* poetry as outlined above. The poem is preserved exclusively in two draft autographs compiled by Ibn Ḥāġar al-‘Asqalānī (773–852/1372–1449), who augmented the *Dīwān* with additional poems, frequently sourced – as he repeatedly observes – from the author’s own autograph manuscripts.39 Ibn Ḥāġar’s admiration for Ibn Nubāta extended beyond his poetic compositions to his calligraphic skill: he sought to imitate the poet’s distinctive *nasḥ* and *nasta’līq* hybrid, and the *muswadda* preserves a calligraphy that is visually refined yet palaeographically challenging.40 That Ibn Ḥāġar deemed the poem worthy of rescue confirms the stature Ibn Nubāta enjoyed among fifteenth-century scholars and highlights the role of individual scribal choices in shaping the post-humous corpus. Absent from al-Baštakī’s *dīwān* and ignored by subsequent anthologists, the poem has survived thanks to Ibn Ḥāġar’s decision to gather additional poems – some of which, contrary to his own claims, were actually part of the established *dīwāns*.41 Ibn Ḥāġar’s drafts invite a palaeographic inquiry that can illuminate stages of authorial redaction and scribal mediation. The study of this unique *bullayqa*, through its orthographic, linguistic, and codicological features within Ibn Ḥāġar’s drafts, offers a window into Ibn Nubāta’s navigation of the tension between learned literary eloquence and the colloquial, thematic exuberance often expected in such popular forms. It also illuminates how scribal practices and the accidents of preservation determine our understanding of the strophic experiments of one of the Mamluk era’s most celebrated literary figures.

<footnote n="38">38 For example aș-Şafadî 1997–: I:292, Ibn Ḩiğğa 1974: 129–130.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">39 According to Bauer “Ibn Ḥāġar would profit from Ibn Nubātah’s manuscripts which he inherited from his father”, Bauer 2008a: 32. See also ms. Göttingen 80 Cod. Ms. arab. 179, fols. 21r, 21v, 27v, 32r and *passim*.</footnote>

<footnote n="40">40 As-Saḥāwī 1999: 287–288.</footnote>

<footnote n="41">41 See for ex. his laudatory *zağal* in ms. Reisülkuttab 953, fol. 58v.</footnote>
### 3 Ibn Nubāta's *bullayqa* in the Autographs of Ibn Ḥāġar

Šihābaddīn Ibn Ḥāġar al-‘Asqalānī (773–852/1372–1449) was born five years after the death of Ibn Nubāta. Yet despite this temporal distance, he appears to have been profoundly influenced by Ibn Nubāta’s literary legacy. Confronted with the overwhelming stature of Ibn Nubāta in the domain of adab, Ibn Ḥāġar seems to have felt eclipsed, prompting him to turn away from literary pursuits and instead dedicate himself to the study of ḥadīt, a field in which he would ultimately achieve distinction.<fnref n="42" /> Although Ibn Ḥāġar could not have known Ibn Nubāta personally, he had access to his manuscripts, including autograph copies he most likely inherited from his father. Moreover, he was acquainted with udabā’ who had known Ibn Nubāta directly – figures such as al-Baštakī, who undertook the compilation of Ibn Nubāta’s poetry, or the poet al-Qīrāṭī (d. 781/1379) who stood in his literary tradition. Ibn Ḥāġar regarded al-Baštakī’s collection as incomplete; in the introduction to his own supplement, he explicitly notes that much poetry had eluded the earlier compiler:

> This is what [I could assemble] from what escaped the collector of the poetry of the leading figure among the literati of the modern age (shaykh al-udabā’ al-muta’akhkirīn), Jamāl al-Dīn Ibn Nubātah. It includes texts that I found written by himself or by people who transmitted them from his manuscripts or who heard it from him... [it is] astonishing how much it is, though he who had collected [Ibn Nubātah’s poetry] before claimed comprehensiveness.<fnref n="43" />

Ibn Ḥāġar transcribed Ibn Nubāta’s *bullayqa* in two autograph manuscripts of his supplements to Ibn Nubāta’s dīwān, preserved respectively in the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen and in the Reisülküttab collection of the Süleymaniye Library (Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi) in Istanbul:

> Ms. Göttingen 80 Cod. Ms. arab. 179 is a mağmū’a in two parts, both transcribed by Ibn Ḥāġar himself while residing in Zabīd (Yemen) in 800/1397. The first part (fols. 2r–18r) contains an anonymous treatise on the art of writing and the science of letters or books, arranged in unnumbered chapters. The second part (fols. 21r–62v) is entitled Ziyādāt ‘alā d-dīwān; however, this title appears to be a later addition, as Ibn Ḥāġar mentions Ibn Nubāta by name in the incipit but does not cite the title explicitly. Ibn Ḥāġar’s supplementary material is likewise referenced by as-Saḥāwī, who records it under the title ad-Dayl ‘alā mā ġama’ahū al-Baštakī min naẓm Ibn Nubāta al-Miṣrī. As-Saḥāwī further notes that he had seen Ibn Ḥāġar’s additions both in the

<footnote n="42">42 Bauer 2008b: 60.</footnote>

<footnote n="43">43 Translation by Bauer 2008b: 61. On the same page Bauer notes the important caveat that al-Baštakī never claimed his compilation to be comprehensive.</footnote>
form of a *muswadda* and a *mubayyaḍa*; the manuscript under examination here is
evidently the *muswadda*, as indicated by its markedly rough and cursory script.<fnref n="44" /> The
*bullayqa* is situated on the folio 59r–v and carries the heading *lahu bullayq*.

The manuscript Reisülküttab 953, by contrast, is a non-composite codex. The
hand of Ibn Ḥağar in this manuscript is more legible, and the layout of the pages
exhibits a greater degree of organization, with fewer passages written in the margins
or inserted in free spaces. Overall, it presents a more orderly and deliberate textual
arrangement than that found in the Göttingen manuscript. Unlike the Göttingen
copy, Ibn Ḥağar introduces the poem with the phrase *wa-wağadtu bi-ḥaṭṭ al-Qīrāṭī*,
indicating that he accessed the poem through a manuscript written in the hand of al-
Qīrāṭī, a known disciple of Ibn Nubāta. This attribution suggests that Ibn Ḥağar’s
transmission draws directly on material stemming from Ibn Nubāta’s immediate
circle. The poem starts on fol. 57v and is interrupted by a different poem on fol. 58r
(his other *zağal*) and continues on fol. 58v.

4 The *bullaya: badā lī nathattak wa-rğa‘‘an at-talbīs*

4.1 Preliminary Observations on Linguistic Features

As a genre originating in al-Andalus, the *zağal* traditionally lends itself to the
incorporation of Andalusian expressions and usages, a practice that extends to
Eastern *zağals*. Ibn Nubāta adopts these features selectively, employing, for instance,
the first-person plural pronominal prefix *na-* to indicate the first-person singular, as
in *nathattak* (“I act shamelessly,” verse 1) and *namūt* (“I die,” verse 2). He also uses
the expression *aššū* (“what?”), attested as early as the works of Ibn Quzmān (d.
555/1160).<fnref n="45" /> Another staple of Andalusian usages is the diminutive that Ibn Nubāta
uses once in verse 22: *qalbī al-musaykir* (“my little tipsy heart”).

An unmistakable feature of the language of the *zağal* – arguably its principal
linguistic hallmark – is the omission of inflectional endings. In this poem, for
example, one finds *arğa’, at-tablīs, w-a‘ūd* etc. – all drawn from the *maṭla’* (the
opening verse).

The suppression of inflectional endings is also evident in the treatment of pro-
nominal suffixes, a phenomenon well attested across various dialects. On the one
hand, words ending in the vowels -u-, -a-, or -i-, or diphthongs -ay-, -aw- when
combined with the third-person singular pronominal suffix -hu or -hi, may be

<footnote n="44">44 Seidensticker 2005: 156–157.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">45 Corriente 1997: 16.</footnote>
realized in *pausa* (with sukūn); thus *kitābu-hu*, *kitāba-hu*, and *kitābi-hi* appear as *kitābu-h*, *kitāba-h*, and *kitābi-h*. In such cases, the orthography remains unchanged: *كتابه* serves as the written form for all these readings (e.g. ‘alayh in the second verse of the sixth strophe).

The contraction of the nominal inflectional vowel -u-, -a-, or -i- with the pro-
nominal suffix -hu may further yield the ending -ū or -u. Accordingly, *kitābu-hu*
becomes *kitāb-ū* or *kitāb-u*. In writing, this contraction is represented by َ. This
orthographic feature serves as a visual marker of *azğāl* and enables the distinction of
*azğāl* from *muwaššaḥāt*: it suffices to examine nouns, verbs, particles (such as انَّ), as
well as prepositions (such as مَنْ) and their endings. If forms like *كتابوا* or *كتابيهُ* (for
*کتابیه*), *مَنُّ* (for مَنْ), *انُّ* (for اَنَّ), or *کَنُّ* (for کَانَّ) occur frequently, it is highly probable that the
text in question is a *zağal*. These endings may be read both in their shortened and
lengthened forms. The *bullayqa* of Ibn Nubāta contains several of such contracted
forms, for example in verse 3: *mā'-ū*, in verses 22, 23, and 24: *aḥwāl-ū, ḫāl-ū, bi-afāl-ū*.
Note also his use of *ka-nn-u* (کان), which stands for *ka-anna-hu*, a form also attested in
other *zağals* of the period, often rendered as *کانو* or *کَنُّ*.

A further vocalization rule becomes evident when words in *pausa* are followed
by other words. Given the high frequency of *pausa* forms in *zağals*, the epenthetic
vowel -ə is, in certain instances, added to the word in *pausa* before words of CV
structure, particularly after words exhibiting the following patterns: CVCC, CVC, or
VC. For this reason, I represent these words with a *kasra* at the end, even though,
from a syntactic perspective, a different vocalization – such as a *damma*, a *fathā*, or
*nunation* – would ordinarily be expected, as exemplified in *ftīḥubbā* (verse 20), or
*al-waqfā* (verse 25).

Another dialectal feature is the reduction of the vowel -a- in the imperfect forms
of verbs of Form V: *yatafa* “alu > *yatfa* “al or *yštfa* “al. Such a form appears in the *maṭlaʿ*
(nathattak or nəthattak for natahattaku, “I drop pretenses” or “I act shameless”). The
initial vowel -a- is replaced by -i- or -ə- at the beginning of the verb. This same
vocalization of Form V in other *azğāl* shows that the two short syllables *yata-* or *tata-*
can be contracted into a long closed syllable *yšt-* or *tət-*, a pronunciation that likely
corresponds to contemporary Egyptian usage and was probably close to the histor-
ical pronunciation. This is corroborated by the vocalization of inflected verbs in
other *azğāl*, for instance in a *bullayqa* of al-Qawsān, where the rhyme word *yaḥsan*
or *yəḥsan* corresponds to *yaḥsunu* in standard Arabic with *-u-* as the second vowel.⁴⁶
In this respect, it resembles modern Cairene Arabic or, in some cases, Levantine
dialects, where certain verbs with *-u-* as the second vowel in the imperfect in *fuṣḥā*
are pronounced with *-a-* , such as *bərəd* – *yəbrad* (“to be/get cold”) for
*barada* – *yabrudu* or *baruda* – *yabrudu*, or *rəḥəṣ* – *yərḥaṣ* (“to be/become cheap”) for
standard Arabic *raḥuṣa* – *yarḥuṣu*.<fnref n="47" /> Moreover, it is not uncommon for long and short syllables to deviate from standard forms. The vocalization of certain syllables, in the absence of sufficient knowledge about the phonetics of the stylized dialects that characterize the language of *azğāl*, follows the conventions of standard grammars and lexica. In instances such as *يَزْرِي بِحَسْنِه* (verse 16), it is likely that *بِحَسْنِه* should be pronounced *bi-ḥusnuh* instead of *bi-ḥusnih*.

In addition to the adjustments mentioned above, I preserve the stylized dialect of the text as it appears in the autographs of Ibn Hağar. This includes, among others, the following cases:

- In dialect-influenced poems such as *azğāl*, *hamza* is a volatile element and may be omitted in any position. For example, in the word *وَأَرْضٍ* for *وَأَرْصَد* (verse 2) or *رَأْسٍ* for *رَاسٍ* (verse 5).

- If the preceding and following vowels are identical (including long vowels), *hamza* is not written and the two vowels are contracted: for example, *rayt* for *raʾayta* (verse 6).

- *Waṣla* is used (except with the definite article *al-* and forms such as *infaʾala*, *istaʾtaʾala*, *inflʿal*, *istifʿal*, etc.) if metrically required and added where necessary.

- The final vowel -ū arising from the third person singular pronominal suffix is retained as such.

Nonetheless, in some cases it was necessary to adjust the vocalization and, above all, certain forms of the edited text, particularly where *hamza* had to be adapted to meet metrical requirements, as in the following example: the article in the *محجوب* where meter requires a *hamza*, thus *المحجوب* (verse 16) or *البدری* (verse 18). Depending on metrical demands, *hamza* may be kept as in *بَأْفَعَلُو* (verse 24). Finally, and unsurprisingly, since Ibn Hağar refrains from supplying diacritic dots, he likewise refrains from vocalizing the verses, except in a few instances that are largely preserved as they stand, such as *مَا كَانَ قَبْلُ* in verse 9. In fact, these vocalized forms contribute to clarifying the metrical constraints that Ibn Hağar appears to have intended to signal.

## 4.2 Visual Presentation

From a visual perspective, a *zağal* may be presented in various formats, shaped in part by the individual preferences and practices of the scribes responsible for its transmission. Remarkably, even though Ibn Hağar’s autographs represents a draft, it nonetheless reflects a deliberate concern for the graphic arrangement of the *bul-layqa*. His presentation of the text reveals an attentiveness to the poem’s formal structure, as in both manuscripts he organizes the strophes in the following manner:

<footnote n="47">47 Woidich 2006: 63, Grotzfeld 1965: 30, 158.</footnote>
وأعود لذاك الحال واتبع مراد أبليس
قبل أن نموث حسرا
عسى نجذ نُصرا
بياض مع حمرا
وراس عنولي أنكيس

بدا لي نتهك وأرجع عن التلبيس
وأرصد حبيب قلبي
وأضرب رمل ماعو
وأجمع من الخذين
وأجعل هواه راية

## 4.3 Edition of the Text

It was sometime in 2020 that I first turned my attention to this poem as preserved in the Göttingen manuscript, presenting my initial readings at the meetings of the ALEA group in Münster. There, I had the invaluable opportunity to discuss the text with my colleagues, whose insightful comments consistently enriched my work. In the years that followed, the project of editing and translating the poem gradually fell into abeyance, until recent circumstances brought it back to my attention. During this period of dormancy, the Reisülküttab manuscript came to light. I was pleasantly surprised to find that, despite its still challenging legibility, Ibn Hağar's somewhat more careful hand in this manuscript confirmed the majority of readings I had originally proposed on the basis of the Göttingen manuscript. Particularly challenging to interpret is Ibn Hağar's habitual omission of diacritic dots, along with the nearly complete absence of vowel marking, both of which render the editorial process especially intricate. In the following edition variants between the manuscripts are indicated by the sigla *G* (Göttingen) and *R* (Reisülküttab). The critical apparatus recording the rejected variants is presented in the footnotes, each footnote encompassing the variants of all the verses within a single stanza.

Beyond the challenges of its transmission and its readability, the poem itself exhibits a precise and recognizable structure. We are dealing with a *zağal* in the proper sense. In this type of *zağal*, the common verses – that is, those which end each strophe – are equivalent to half the verses of the *mağla*, the opening verse of the poem. Consequently, in Ibn Nubāta's *bullayqa*, the common verses only contain one hemistich (half-verse) each. This structure seems to be the norm for the *bullayq*: the first verse consisting of two hemistichs, which is reduced by half in the common verses. This characteristic gives the poems a marked concision and a rapid rhythm, making the delivery dynamic and lively.

The rhyme scheme of this *bullayqa* unfolds as follows: aa bbba ddda eeea fffa. Both the *mağla* and the common rhymes end in -īs, while the special rhymes vary and include endings such as -rā, -lū, -bī, -ūb, -rī, and -ālū. With regard to meter, Ibn Nubāta makes use of a shortened variant of *sarī*, which can be scanned either as — — / — — or as — — / — —.
1 بدا لي يَتْهَنِّكَ وَأَرْجَعْ عَن التلبيس

2 وأَرْصَدْ حَبِيبٌ قَلْبِي

3 وأَضْبَرْ رمل مَاعُ

4 وَأَجْمَعْ مِن الخَدَّيْنِ

5 وَاجْعَلْ هواة رايَهُ

6 يا قلب ريت ما أحلى

7 حتى آغضب الغدَال

8 وَأَنْفَقْ ذَهَبْ أَحْمَرْ

9 كُنْ أَنتَقَلْ لِلْكَاسِ

10 ما دي المدام إلآ

11 ولا سما إن كان

12 لا تمزجو الكاسات

13 فكم طهور الما

14 لا تمزجو كاسي

15 خُلُوْ رشيق فاتن

16 أَشُوْ التَّيَابِ بَزْرِي

17 والمنظر الواضح

18 مليح يضل الناس

19 خسرت فيه عقلي

20 قف لي وَاتَّعْجَبْ

21 الجسم في جلق

وَأَعُودُ لِذَلَكَ الْحَالُّ وَأَتَبْغُ مَرَادَ أَبْلِيس

قبل أن نموث حسرا

عسى نجد نُصرا

بياض مع حمرا

وراس عذولي آنکيس 48

عيشي زمان وصلو

وأَقْصِفُ عَلَى شَكْلُو

وَأَحْدُثُ شَرَابٌ مثْلُو

ما كان قبل في الكيس 49

محبوبه آلى 50 قلبي

بالصرف يا صحبي

لا تفسدو شربي

صونوه عن التجيس

إِلَّا بَرِيقُ محبوب

ناعم نزف مشروب

بحسنوا المحجوب

غنِّي عن التلبيس 51

بحسنوا أليبري

وَأَقْسُلُ عَلَيْهِ صَبْرِي

في حب من أمرى

والقلب في تفليس 52

<footnote n="48">48 Verse 1 (*maṣṭa*): The word *التلبيس* in the *maṣṭa* 'appears distorted in *G*, with a *p* written above the word to signal a correction. It seems that *İbn Hağar* initially misspelled the word and then overwrote his first attempt, rendering it particularly difficult to decipher. *R* offers the reading I have adopted. The word *انكيس* (*ankīs*) in verse 5, meaning “I lower” or “I humble,” originates from the Arabic root *نكس* which signifies lowering, inverting, or debasing. It functions as a first-person singular imperfect verb, likely a poetic adaptation of a classical form such as *ankusu* (from form I *nakasa* = “to bow one’s head”) or *unakkisu* (from form II, *nakkasa* = “to humiliate/make bow”). The distinct -īs ending is a deliberate phonetic modification by the poet to seamlessly integrate the word into the poem’s consistent -īs stanza-end rhyme scheme.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">49 Verse 9: انفخ R انتقل.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">50 Read maḥbūb-a-lā qalbī. Metric requirement.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">51 Verse 15: نزف *r* possible to be read as *r* (tarīf) “effeminate” or “living in opulence”, verse 16: لنسو R أشو.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">52 Verse 18: يضل R أضل.</footnote>
يصبر على أحوالو

وأوقف عليه حالو

مفقول بأقفالو

الوقف والتحبيس

22 قلبي المسيكر كم

23 حبس فيه أشجانو

24 وكان مكان أسرار

25 واليوم رجع ديوان

## 4.4 Translation

In preparing this translation of the poem, my primary goal has been to convey its distinctive spirit and energy. To best capture its inherent musicality, I have prioritized achieving a natural rhythm and rhyme in English. This approach sometimes meant an intentional departure from a strictly literal, word-for-word rendering of the original Arabic.

Throughout this process, however, my foremost commitment has been to remain as faithful as possible to the core meaning and intended impact of the source text. My hope is that this balance offers a translation that is poetically engaging in English while resonating closely with the essential sense of the original poem. For further clarification on specific passages or challenging terms, literal translations and more detailed explanations are provided in the footnotes.

### Stanza 1

1 I think I'll drop pretenses, no more disguise for me,
I'm going back to how I was, and set the devil free.

2 I watch my heart's beloved<sup>53</sup>
before I die in longing.

3 With him the sands I read,<sup>54</sup>
so my hopes may take wing.

4 I gather from his cheeks
red with white commingling.

5 I make his love a banner
and bow my censor's knee.<sup>55</sup>

### Stanza 2

6 Oh heart, you witnessed then,
our union's sweet caress.

<footnote n="53"><sup>53</sup> In the sense of “I lie in wait for my heart’s beloved” or “I keep watch for my heart’s beloved”.</footnote>

<footnote n="54"><sup>54</sup> Literally: “I practiced geomancy with (regard to) him.”</footnote>

<footnote n="55"><sup>55</sup> By contrast, the original employs a verb that specifically denotes the act of bowing the head (nakkasa).</footnote>
7 So that the censors frown,
his very shape I kiss,<fnref n="56" />

8 red gold I freely spend,
drink wine of gold's redness.

9 The gold it seems, now fills the glass,
from purse's keep, at liberty.

### Stanza 3

10 This wine I hold so dear,
is my heart's true delight.

11 Peerless, if purely poured,
O friends, a lovely sight.

12 Don't mix the cups,
Don't spoil my drink so bright.

13 So pure, like water clear,
From taint, do keep it free.

### Stanza 4

14 Mix not my cup,
But with my true love's kiss.

15 Sweet, graceful, charming,
smooth, potent, and sheer bliss.

16 What use are clothes?
They make his grace amiss.<fnref n="57" />

17 A thing so clear to see
needs no clothes to be.

### Stanza 5

18 His beauty like the moon,
leads all good folk astray.

19 My mind I lost for him,
My patience slipped away.

20 So, pause and see my state,
marvel at love's display.

21 My body in Damascus,<fnref n="58" />
My heart in bankruptcy/Tiflis.<fnref n="59" />

<footnote n="56">56 *Qaşafa, yaqşufu, quşûfan:* “in Vergnügungen schwelgen, ein Wohlleben führen”, Wehr, *Wörterbuch*, s.v.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">57 Literally “his veiled beauty”.</footnote>

<footnote n="58">58 *Čilliq* means Damascus (s. Wehr, *Wörterbuch*, s.v.).</footnote>

<footnote n="59">59 Note the *tawriya* at the end: it means “my heart is in Tiflis” and “my heart is in ruin.”</footnote>
### Stanza 6

22 My drunken heart, so small,
what trials it has in store.

23 Its woes it jails within.
on him its fate it bore.

24 A place of secrets once,
his locks now bar its door.

25 My heart's now a *dīwān*
*of love's harsh tyranny.*<sup>60</sup>

## 4.5 Commentary

The poem commences with a potent declaration of intent, a thematic prelude where the speaker resolves to cast off the restraints he put on himself earlier and the “disguise” (*talbīs*), in favor of the pursuit of desire, metaphorically aligning with “the will of Iblis” (*maṭlaʾ*, verse 1). This upfront rejection of dissimulation immediately frames the subsequent verses as an unveiling of unvarnished experience. The first full stanza (Verses 2–5) then outlines the lover’s active engagement in this pursuit: an anxious vigil for the beloved to stave off the sorrow of absence before he dies, the practice of geomancy (*darb ramal*) in hope of love’s triumph, an appreciation for the “whiteness mixed with redness” of his beloved’s cheeks – and a defiant stance against detractors, whose heads the lover vows to humble (*ankīs*). This opening gesture thus portrays the lover as both deeply devoted and wholly unbound by restraint.

The experience of love unfolds into a revelry in the following stanza (Verses 6–9). The lover extols the sweetness of life in the beloved’s union, a joy so potent it intentionally angers the ‘uḍḍāl (“censors or blamers”), a staple in Arabic love poetry. This defiance is coupled with a lavish disregard for material wealth in the pursuit of pleasure, specifically “red gold” spent on wine that mirrors the red gold. The stanza culminates in the following image: the gold, once hoarded in a purse, *al-kīs*, finds its true realization when “transferred to the cup,” symbolizing the prioritization of experiential richness over material possession.

<footnote n="60">60 Note the *tawġīh* in the last verse: My heart has thus become *a dīwān [of poetry]/a register, of joys stopped/of endowment, and love's harsh tyranny/a fixing decree*. For the concept of *waqf* and *taḥbīs* in Islamic law, see for ex. Peters (2012): “[...] in Islamic law, the act of founding a charitable trust, and, hence the trust itself. A synonym, used mainly by Mālikī jurists, is *ḥabs, ḥubus* or *ḥubs* (in French often rendered as *habous*). The essential elements are that a person, with the intention of committing a pious deed, declares part of his or her property to be henceforth unalienable (*ḥabs, taḥbīs*) [...].”</footnote>
Wine becomes a central motif, further developed in the third stanza (Verses 10–13) where it is not merely a drink but is itself addressed as a “beloved to my heart.” Its purity is paramount, especially if served unmixed (*bi-ṣ-ṣirf*), and implores companions not to “spoil my drink” by mixing it. The stanza concludes with a reverent address to the drink’s purity (*tahūr al-mā*), urging its protection from any defilement (*at-tanğīs*).

This focus on unadulterated experience is then linked back to the beloved in the fourth stanza (Verses 14–17). The only acceptable admixture for the cup is the *rīq maḥbūb* – the beloved’s saliva or kiss. This intimate “ingredient” is described with a cascade of sensuous adjectives: “sweet, graceful, enchanting, smooth, potent”. Such inherent perfection in the beloved underscores the argument that external adornments like clothes merely “disparage his veiled beauty” (*yuzrī bi-ḥusnuh al-maḥğūb*). The stanza concludes by reiterating the theme of authenticity: “the clear appearance dispenses with dressing”, directly echoing and affirming the rejection of *talbīs* from the poem’s opening. Here, the interplay of veiling (clothes, pretenses, restraints) and unveiling (natural beauty, true emotion) is central. The beloved embodies an ideal of unveiled, self-sufficient beauty, while the lover strives for an unveiled emotional experience.

The beloved’s impact is portrayed as overwhelming, his “beauty like the moon” (verse 18) described as potent enough to lead “all good folk astray”. In the face of such an enthralling figure, the lyric persona confesses that “My mind I lost for him” (the loss of ‘*aql* or reason) and “My patience slipped away” (verse 19), indicating the exhaustion of *ṣabr* (patience/endurance). The stanza then pivots with an outward address (verse 20): “So, pause and see my state, marvel at love’s display.” This shifts from internal confession to an invitation for an observer to witness the profound and perhaps astonishing nature of the love that defines the speaker’s situation. This self-presentation culminates in a starkly contrasting final verse (21), which reveals a profound disjunction within the lover. The physical self is located in a Damascus: “My body in Damascus” (interpreting *ftī Ġillīq* as Damascus). This outer presence stands in sharp contrast to the inner reality, as “My heart [is] in bankruptcy” (*ftī taflīs*), signifying emotional and spiritual ruin. The term *taflīs* (bankruptcy) is here poignantly juxtaposed with the potential geographical echo of Tiflis (Tbilisi), a distant city. This *tawriya* further underscores the lover’s state of fragmentation and desolation, where body and heart are not only metaphorically but almost geographically rent asunder – the physical being in one renowned city, while the inner self experiences utter ruin or is metaphorically exiled to a remote counterpart.

The poem’s final stanza (Verses 22–25) details the heart’s ultimate, transformed condition. As depicted in Verse 22, the “drunken heart, so small” is shown to endure significant trials. Verse 23 then shifts agency to the heart itself, revealing a crucial internal dynamic: “It jails its woes within,” signifying an active internalization of its sorrows. Concurrently, the heart makes its own destiny dependent on the beloved, as “on him its fate it bore.” This follows a past state described in Verse 24, where the heart,
once “a place of secrets” probably shared and accessible, found itself sealed, its door barred by “his locks” – those imposed by the beloved’s defining actions or influence.

This progression culminates in Verse 25, where the heart’s transformation is fully articulated: “My heart has now become, a *dīwān*.” Attributed to a poet like Ibn Nubāta, known for his appreciation of stylistic ambiguity, this verse masterfully employs *tawġīh*. The subsequent phrases reveal these layers: On one level, the open meaning presents the heart as “*a Dīwān*” – an official register or chancellery. In this capacity, it chronicles its status “of endowment” (interpreting *al-waqf* as an inalienable dedication of love or suffering) and the binding nature of “a fixing decree” (interpreting *at-taḥbīs* as an inescapable confinement or restraint). On a hidden level, however, the heart transforms into “*a dīwān* [of poetry]” – a collection of laments. These poetic expressions articulate the sorrow “of joys stopped” (interpreting *al-waqf* from its root meaning “to halt” or “cease”) and the profound suffering of “love’s harsh tyranny” (interpreting *at-taḥbīs* as severe emotional imprisonment).

## 5 Conclusion and Final Remarks

Although Ibn Nubāta is primarily known for his command of high-prestige literary forms, the *bullayqa* discussed here reflects his refined engagement with the strophic, vernacular *zağal*, a genre whose Andalusian origins are still traceable in its structural and linguistic features. In this poem, Ibn Nubāta closely follows the conventions of the *zağal* as practiced in the eastern tradition more broadly, while also attending to features specific to the *bullayq* subgenre. He reworks motifs familiar from the *gazal* and *hamriyya* traditions with a tone that is both playful and rhetorically agile, integrating them into the formal and linguistic fabric of the *bullayq*. Characteristic of Ibn Nubāta is his use of *double entendre*, culminating in the final image of the heart as a *dīwān* of *waqf* and *taḥbīs*. This *bullayqa* illustrates Ibn Nubāta’s capacity to infuse a performative popular form with literary sophistication, both stylistic and conceptual.

Given the highly idiosyncratic script of Ibn Ḥāġar and the draft status of his compilation, some readings in the present edition may inevitably be open to question. Yet I would argue that this ought not to deter us from the undertaking itself. However imperfect the result may be, many of the readings will nonetheless approximate what Ibn Ḥāġar intended to record at this draft stage. This study should thus be regarded as a preliminary step toward deciphering the paleographic challenges posed by Ibn Ḥāġar’s often elusive hand. To this end, facsimiles of the folios containing the *bullayqa* have been included, allowing other scholars to engage directly with the material and, should they wish, to advance the task further and refine the edition presented here. In the end, such a process of incremental
correction and collective effort is, after all, the very principle upon which scholarly
progress rests.

I therefore hope that this critical edition and textual analysis of the *bullayqa* may
stand as a modest contribution – and at the same time a subtle homage – to the
groundbreaking project carried out by Thomas Bauer and his team at the University
of Münster, who, since 2020, have been engaged in the pioneering task of producing a
complete digital edition of Ibn Nubāta’s oeuvre.

Annex

1) Ms. Göttingen 80 Cod. Ms. arab. 179, fol. 59r-v

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
2) Ms. Reisülküttab 953, fols. 57v and 58v

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

Bibliography

Manuscripts

Al-Ḥiḍī: *Kitāb al-‘Aṭil al-ḥālī wa-l-murāḥḥaṣ al-ġālī*. Bayrische Staatsbibliothek. München, Cod. or. 528.

Al-Ḥiḍī: *Kitāb al-‘Aṭil al-ḥālī wa-l-murāḥḥaṣ al-ġālī*. Devlet Kütüphanesi. Beyazıt, İstanbul, B5542/4.

Al-Muqaddasī: *al-Ġawhar al-maknūn*, Escorial. Madrid, árabe 459.

Aṣ-Ṣafadī al-Barīdī: *al-Maqāmāt al-ġalālīyya*. Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi. İstanbul, Laleli 1929.

Ibn Hağar al-‘Asqalānī: *Ziyādāt ‘alā diwān Ibn Nubāta*. Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen. Göttingen, 80 Cod. MS arab. 179.

Ibn Hağar al-‘Asqalānī: *Ziyādāt ‘alā diwān Ibn Nubāta*. Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi. İstanbul, Reisülküttab 953.
## Primary Texts

Al-Ḥillī (1955): *al-Kitāb al-ʿāṭīl al-ḥālī wa-l-muraḥḥaṣ al-ġālī*. Edited by Wilhelm Hoenerbach. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.

Al-Miʿmār (2018): *Der Diwān des Ibrāhīm al-Miʿmār* (gest. 749/1348-49): *Edition und Kommentar*. Edited by Thomas Bauer, Anke Osigus, and Hakan Özkan. Würzburg: Ergon.

Al-Muhibbī (1867–1868): *Ḥulāṣat al-Ḥṭar fī aʾyān al-qarn al-ḥādī’ ašar*. 4 vols. Būlāq.

Al-Udfuwī (1966): *at-Ḥālī’ as-saʾīd al-ġāmi’ asmā’ nuğabā’ aṣ-Ṣaʾīd*. Edited by Sa’d Muḥammad Ḥasan. Cairo: ad-Dār al-miṣriyya li-t-ta’līf wa-t-tarğama.

An-Nawāġī (1999): *’Uqūd al-a’lāl fī l-muwaššaḥāt wa-l-azġāl*. Edited by Aḥmad Muḥammad ‘Aṭā. Cairo: Maktabat al-adab.

Anonymous (2021): *al-Māġarayāt (Ḥams wa-’išrūn hikāya ’an al-nisā’ min al-qarn ar-rābi’ ašar*. Edited by Ibrahim Akel, Freiberg: Al-Kamel-Verlag.

As-Saḥāwī (1992): *ad-Ḥaw’ al-lāmi’ li-ahl al-qarn at-tāsi’.* 12 vols. Beirut: Dār al-ġīl.

As-Saḥāwī (1999): *al-Ġawāhir wa-d-Durar fī Tarġamat Shayḥ al-Islām Ibn Ḥaġar*. Edited by Ibrāhīm Bāġis ‘Abdalmaġid. Beirut: Dār Ibn Ḥazm.

Aṣ-Ṣafadī (1931–2019): *al-Wāfi bi-l-wafayāt*. Edited by Hellmut Ritter et al. 32 vols. Beirut: Steiner.

Aṣ-Ṣafadī (1997–1998): *A’yān al-’aṣr wa-a’wān an-naṣr*. 6 vols. Edited by ‘Alī Abū Zayd et al. Damascus: Dār al-Fikr.

Ibn an-Nabīh (1969): *Diwān*. Edited by ‘Umar Muḥammad al-As’ad. Beirut: Dār al-fikr.

Ibn aš-Ṣa”ār (2005): *Qalā’id al-ġumān fī farā’id šu’arā’ hādā z-zamān*. 9 vols. Edited by Kāmil Salmān al-Ġubūrī. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-’ilmiyya.

Ibn Ḥaġar al-‘Asqalānī (1993): *ad-Durar al-kāmina fī a’yān al-mi’a at-ṭāmina*. 4 vols. Edited by ‘Adnān Darwīš. Beirut: Dār al-ġīl.

Ibn Ḩiġġa (1974): *Bulūg al-amal fī fann az-zaqāl*. Edited by Riḍā Muḥsin al-Qurayšī, Damascus: Manšūrāt wizārat at-ṭaqāfa wa-l-iršād al-qawmi.

Ibn Sa’īd al-Maġribī (1983): *al-Muqtataf min azāhir at-ṭuraf*. Edited by Sayyid Ḥanafī Ḥasanayn. Cairo: al-Hay’a al-miṣriyya al-’āmma li-l-kitāb.

Ibn Sa’īd al-Maġribī (1953): *al-Muġrib fī ḥulā l-Maġrib: al-ġuz’ al-awwal min al-qism al-ḥāṣṣ bi-Miṣr*. Edited by Zakī Muḥammad Ḥasan et al. Cairo: Maṭba’at Ğāmi’at Fu’ād al-awwal.

Ibn Sūdūn (1988): *Nuzhat an-nufūs wa-muḍḥik al-’abūs*. Edited by Arnoud Vrolijk. Leiden: CNWS Leiden University.

Ibn Taġrībirdī (1984–2009): *al-Manhal aṣ-ṣāfī wa-l-mustawfī ba’d al-wāfī*. 13 vols. Edited by Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn. Cairo: al-Hay’a al-miṣriyya al-’āmma li-l-kitāb.

## Secondary Scholarship

Al-Qurayšī, Riḍā Muḥsin (1976–1976): *al-Funūn aš-ši’riyya ġayr al-mu’raba*. 4 vols. Bagdad: Manšūrāt wizārat al-’i’lām.

Ar-Rāfi’i, Muṣṭafā Ṣādiq (1940): *Tārīḥ ādāb al-‘Arab*. 2 vols. Cairo: Maktabat al-’īmān.

Bauer, Thomas (2008a): “Ibn Nubātah al-Miṣrī (686–768/1287–1366): Life and Works. Part I: The Life of Ibn Nubātah”. *Mamlūk Studies Review* 12.1: 1–35.

Bauer, Thomas (2008b): “Ibn Nubātah al-Miṣrī (686–768/1287–1366): Life and Works. Part II: The Diwān of Ibn Nubātah”. *Mamlūk Studies Review* 12.2: 25–69.

Bauer, Thomas (2009): “Jamāl al-Dīn Ibn Nubātah”. In: *Essays in Arabic Literary Biography*. 1350–1850. Edited by Joseph E. Lowry and Devin J. Stewart, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Grotzfeld, Heinz (1965): *Syrisch-arabische Grammatik*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Guo, Li (1989): “Songs, Poetry, and Storytelling: Ibn Taghrī Birdī on the Yalbughā Affair”. In: *Developing Perspectives in Mamluk History: Essays in Honor of Amalia Levanoni*. Edited by Yuval Ben-Bassat. Leiden: Brill, 189–200.

Haydar, Adnan (1989): “The Development of Lebanese Zajal: Genre, Meter, and Verbal Duel”. *Oral Tradition* 4.1–2, 189–212.

Lagrange, Frédéric (2024): “Ibrāhīm Al-ʻĀqil [= Ibrahim Akel] (éd.), Abū Bakr al-Šarāybī [= Aboubakr Chraibī] (préface) Anonyme, Al-Māğarayāt (ḥams wa-īšrūn ḥikāya ‘an al-nisā’ min al-qarn al-rābi‘ ‘ašar et Farağ al-Huwār [= Fredj Lahouar] Kitāb al-zahr al-anīq fī l-baws wa-l-ta‘niq wa-l-ġunġ wa-l-šāḥiq wa-muḥālafat al-zawġ wa-muṭāwāt al-‘ašīq”. *Bulletin critique des Annales islamologiques*. http://journals.openedition.org/bcai/5572(11/3/2024).

Larkin, Margaret (2006): “Popular Poetry in the Post-Classical Period, 1150-1850”. In: *Arabic Literature in the Post-Classical Period*. Edited by Roger Allen et al., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 191–242.

Özkan, Hakan (2022): *Geschichte des östlichen zağal. Dialektale arabische Strophendichtung aus dem Osten der arabischen Welt: von den Anfängen bis zum Ende der Mamlukenzeit*. Baden-Baden: Ergon.

Peters, Rudlolph: “Wakf”. In: *Encyclopaedia of Islam. Second Edition*. Edited by P. Bearman et al. https://doi-org.lama.univ-amu.fr/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_1333(5/1/2025).

Seidensticker, Tilman (2005): *Die arabischen Handschriften Cod. Ms. Arab 136 bis 180 der Niedersächsischen Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen*. Stuttgart: Steiner.

Vrolik, Arnoud (1998): *Bringing a Laugh to a Scowling Face: A Study and Critical Edition of the Nuzhat al-nufūs wa-mudhik al-‘abūs by ‘Alī Ibn Sūdūn al-Bašbuġāwī (Cairo 810/1407-Damascus 868/1464)*. Leiden: CNWS Leiden University.

Woidich, Manfred (2006): *Das Kairenisch-Arabische*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

## Reference Works

Corriente, Frederico (1997): *A Dictionary of Andalusian Arabic*. Leiden: Brill.

Dozy, Reinhart (1881): *Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes*. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill.

Kazimirski, Albin de Biberstein (1860): *Dictionnaire arabe-français contenant toutes les racines de la langue arabe*. 2 vols. Paris: Maisonneuve.

Lane, Edward William (1968): *An Arabic-English Lexicon*. 8 vols. + suppl. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.

Wehr, Hans (1985): *Arabisches Wörterbuch für die Schriftsprache der Gegenwart: Arabisch-Deutsch*. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.