SOURCE: Structures of Avarice: The Bukhala in Medieval Arabic Literature, E. J. Brill, 1985, 183 p.

[In the following excerpt, Malti-Douglas analyzes the organization ofal-Jahiz 's works, arguing that his writings are not unstructured; examines the question of when al-Jahiz wrote Kitab al-Bukhala; and discusses the role of the anecdote in al-Jahiz's works.]

Al-Jahiz is one of the most justly famed of Medieval Arab authors, probably the greatest Arabic prose writer of all time. As such, he has spawned a considerable scholarly literature, both in the Middle East and in the West.¹ One of the most striking features of the man was the breadth of his interests, itself reflected in the variety of his writings. It will be possible here only to present a biographical sketch, stressing the circumstances of his life, his intellectual formation, and an examination of questions relative to the composition of his Kitab al-Bukhala.

Al-Jahiz was also famous in the Medieval Islamic world and a great many biographical notices have come down to us, as can be seen from an examination of the section entitled "Les sources biographiques" in Charles Pellat's Le milieu basrien et la formation de Gahiz.² Pellat has identified four sources which he characterizes as "fondamentales, en ce sens qu'elles fournissent des renseignements originaux et des traditions remontant à des contemporains de Gahiz."³ These four are:

1. al-Masudi (d. 345/956), Muruj adh-Dhahab⁴
2. al-Khatib al-Baghdadi (d. 463/1071), Tarikh Baghdad⁵
3. Ibn Asakir (d. 571/1176), Tarikh Dimashq⁶
4. Yaqut (d. 626/1229), Irshad al-Arib ila Marifat al-Adib.⁷

To these must be added the notice by Ibn an-Nadim (d. c. 377/987) which was originally lost but which has been discovered and presented by A. J. Arberry.⁸ These five notices are the major sources for the discussion which follows, though occasional references for minor or undisputed points have been made to other works. There is yet another source which should be noted, though it contains little information of a strictly biographical nature. This is the discussion devoted to al-Jahiz by Ibn Qutayba in his Kitab Mukhtalif al-Hadith. Ibn Qutayba who, it will be remembered, was a distinguished adib in his own right, was a student of al-Jahiz, and in this passage he gives an appraisal of his teacher's oeuvre. This appraisal, as we will see in Chapter III below, is far from sycophantic and is of considerable literary interest.⁹

Abu Uthman Amr ibn Bahr al-Kinani al-Fuqaymi al-Basri al-Jahiz was born around the year 160/776, and died in the year 255/868-869.¹⁰ The attribute al-Jahiz, by which he is known, derives from the Arabic root j-h-z, and means the one whose eyes bulge or protrude. It seems that al-Jahiz was goggle-eyed" and indeed very ugly.¹² Al-Kutubi in his Uyun at-Tawarikh, relates an anecdote quoting al-Jahiz as saying that he had once brought a Turkish slave girl and said to himself that perhaps she would bear him a child who would possess her beauty and his intelligence, but that contrary to his expectations, she bore him a son who possessed his ugliness and her ignorance.¹³ Al-Jahiz was a client (mawla)¹⁴ of the Banu Kinana, and his grandfather was black.¹⁵ Not much is known about his childhood.¹⁶ His family, about whom information is equally scanty, was poor,¹⁷ and the means by which al-Jahiz lived during his early years in the Iraqi town of Basra also remain a mystery.¹⁸ Yaqut in his biographical notice devoted to al-Jahiz relates on the authority of al-Marzubani that al-Jahiz was seen selling bread and fish on the Sihan, a canal in Basra dug by Yahya ibn Khalid al-Barmaki.¹⁹²⁰ As Pellat rightly points out, if this information is true, al-Jahiz would have been at least twenty years old, since the canal was inspected and inaugurated by ar-Rashid in the beginning of the year 796.²¹ Al-Masudi in his biography of al-Jahiz,²² further notes that he was the page (ghulam) of Ibrahim ibn Sayyar.²³ Later in life, it would appear that al-Jahiz earned a considerable amount of money from dedications of his works. He himself is quoted in Ibn an-Nadim as stating that he was given, for example, five thousand dinars by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Malik²⁴ for his Kitab al-Hayawan (The Book of Animals).²⁵

It appears that al-Jahiz had an avidity for learning and it is again Yaqut who cites sources which support this characteristic. Abu Hiffan²⁶ said that he had never seen or heard anyone who loved books as much as al-Jahiz and that whenever a book fell into his hands, he would read it exhaustively. It seems that al-Jahiz used to rent (kana yaktari) the shops of the manuscript copyists/book sellers (al-warraquri) and would pass the night there in order to examine the books.²⁷

Pellat poses the very interesting question as to where and how, aside from the way described above, al-Jahiz could have had access to books in his native Basra. First, there were no public libraries in the city, and even more importantly, the cost of books was such that our author could not have had it within his means to buy many of them. One is tempted to draw the same conclusion as Pellat, that it was certainly the friends and teachers of al-Jahiz who gave him access to their private libraries.²⁸

The principal teachers of al-Jahiz were indeed men of great renown. Among the philologists and lexicographers, he is said to have studied with Abu Ubayda,²⁹ al-Asmai,³⁰ and Abu Zayd al-Ansari,³¹ according to Lewin a triumvirate to whom later philologists owe the greater part of their knowledge.³² Others who contributed to the intellectual formation of al-Jahiz include Abu al-Hasan al-Akhfash³³ with whom he studied grammar,³⁴ Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ibrahim al-Qadi,³⁵ Yazid ibn Harun,³⁶ as-Sari ibn Abdawayh,³⁷ al-Hajjaj ibn Muhammad ibn Hammad ibn Salama,³⁸ and Thumama ibn Ashras³⁹ with all of whom he studied hadith,⁴⁰ and lastly Ibrahim ibn Sayyar an-Nazzam,⁴¹ with whom he studied kalam⁴² (scholastic theology). An-Nazzam was a major exponent of Mutazilism, a rationalizing school of Islamic theology,⁴³ of which al-Jahiz was a defender.⁴⁴

Aside from the learning he accumulated from these illustrious masters, al-Jahiz would go to the mirbad of Basra, and that is where he is said to have snatched eloquence (al-fasaha) orally from the bedouins.⁴⁵ The mirbad was originally the area where the dates were dried⁴⁶ as well as the area where the camels were parked.⁴⁷ Yaqut in his Mujam al-Buldan explains that the mirbad of Basra, one of the city's most famous areas, was originally a camel market and later became a place where people lived and where the poets recited their poetry and the orators delivered their speeches.⁴⁸ Pellat further describes the mirbad as "vaste marché oú les Bédouins venaient vendre leurs animaux…mais l'on y vendait aussi d'autres produits d'une inestimable valeur. On y vendait de la poésie, du vocabulaire, des hadit-s, de la grammaire, des traditions historiques."⁴⁹

The knowledge which al-Jahiz accumulated in the mirbad, and which might be called "extra academic," was increased at yet one more place which our author frequented, the mosque, al-masjid.⁵⁰ In the mosque, people gathered to pray, to learn, and to discuss. According to the Kitab al-Bukhala, it would appear that there was a group of people whose custom it was to sit in the mosque and to exchange information, anecdotes, and ideas. The persons in this group earned the appellation of masjidi, or he who frequents the mosque.⁵¹ But anyone could, if he so felt inclined, participate in this activity, which might take place, for example, after the performance of the prayers. Pellat suggests that these masjidiyyun were members of⁵² the bourgeoisie. The French scholar also states, and al-Hajiri agrees, that the group was diverse, including, among others, poets and transmitters of poetry. Al-Jahiz mentions them in al-Bayan wat-Tabyin and al-Hayawan, as well as in al-Bukhala."⁵³ For a man with an acute sense of observation, like al-Jahiz, there was indeed much to be gleaned by frequenting these public places.

Al-Jahiz was also a prolific author, and Charles Pellat, who has devoted many years of study to the "phénomène Djahiz,"⁵⁴ has published a list of the literary output of the Arab author, under the seemingly appropriate title of "Gahiziana."⁵⁵ Further, the French scholar divides the works of al-Jahiz into various categories, including among others al-Jahiz's particular type of adab and traditional adab.⁵⁶ It would be fruitless here simply to reproduce this extensive research. Suffice it to say that our author was, to use a popular expression, a literary jack-of-all trades.⁵⁷ His erudition ranged from works of religious and political polemic, such as the Kitab al-Uthmaniyya (The Book of the Uthmaniyya),⁵⁸ to works intended for the general instruction of the reader,⁵⁹ such as the Kitab al-Hayawan (The Book of Animals), an anthology dealing with animals yet touching upon questions of "theology, metaphysics, sociology, etc."⁶⁰ The Kitab al-Bukhala, which is being considered here, would fall within the group of works dealing with a specific category of people. One can cite other books in this category composed by al-Jahiz. He himself mentions a Kitab al-Lusus (The Book of Thieves) in his Kitab al-Bukhala, as well as in the Kitab al-Hayawan.⁶¹ This work is unfortunately not extant. Further titles would include, among others, the recently edited manuscript of al-Bursan wal-Urjan wal-Umyan wal-Hulan (The Lepers, the Lame, the Blind, and the Cross-Eyed)⁶² and the Kitab al-Qiyan (The Book of Singing Slave Girls).⁶³

It is not the literary placement within the works of al-Jahiz of his Kitab al-Bukhala which presents a problem but rather the chronological placement of the work within the author's life. Taha al-Hajiri, in his edition of the Bukhala, poses this very question and answers it in what seems a logical way, given the evidence.⁶⁴ However, one must emphasize that no definite dates are available for the author's works. The conclusions, therefore, have been derived from evidence gleaned from diverse sources. Al-Jahiz himself mentions his Bukhala in the introduction to his Kitab al-Hayawan.⁶⁵ The Hayawan is dedicated to Ibn az-Zayyat, the vizier who died in 233/847.⁶⁶ So we can say at the least that the Bukhala was written before that date. Further, one of the many anecdotes in the Bukhala where al-Jahiz appears reveals much useful biographical information, if taken at face value.⁶⁷ The anecdote concerns a certain Mahfuz an-Naqqash who, to discourage his guest from eating, points out to al-Jahiz that he is a man advanced in years (taantafi assinri) and suffering from hemiplegia (falij). Therefore, it would seem that al-Jahiz was partially paralyzed, if not completely before the writing of the Bukhala, at least while composing part of the work. The beginnings of his illness can be approximated to the year 233 A.H.⁶⁸. Jamal ad-Din ibn Nubata al-Misri (d. 768/1366) in his Sarh al-Uyun fi Sharh Risalat Ibn Zaydun relates the circumstances which brought on this malady. It seems that al-Jahiz was once eating at the home of Ibn Abi Du'ad⁶⁹ and among the dishes offered were fish and milk (labari). Ibn Bukhtishu,⁷⁰ a doctor who was present, warned against eating both together. However, al-Jahiz did not heed this warning and proceeded to eat. As a result, not only was he smitten by massive hemiplegia (falij azirri) but by gout (niqris) as well!⁷¹

Whatever the veracity of this particular story, there seems to be no doubt that al-Jahiz was suffering from hemiplegia. From this and from the citation of the work in the Hayawan, it seems likely that al-Jahiz wrote the Bukhala in the latter part of his life.⁷²

Whether or not al-Jahiz was the first to write a book on the bukhala is another question which must be investigated. Even though his book is the earliest extant work, it would appear that he was not the first author to write books on the subject of bukhl and bukhala. Ibn an-Nadim, who in his Fihrist provides us with an indispensable source on the works available in the early Islamic period, mentions a Kitab al-Bukhl by al-Madaini (d. between 215 and 231/830-845).⁷³ Though in the absence of al-Madaini's work it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions, a passage in the Kitab al-Bukhala suggests the possibility that a very small number of anecdotes may have been taken from that work.⁷⁴

As the above sketch of the life al-Jahiz shows, he was a sophisticated man, broadly and well educated in the literary and religious sciences of his time. He was also a worldly individual with considerable practical experience of life. Both these types of experience, the intellectual and the general, can be found reflected in his Kitab al-Bukhala.

…..

[A] literary work can be described not only in terms of its structure but also in terms of its organization. In addition, since organization represents the visible arrangement of materials, it is a particularly significant part of the adab discourse. This discourse includes not only anecdotes,…but also other, non-anecdotal, material. The isolation of the anecdotal from the non-anecdotal material will, therefore, form an important part of the study of the organization of these two works. At the same time, this process will permit us to examine the nature of the non-anecdotal material and to discuss its significance for the works as literary wholes.

W. Marcais in "Quelques observations sur le texte du "Kitab el-Buhala' (Le Livre des Avares) d'el-Gahiz," has described the book in the following manner; "Par ailleurs, une absence complète de composition: des redites, des digressions, un dernier chapitre de 40 pages qui n'a qu'un très lointain rapport avec le reste de l'ouvrage; tout le désordre d'un homme spirituel, curieux, et fort érudit, qui, par impuissance peut-être à se discipliner, s'est fait une régie, il l'a dit et redit, du bavardage à bâtons rompus;…un écrivain de race, abondant et pressé, peu soigneux mais très sûr de sa langue."⁷⁵ Though a superficial examination of the work might seem to lend some credence to a few of Marcais' characterizations, a more thorough study will show that the arrangement of the work is not haphazard and could be said to display a highly sophisticated, if not necessarily schematic, sense of composition.

In the above quoted statement, Marcais also drew attention to the problem raised by the inclusion of the last chapter in the Kitab al-Bukhala. Though he clearly sensed a divergence between it and the rest of the work, he did not discuss this issue at length. Charles Pellat, who in 1951 published a translation of al-Jahiz's work, did, however, go so far as to isolate the last chapter from the book,⁷⁶ publishing a translation of this last chapter separately in Arabica in 1955.⁷⁷ The discussion of the overall organization of the text at hand presupposes, of course, a determination of the precise extent of this text. Should or should not the last chapter be included?

This controversial chapter, entitled "Atraf min Ilm al-Arab fi at-Taam" (The Utmost Parts from the Knowledge of the Arabs Concerning Food), is a study devoted to definitions of different foods, different types of invitations, how one requests hospitality at night, cannibalism among various tribes, etc. Pellat stated concerning its disjunction from the Kitab al-Bukhala "qu'on avait cru bon de séparer du reste de l'ouvrage, car le sujet et le ton y sont tout à fait différents."⁷⁸ Since the section is, in the main, about the foods of the Bedouins, Pellat asks whether this chapter could be the Kitab Atimat al-Arab (The Book of the Foods of the Bedouins) listed by Brockelmann.⁷⁹ He points out, however, that a certain proverb attributed by al-Maydani to this very same Kitab Atimat al-Arab does not appear in this chapter. Pellat, therefore, speculates on the possibility that al-Jahiz could have composed another work on this subject.⁸⁰ Going further, the French scholar notes that al-Jahiz, in this chapter, discusses the issue of cannibalism among the Bedouins. Since Pellat assumed that the intent of the Kitab al-Bukhala was to attack the claims of the non-Arabs,⁸¹ he expressed his surprise that al-Jahiz should in such a work provide materials for the non-Arabs upon which they could attack their adversaries. He very diplomatically concludes: "le problème reste donc posé."⁸²

It is, of course, of interest to note the Arab editor's view-point. Taha al-Hajiri, by his inclusion of the chapter in his edition of the Bukhala, was clearly arguing for its treatment as part of the text. Nevertheless, when discussing the overall composition of the work in his introduction, al-Hajiri notes that the chapter in question is the only one which could not be said to be subsumed in the characterization that al-Jahiz himself gave of his work in his introduction.⁸³ The only explanation which the editor offers for the presence of this chapter is al-Jahiz's "Arab inclination" (nazatuhu al-arabiyya).⁸⁴

Concerning this problem, I am in substantial agreement with Charles Pellat. The exclusion of this chapter from the body of the work can be argued, first of all, from internal evidence. Although the chapter is obviously part of a larger work, as is clear from its first paragraph where al-Jahiz states that he has discussed his subject at length (ihtajna ind attatwil),⁸⁵ the style and the tone would suggest that it is not part of the Kitab al-Bukhala. Further, al-Jahiz indicates towards the end of this chapter that the benefit of his book is limited to the individual who has not only transmitted poetry and prose, but to one who is also aware of the behavior and usages⁸⁶ of the various tribes, or, at least, to the individual who has a decent acquaintance with the subject.⁸⁷ Certainly, while some knowledge is necessary for understanding and appreciating the Bukhala, this knowledge is not restricted to the individual to whom al-Jahiz alludes, nor is poetry, as a brief glance at the Kitab al-Bukhala will show, an essential component of the work. Further, while the body of the work is prose (largely anecdotes), the chapter in question is, in the main, descriptive and illustrative verse. Another point worth mentioning is the fact that this last section deals with problems and questions concerning particular usages among bedouin tribes, a technical discussion which, as will become evident later, bears little relation to the material in the body of the work. This is particularly the case since al-Jahiz in this last chapter discusses bedouin life, while the body of the work, as will be shown in Chapter VII, is mainly concerned with urbanites.

Though the internal evidence seems, to this author at least, fairly convincing, the manuscript evidence is somewhat less conclusive. According to al-Hajiri, only two manuscripts of the Bukhala of al-Jahiz have been discovered, a complete one, Koprulu 1359, and an incomplete one, Paris, Bibliotheque Nationale, Arabe 6011, which consists of a segment stopping in the middle of the work.⁸⁸ Thus, this final chapter is present in only one manuscript. Since it was not unheard of for manuscript copyists to attach, without explicitly saying so, other works to the works they were copying,⁸⁹ is it not possible that this might be the case with the Koprulu manuscript? In fact, there is some evidence, other than the nature of the chapter in question, that this may be so. First of all, Taha al-Hajiri himself noted that the manuscript copyist was an ignorant scribe who copied without understanding and who, therefore, made frequent errors.⁹⁰ But more important, in the Koprulu manuscript, the last chapter is set off by a simple marking similar to those used in other places in the manuscript, and begins with the words: qala Amr al-Jahiz (Amr al-Jahiz said).⁹¹ This, in itself, is significant since the other parts of the Kitab al-Bukhala are not framed or introduced by attributions to al-Jahiz. In the rest of the manuscript, al-Jahiz is both the introducer and the speaker, whether he begins in the first person, quotes someone else, or introduces other information. Hence, this last chapter differs from the others by the fact that the speaker/author is set off by an additional citation. Thus, this addtional citation would seem to suggest that the scribe had adjoined some new material, perhaps even material by al-Jahiz which had been cited in another text. Or, it is possible that our scribe merely copied a change of this sort which had been made at an earlier stage of the manuscript transmission. Therefore, the analysis which will be undertaken will deal only with what has been called up to now the body of the work, excluding the last chapter, and it is this body which will be considered the Kitab al-Bukhala.

As was mentioned above, the Kitab al-Bukhala consists largely of prose anecdotes. The anecdotes themselves will be the subject of Chapter IV. In the present chapter, attention will be directed to a discussion of the non-anecdotal material in the text. In the process, an examination will also be made of the organization of the book as a whole.

The characteristic which strikes the reader first is the appearance of disorganization of the Kitab al-Bukhala. Al-Jahiz would appear to be haphazardly moving from one area to another, and no plan is visible in the chapter titles. What we have are descriptive headings for some of the sections in the text.⁹² It would be most useful to first present the components of the text and to discuss them at length afterwards. Many of the sections in the text have descriptive labels which are indicated below. Some, however, have no such labels or titles, and in those cases, I have composed short descriptive titles which are placed in brackets. In addition, the sections have been numbered for ease of reference.

1. [Introduction by al-Jahiz] pp. 1-8
2. Risala (Epistle) of Sahl ibn Harun 9-16
3. [Anecdotes about the Khurasanians] 17-28
4. Story (qissa) of the People of Basra from among the Masjidis 29-34
5. Story (qissa) of Zubayda ibn Humayd 35-36
6. Story (qissa) of Lay la an-Naitiyya 37
7. [Various Anecdotes] 38-40
8. Story (qissa) of Ahmad ibn Khalaf 41-43
9. [Various Anecdotes] 44-45
10. Story (hadith) of Khalid ibn Yazid 46-53
11. Various Anecdotes 54-57
12. Story (qissa) of Abu Jafar 58
13. Story (qissa) of al-Hizami 59-65
14. [Anecdote about Khalid ibn Abd Allah al-Qasri] 66
15. Story (qissa) of al-Harithi 67-75
16. Explanation of the Terms Used by Abu Fatik⁹³ 76-80
17. Story (qissa) of al-Kindi 81-93
18. Story (qissa) of Muhammad ibn Abi al-Muammal 94-101
19. Story (qissa) of Asad ibn Jani 102
20. Story (qissa) of ath-Thawri 103-112
21. Various Anecdotes about al-Anbari, Abu Qutba and Filawayh 113-115
22. Story (qissa) of Tammam ibn Jafar 116-119
23. Various Anecdotes 120-128
24. Story (qissa) of Ibn al-Aqadi 129
25. Various Anecdotes 130-136
26. Story (qissa) of Abu Said al-Madaini 137-143
27. Story (qissa) of al-Asmai 144
28. Story (qissa) of Abu Uyayna 145-146
29. Various Anecdotes 147-153
30. The Epistle of Abu al-As ibn Abd al-Wahhab ibn Abd al-Majid ath-Thaqafi to ath-Thaqafi 154-168
31. The Reply of Ibn at-Tawam 169-194
32. Various Anecdotes 195-212

Each section within the work can be perceived as a selfcontained literary unit. In addition, since these sections are self-contained, they are, from the standpoint of aesthetic literary development, in the main potentially independent. From the point of view of content, there are two exceptions to this potential independence. Further, with the same two exceptions which will be discussed below, these sections contain no obviously necessary linear sequential order.

From the above list of the divisions of the work, a preliminary distinction can be made between collections of bukhl anecdotes, on the one hand, and other bukhl related material, on the other. The collections of anecdotes can futher be divided into three subgroups (see Table I below):

A—groups of anecdotes concerned with different individuals with no unifying elements (sections 7, 9, 11, 21, 23, 25, 29, 32).

B—an anecdote or a series of anecdotes concerned with a single individual, further divided into Bl, sections containing only one anecdote (sections 6, 12, 14, 24, 27) and B2, sections containing more than one anecdote (sections 5, 8, 10, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 28). In the case of section 10, al-Jahiz has appended a discussion of the vocabulary used by Khalid ibn Yazid in the course of the anecdote.⁹⁴

C—groups of anecdotes concerned with different individuals but with some unifying elements, be they geographical provenance (section 3) or social circumstances (section 4). An additional unifying element in section 4 is the literary device of having the shaykh who narrated the first anecdote make the final comments in the section.

All the remaining sections of the work, other than al-Jahiz's introduction, though they are not bukhl anecdotes, in fact possess a specific relation to the concept of bukhl which can be seen when each section is discussed as an individual unit.

The author's introduction, which will be examined last, is followed by the epistle of Sahl ibn Harun. Sahl ibn Harun was a writer and poet, a contemporary of al-Jahiz, who died in the year 244/858.⁹⁵ He is said to have been a fanatical supporter of the Shuubiyya,⁹⁶ a movement of Persian nationalism whose aim was the glorification of the Persians.⁹⁷ Ignaz Goldziher, in his masterful study of the Shuubiyya, writes as regards Sahl ibn Harun that "the literary curiosity which made him famous was presumably also a consequence of his tendency to ridicule Arab ideals. This is the only explanation for his having written a number of treatises on miserliness."⁹⁸ It would appear that Sahl ibn Harun wrote in favor of bukhl. The question is, however, whether or not he composed the particular epistle which is found in the Kitab al-Bukhala and attributed to him by al-Jahiz.⁹⁹ In his notice on Sahl ibn Harun, Ibn an-Nadim notes that Sahl was the author of risalas about bukhl (fi al-bukhl), after which the biographer states that Sahl wrote a risala praising bukhl (risala yamdahfiha al-bukhl), addressed to the vizier, al-Hasan ibn Sahl. The risala in the Bukhala of al-Jahiz is given as being addressed to Muhammad ibn Ziyad and his cousins. Taha al-Hajiri himself opined that if these two risalas were the same, Ibn an-Nadim would most likely have noted that fact. Whether or not one accepts the opinion of al-Hajiri, it can be observed that the information in the Fihrist could support two conclusions. It is entirely possible that Sahl, having written one risala in praise of bukhl, also wrote another. It is equally possible, however, that since Sahl wrote a risala in praise of bukhl, al-Jahiz considered it both poetic justice and good fun to attribute an additional one to him.¹⁰⁰

Yaqut, in his biography of Sahl ibn Harun, appears to have solved this problem. On his own authority, he states that Sahl wrote a risala praising bukhl which he sent to his cousins and a copy of which he also sent to the vizier al-Hasan ibn Sahl. Al-Hajiri, once again, may have been correct when he stated the opinion that Yaqut erroneously attempted to combine the information in the Fihrist and that in al-Jahiz.¹⁰¹ Similarly, al-Hajiri is of the opinion, shared by this writer, that the risala in praise of bukhl by Sahl ibn Harun addressed to Muhammad ibn Ziyad and his cousins included by Ibn Abd Rabbihi and an-Nuwayri was simply copied by the latter from the former who copied it from al-Jahiz along with other material.¹⁰²

Thus, no definite answer to this question can be derived from the citations of the primary sources, and the literary scholar must turn to internal evidence. As it is written, the risala of Sahl ibn Harun fits easily into the text and there is no discordance between its style and that of the rest of the book.¹⁰³ Of course, if Sahl did not actually write this epistle, al-Jahiz must have. Al-Hajiri rightly points out that the solution to this particular problem lies in the nature of al-Jahiz himself.¹⁰⁴ Was he in his Kitab al-Bukhala attempting to transmit existing traditions and issues, or was he simply demonstrating his own literary ability and rhetorical innovations? There is no doubt that one of the major goals of our writer in this particular work was indeed the manifestation of literary artistry. Such a view would fit exceedingly well with the image that al-Jahiz's contemporary, Ibn Qutayba, had of him. In his Kitab Tawil Mukhtalif al-Hadith, discussed in Chapter II above, Ibn Qutayba described our author as being capable of "doing a thing and its opposite," as, for example, attacking and defending AH, or arguing the superiority of the blacks over the whites. Even more important for our purposes here, Ibn Qutayba goes so far as to call al-Jahiz "among the greatest liars in the community of believers (ummd), its greatest inventors (i.e. falsifiers) of hadiths, and its greatest supporters of falsehood."¹⁰⁵ What this somewhat angry passage is meant to suggest is that al-Jahiz, unlike most other Muslim writers, felt free to use the standard forms of attribution and citation as a fiction, and that such attribution cannot, therefore, be considered historically reliable. Were there any further doubt, we could note that al-Jahiz himself stated, in another context, that he had no qualms about attributing his own works to others.¹⁰⁶ Therefore, it seems reasonable to consider this epistle as having been written by al-Jahiz himself. Fortunately, the question, though interesting, is not crucial. Even if one were to assume that this risala really were the work of Sahl ibn Harun, it would still have to have been selected by al-Jahiz for inclusion in his Kitab al-Bukhala. Al-Jahiz would, thus, have the artistic responsibility for its presence and placement in the work, and therefore it must be considered in the discussion of the organization of the work.

The epistle is addressed by Sahl ibn Harun to Muhammad who ibn Ziyad and his cousins him, from the family of Ziyad¹⁰⁷ who reproached him i.e. Sahl, the his doctrine of bukhl and criticized his argumentation concerning the acquisition of goods. Sahl here lists the reproaches which were made to him concerning some of his habits, and defends himself by, in the main, citing early Islamic pietists and defenders of frugality, such as al-Hasan al-Basri or the caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab.

The principal technique used by Sahl in this risala to disculpate himself is the citation of a passage in which the Prophet or another figure noted for his piety enjoins the specific action for which Sahl has been reproached. The approach could, thus, be described as historical and rhetorical, as opposed to ethical or philosophical. Despite this, the risala as a whole can be taken as a defense of bukhl and it is, thus, similar in thematic structure to the type of anecdote … in which the bakhil demonstrates his bukhl through the defense of the vice. Extended non-anecdotal passages in defense of bukhl will be called bukhl statements.

The next section which will be discussed here is the story of al-Harithi, section 15 above. Although it is labelled as the story of al-Harithi, its nature and structure would argue for its being considered a bukhl statement. This nine-page discussion is brought on by the fact that al-Harithi is asked why, despite the fact that he spends much money on food, and retains numerous servants, he never eats with people worthy of his company or of the food he serves. He, thereupon, begins to defend his actions by citing numerous sources about ungrateful or impolite guests, who either eat more than their share, or complain that the host has not offered enough food, or that his food is not properly prepared. These stories about ungrateful or ill-mannered guests, which make up the bulk of the section, could themselves, from a purely literary point of view, be considered anecdotes. They are, however, not bukhl anecdotes, but if a name were to be given them, they would have to be called "ill-mannered guest anecdotes" or "ungrateful guest anecdotes." They achieve their relationship to bukhl only when considered as a section in which al-Harithi demonstrates his bukhl by citing them in defense of his own practice of eating without guests.

What we are dealing with here is, in effect, a narrative that can be read on two levels, that of the individual anecdote and that of the anecdote in the context of the section. Some of the anecdotes in this section dealing with a guest who complains that the host is not offering enough food, for example, could, taken in isolation, be interpreted as bukhl anecdotes, in which the host would be the bakhil. However, when seen in context, they should be interpreted as "ill-mannered guest anecdotes" being used by al-Harithi to buttress his argument. It is, thus, on the level of the larger narrative (the section) that these anecdotes achieve their proper relationship to bukhl.

This exposition by al-Harithi is followed by an explanation of the words used by Abu Fatik. The latter is someone whom al-Harithi employs in his argumentation. The expressions explained, however, include not only ones which Abu Fatik used but also ones which al-Harithi mentioned. These terms are all descriptive categories of individuals who have impolite table manners. They include, for example, the maddad, literally the stretcher, who, when eating a nerve which is not fully cooked, stretches it between his mouth and hand, and breaks it with a thrust causing it to spill all over the clothing of the person with whom he is eating.¹⁰⁸ Another interesting character is the muhawwil, literally the changer, who, when he sees the abundance of date pits in front of him, uses deceit to mix them with the pits of his companions.¹⁰⁹

Although this particular section of the Kitab al-Bukhala is labelled separately, it forms a supplement to the preceding section, reinforcing with its almost grisly detail al-Harithi's attitude of disgust towards his potential guests. In fact, this supplement ends with more discussion by al-Harithi about impolite guests.¹¹⁰ This exposition, which follows the same principles as the previous section, would argue for the essential unity of the two sections. The two, seen as an ensemble, form one bukhl statement.

The next non-anecdotal section is the epistle of Abu al-As ibn Abd al-Wahhab ibn Abd al-Majid ath-Thaqafi addressed to ath-Thaqafi, section 30 above. This epistle is not a bukhl statement by a bakhil, but rather the opposite, an attack on bukhl and the bukhala. This risala, and the response which follows, poses the same question of authorship raised by the epistle of Sahl ibn Harun. Of course, the general considerations which would derive from the supposition of al-Jahiz's authorship are the same. In this case, however, it can also be noted that one of the early editors of the Bukhala, van Vloten, also suspected al-Jahiz's authorship. He observed that these sections were written in a completely Jahizian style and blended perfectly with the rest of the work. Van Vloten also argued that many of the phrases and arguments were similar to some al-Jahiz used in the Fakhr as-Sudan ala al-Bidan.¹¹¹ The position of van Vloten seems reasonable.

The epistle begins with a section in which ath-Thaqafi is reproached for associating with known bukhala like Sahl while avoiding the society of the generous. It is further noted that he pays too much attention to the science of the acquisition of goods. From this, the speaker concludes that ath-Thaqafi is indeed a bakhil and not merely economical. Bukhl is then condemned on theological, historical, and psychological grounds. God is noted for his generosity as are the Prophet and the Hashimites, his clan. All the tribes agree on the praise of generosity and the blameworthiness of bukhl. It is noted that the bakhil is not really economical since some bukhala indulge in luxury, that the bakhil, through his overattachment to worldly goods, will be more unhappy if he loses them, and finally that saving for the sake of offspring is mere pretense. In addition, a long list of proverbs and sayings is cited in which bukhl is condemned or generosity is praised.

The epistle of Ibn at-Tawam, section 31 above, was composed in response to the preceding risala. Ibn at-Tawam, however, did not address it to Abu al-As directly but to ath-Thaqafi. Thus, it is not the generous man but the bakhil who is addressed. The writer of the risala enjoins upon ath-Thaqafi the practice of bukhl and cites cases of impolite guests.

Ibn at-Tawam's general arguments include the injunction not to heed the opinion of the generality of mankind and the statement that what most label generosity is really wasteful prodigality. In the manner of Sahl ibn Harun, Ibn at-Tawam contends that he is only following the precepts of the Prophet, the Quran, and saintly men. This argument is defended by citations from the Quran and the Prophet which are themselves general injunctions in favor of making provisions for one's future or that of one's family; one example is the remark attributed to the Prophet that it is better to leave one's offspring wealthy than that they should have to beg.¹¹²

As was mentioned above, the Kitab al-Bukhala begins with an introduction by al-Jahiz. This opens with a lengthy discussion of the topics which he was asked to treat in his book concerning the mentality of the bukhala, and the reasons for their behavior and their choice of this particular way of life. The author then states that the reader will find three things in his book: the first being the explanation of a novel argument (tabayyun hujja tarifa), the second being the revelation of a witty stratagem (taarruf hila latifa), and the third being the benefit of a wondrous anecdote (istifadat nadira ajiba).¹¹³ Al-Jahiz then indicates that the reader may laugh if he pleases or amuse himself at will if the serious bores him. Our author follows this with a discussion of the benefits of both tears and laughter. He closes the introduction with an aside in which he points out that though in many cases the protagonists have been identi fied, in other cases, the names have been suppressed out of fear or respect.

The introduction, thus, performs three principal functions: 1) that of introducing how al-Jahiz came to write this book, 2) defense of the tone of the book, and 3) what is most significant for the composition of the book as a whole, al-Jahiz's discussion of what he considers most interesting in its contents.

Of the three elements he cites, the "wondrous anecdote" is obvious. The "witty stratagem" or hila … is, in fact, the dramatic focus of the majority of the anecdotes, while the "novel argument" clearly refers to the bukhl statements as well as to certain of the anecdotes which do not contain stratagems. Thus, we can see that in this short passage, al-Jahiz has identified and succinctly categorized those elements of the work which, while exemplifying bukhl or the bukhala, give the work its literary charm. At the very least, their presence in the work would hardly seem accidental.

From the above discussion, it should be clear that all of the sections bear a definite relation to the subject of the work as a whole, though the level of organization at which this takes place varies. In some cases, this occurs at the level of the anecdote, in others, only at the level of the section. The Kitab al-Bukhala can, thus, be seen as a collection of sections.

But what about the arrangement of the sections themselves? Sections 15 and 16, on the one hand, and sections 30 and 31, on the other, clearly form necessary sequences. The other sections have no necessary relationship one to the other. Their placement in the work, however, becomes evident when one considers that al-Jahiz was deliberately creating the literary effect of variety. By referring to Table I, it can be seen that the non-anecdotal sections have been placed in a nearly symmetrical manner. The work begins with the epistle of Sahl ibn Harun. After a series of anecdotal sections, it is punctuated in positions 15 and 16 with the story of al-Harithi and its accompanying vocabulary. Finally, the penultimate

NA = non-anecdotal material A, Bl, B2, and C are anecdotal sections (see discussion above)
Section	Type	Pages
1	-	1-8
2	NA	9-16
3	C	17-28
4	C	29-34
5	B2	35-36
6	B1	37
7	A	38-40
8	B2	41-43
9	A	44-45
10	B2	46-53
11	A	54-57
12	B1	58
13	B2	59-65
14	B1	66
15	NA	67-75
16	NA	76-80
17	B2	81-93
18	B2	92-101
19	B2	102
20	B2	103-112
21	A	113-115
22	B2	116-119
23	A	120-128

24	B1	129
25	A	130-136
26	B2	137-143
27	B1	144
28	B2	145-146
29	A	147-153
30	NA	154-169
31	NA	169-194
32	A	195-212

and antepenultimate sections contain the two linked risalas which by their nature, as well as references to Sahl himself, recall the opening risala. The anecdotal sections are varied in their presentation without creating deliberate alternation which would be both obvious and tiresome. The principal exception to this, the linking of the two "C" sections (3 and 4), is only apparent. Section 3 discusses a geographical or ethnic category of persons, the Khurasanians, while section 4 discusses a social group, the Masjidis. In this way, the author has created a constantly varied and refreshing récit. Had he set up a clear relationship between the sections, as, for example, following the Khurasanians with another geographic group, or placing the risalas together, the reader would have grown familiar with a type of discourse which would have lost its charm. A similar effect would have been created had our author obviously and mathematically alternated the types. Instead, the reader perceives no organization as he reads, and is constantly surprised and delighted by the novelty and freshness of each new section.¹¹⁴ Thus, one should find in the superficial disorder of this work not a lack on the part of the author, but the sign of his genius.

…..

[The] greater part of the two Bukhala works is composed of anecdotes, that is, of potentially independent literary units. In order to develop a micropoetic analysis of these units, it is necessary to deal with them, at least initially, in isolation from their immediate environment. At the same time, for the efficacy of a structuralist analysis, it is essential to consider the units as part of a corpus. For the initial synchronie analysis, all of the anecdotes in each work will constitute a corpus. The author to be considered first, al-Jahiz, besides being the earlier of the two, is also the one with the higher density of anecdotes.

The bukhala anecdote, it will be remembered, was defined … as: a self-contained narrative unit embodying an action or event which demonstrates that a person, persons, or group or class of people, whether historical or not, possess the characteristic of bukhl. An examination of this definition shows that it is based upon an action defining a role which, in turn, is defining an action. The Proppian function was consequently redefined as an interface between action and role (F = A/R). Since a morphology is a sequence of functions, what we are in effect seeking in the anecdotes is the action/role of a bukhl action/bakhil. It is the nature of this function within the anecdote which determines its morphological category and not any action in the ordinary sense that may be present in the anecdotes. As we shall see, it is only the role-defining action that is significant for the categorization of the anecdotes.

The functional analysis has indeed revealed the existence of recurring morphological structures, thus permitting the identification and classification of the Jahizian anecdotes into morphological categories. The numerically most important, representing seventy-nine anecdotes (32.5% of the total) will be called the Object category. These anecdotes involve the use or abuse of something in an unusual or overly careful manner, in an effort to save.

A typical representative is the following:

Abu Abd ar-Rahman would, when he finished eating a head, take the skull and the jaws and place them near the places where ants and grubs were found, and when they had assembled there, he would take the skull and shake it over a basin of water. He did this until he had no more ants and grubs in the house. Then he would place the skull with the wood to use for kindling (J. #115).¹¹⁵

Evidently, the essential action in this anecdote, that by which Abu Abd ar-Rahman demonstrates that he is a bakhil, is the unusual use of the skull, since this is clearly motivated by a desire to save.

However, the function-embodying action in the Object anecdote need not always be presented in this manner. Al-Jahiz relates the following:

Abu Muhammad al-Hizami saw him one cold day in the month of October wearing a rather old Qumisi overcoat. Al-Hizami thereupon expressed his surprise that a man as intelligent as al-Jahiz could be so wasteful and so ignorant. Al-Jahiz, rather surprised, asked him why. He was told that it was because he was wearing the coat before its time. Al-Jahiz replied that it certainly was cold enough, and futher that he would wear the same coat in July or August, if the weather called for it. Al-Hizami replied that in that case he should replace this particular coat with a lined outer garment, and further that wearing wool on such a day was not allowed. Upon asking why, al-Jahiz was told that the dust at the end of the summer enters the wool and settles between the threads. When it rains, this dust gets wet, and furthermore, it is salty. When the wool contracts, this wet dust will become part of it and will corrode it. Therefore, the wearing of wool should be limited to the period after the rains when the air has been purified of all the dust present. Then it may be worn with God's blessing (J. #68).

Although there are many actions in the above anecdote, there is an action which must be singled out as the most important, the action which shows that al-Hizami is a bakhil. That action is the recommendation concerning the use of the coat. In effect, it is not the act of recommending but the content of that which is recommended which is significant. The act of recommending, when considered in isolation from the action which is recommended, is morally neutral. Only the content of the recommended action can indicate, for example, that the recommender is a bakhil. The function, thus, is found in the recommended action. This action, of course, falls within the Object category, as does the anecdote.

As can be seen, the function need not be the only action taking place in the anecdote, nor need the other actions, as in this case the recommending, be given in an abbreviated form or limited to a rhetorical device of introduction. Function and narrative need not be even substantially identical.

Further, the action/function in the above anecdote did not actually take place. It remains theoretical because it is recommended. The narrative pattern of recommendation has been applied to other Object anecdotes. Bakhite recommended actions ranging from eating fava bean skins (J. #105) to flavoring with olive water (J. #103), as well as using special tricks when handling lamps (J. #9, J. #10).

In addition, the actions in these anecdotes can be either discrete or continuous. The unusual use of the skull, as in the anecdote discussed above, is a finite action, accomplished deliberately and in a limited period of time, even though this might be several hours. The non-use of the woolen Qumisi overcoat, on the other hand, is continuous. An even clearer example of a continuous action is provided by the following anecdote:

The Marwazis, when they wear their shoes during the six months that they cannot take them off, walk on their toes for three months and on their heels for the other three. In this manner, it is as if they wore the shoes for only three months, this out of fear that the soles of the shoes might get worn out or get a hole (J. #24).

As the above example demonstrates, the action sometimes could be habitual. The implication is that the action has taken place in the past as it will in the future. Habitual actions, of course, can be either discrete or continuous. The logic of recommended actions, however, dictates that they not be habitual. There are also anecdotes in which the action is historical in the simplest sense, as when the same al-Hizami of the Qumisi overcoat refuses a gift of some free molasses, justifying this action which seemed so out of character with a long speech listing all the expenses which the acceptance of the molasses would eventually create (J. #78).

The flexibility in the manner of presentation of the action is made possible by the simplicity of the morphological structure of the Object anecdote. This simplicity is related not only to the fact that these anecdotes contain only one function but also to the fact that this function is independent of any interpersonal relations. The action/function in the Object anecdote transmits the quality of bukhl through the nature of the action itself. Only the bakhil or the object used or abused is necessary for the fulfillment of the function. Hence the action can be treated in isolation, referred to, recommended, and/or embedded in a narrative.

Although the structure of the Object anecdote requires only the presence of a solitary bakhil, there are numerous anecdotes in which other people are present. As the above examples show, these other characters can be receivers of a recommendation (Qumisi overcoat), witnesses, or part of the background against which the bakhil reacts (the molasses). They can also be, from a certain point of view, objects, in the grammatical sense, of the bukhl action itself. These anecdotes, however, present certain problems in the identification of their morphological patterns, as can be seen from the following example:

Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Sayyar an-Nazzam related the following: A neighbor invited us and served us dates and rendered butter. We were sitting around a table on which there was nothing but what I mentioned. The Khurasani [from an earlier anecdote] was eating with us. I saw him dropping the fat on the table drop by drop again and again. So I said to my neighbor: "What is with so and so that he wastes other people's butter, behaves ill, and serves himself more than his share?" "Don't you know his reason?" he answered, "no, by God, I don't," I said. So he replied: "The table is his, and he wants to grease it in order to varnish it. He has divorced his wife, his children's mother, because he saw her washing a table of his with hot water. He said to her: Why didn't you just wipe it?" (J. #15).

Clearly, in this story, the dripping of the butter is the role-defining action. In a certain sense, it could be argued that the host is the victim of this action, since it is his butter which is being spilled. This could place the anecdote within another morphological category, the Agent/Victim category which will be discussed below. Nevertheless, the above example, as well as some others, belongs to the Object category. If one examines that aspect of the action which makes it exemplify bukhl, one can see that far more important than the appropriation of the host's butter, is the manifest exaggeration involved in the bakhil's taking this opportunity to grease his own table, and with butter yet. Looked at another way, the actual transfer of value is miniscule not only in absolute terms but also in relation to the expense that the host has already incurred in providing the butter and dates. One is obliged to assume that the host would not grudge this expense. That the significant aspect of the action is the unusual solicitude for the table's finish is demonstrated when al-Jahiz adds the quip about this same person refusing to have his table washed with hot water. The pointed quality of this last remark depends upon the understanding of the main action/function as falling within the Object category. From a strictly literary point of view, what al-Jahiz has done has been to place this very simple Object function in a context which, like the story of the molasses above, creates an element of suspense and variety in the acting out of the role of bakhil.

The anecdote with the butter further illustrates an important aspect of the Object category, what one might call the imaginative versus the ordinary use of the object, the imaginative use (or non-use) being one for which the object was clearly not intended. Examples of this imaginative aspect include the already mentioned butter anecdote, as well as the anecdotes with the Qumisi overcoat and the skull. The ordinary use (or non-use), on the other hand, involves some exaggera tion in what might otherwise be normal use of an object. This is well illustrated by the anecdote about Layla an-Naitiyya who did not cease mending her garments to the point that what she would eventually be wearing would be simply the patches themselves with no trace of the original garment (J. #37).

In all of the anecdotes so far discussed, the functiongenerating action, whether it was imaginative or ordinary, habitual or recommended, finite or continuous, always involved something done to or with an object, in the hope of effecting a saving, no matter how small. There are in al-Jahiz's work two anecdotes which could be said to place less emphasis on saving, stressing instead the bakhil's attachment to the object. We are told about a certain individual that he carried his bukhl to an extreme: whenever he got hold of a dirham, he would address it fondly and swear to it that he would never let it out of his grasp again (J. #163). Here, there is no question of the use or abuse of some object. What is morphologically significant is the fact that this individual is so attached to the object that he not only addresses it in a fond manner but also declares that he will never part with it. Clearly, it is his emotional attachment to the object which is the driving force behind his bukhl. This stress on attachment could be understood as a psychological analogue to the usual actions in the Object category. Left undeveloped by al-Jahiz, this facet of the Object morphology is exploited both more frequently and more intensely in the Khatibian corpus, as will be shown below.

As the above discussion shows, the objects around which the action of the bakhil revolves include various things. The largest number, approximately forty-five percent of the total, is composed of food, be it bread, stew, dates, or grain. The second most common object which one finds in this morphological category is clothing, forming approximately fifteen percent of the total. This could be shoes, sandals, overcoats, or shirts. The remaining forty percent is made up of various objects. Some of these occur in negligible percentages, such as oil and money, each of which comprises approximately seven percent of the total, and perfume, which comprises approximately five percent of the total. Other objects are found perhaps once, such as soap, or twice, such as water.

There is yet one more aspect of the Object category which bears mention, the distribution of these anecdotes in the work of al-Jahiz. While the bulk of the Object anecdotes are interspersed throughout the anecdotal sections of the book, there is one section which is made up entirely of Object anecdotes. This section, entitled "The Story of the Masjidis among the People of Basra," involves a group of people who sat around the mosque and exchanged stories and advice about diverse "economies" that they had discovered. Implicitly or explicitly, these techniques or methods are praised. Referring all to the use or abuse of objects, these are all Object anecdotes. As will be seen later, given the nature of the other categories of anecdotes, the types of actions attributed to bakhih by al-Jahiz, and the fact that all the masjidis are in a sense bragging, it could not be otherwise.

As we have seen, the Object anecdotes revolved around one function. Not all anecdotal categories, however, display single-function morphologies. The second category to be discussed, the Hospitality category, contains a more complicated morphology, representing a sequence of two functions. This group comprises fifty-four anecdotes (22% of the total).

The anecdote from which the functions will be derived is the following:

A Marwazi used to travel, either on a pilgrimage or on business, and would stay with an Iraqi who was always generous with him and gave him all the provisions he needed. The Marwazi would tell his friend that he would be very happy to see him in Merv so that he could repay him for at least a part of what he had given him. It so happened that after a time the Iraqi had some business in that area. What made the burdens of the trip lighter and what made him feel better about leaving home was the knowledge that his friend, the Marwazi, was there. Upon arrival, he went to see him in his traveling clothes, his turban, his headgear, and his overcoat, so that he could stay with him, something, after all, one does with friends. When he found the Marwazi sitting among some companions, he bent down towards him and embraced him. But he did not see any sign of recognition, nor did the Marwazi ask any questions, as someone might who had never seen him before. So the Iraqi said to himself: "Perhaps he does not recognize me because of my veil," so he took it off and began questioning the Marwazi. The latter was even more denying. So the Iraqi said: "Perhaps this is a result of the turban." So he took that off and told him who he was and began his questions again. The Marwazi recognized him even less. So the Iraqi said: "Well, maybe it is a result of the headgear." At that point, the Marwazi realized that there was nothing more he could do and he said to the Iraqi: "Even if you got out of your skin, I would not recognize you" (J. #12).

In order to derive the function-identifying actions in this rhetorically elaborate anecdote, a summary of the major events will be presented. A Marwazi on his travels is always well received by his Iraqi friend. The Marwazi in turn promises his friend the same amenities if he comes to visit him. There comes a time when the Iraqi does indeed have to go to Merv and he does indeed alight at his friend's home. However, no matter what he does, his friend does not recognize him, and even goes so far as to say so. We can further distill the actions that are vital to the nature of the anecdote into the following: The Iraqi enters the house of the Marwazi, and no matter what he does, the Marwazi does not recognize him. Clearly, the Marwazi had a social obligation to invite his friend to his home and offer him what he could. By failing to recognize his friend, the Marwazi is in effect denying him hospitality. But what is most important here is that he does not openly refuse this hospitality, but resorts to a stratagem, the non-recognition of his friend. The two functions in the Hospitality category are thus the following: the demand of hospitality being the first, and the avoidance without refusal being the second.

It is interesting to note that in this story, as in all of the anecdotes that concern hospitality, outright refusal is effectively taboo, and is scrupulously avoided. The bakhil, as one would naturally expect, is always the host. However, it must be emphasized that it is not simply the circumstances of a host and guest/s which place an anecdote within the Hospitality category but the existence of the sequence of functions developed above. As will be shown below, there are anecdotes involving the presence of a host and his guest/s whose function/s would dictate their inclusion in different morphological categories.

In a sense, the act of hospitality could be represented as first, the recognition that a demand has been made, and second, the fulfillment of this demand. If, however, we were to set up a chain of events and circumstances necessary for the fulfillment on the part of the host of his duty to the guest, one can see that the bakhil must, without outright refusal, break the chain at one of its points. Therefore, each anecdote can be described according to the place where the chain is broken, or stated another way, the place in a sequence of hypothetical events where the second function is clothed in an action.

This sequence of events is the following:

1. implicit or explicit demand
2. host recognizes this demand
3. host recognizes what the demand implies, shelter or food or both
4. the goods (generally food) are presented in sufficient quantity
5. the goods presented are of sufficient quality and properly prepared
6. an atmosphere is created in which the goods can actually be consumed.

There are anecdotes in which the chain is broken at all of these points, excluding, of course, point A.

B: The break in the chain here is well illustrated by the Marwazi anecdote above. The guest is not recognized. This phenomenon can also be seen in the following anecdote: A certain Jabal went out one night from the place where he had spent the evening. But, fearing the night patrol and muggers, he decided that he would knock on Abu Mazin's door, saying to himself that he would merely spend the night in any convenient area and not cause Abu Mazin any discomfort. He knocked persistently at the door, and Abu Mazin, thinking it was someone bringing him a gift, ran down. But when he opened the door and saw Jabal, it was as though he had seen the angel of death. So he pretended to be drunk, and said that he was drunk. But Jabal told him to be as he wished and all he wanted from him, considering that the weather was moderate and he himself satiated, was simply to let him nap a bit in the vestibule and he would leave early in the morning. Abu Mazin would have none of it, however, and insisted he was drunk, did not know where he was, and understood nothing. He thereupon slammed the door in Jabal's face and went in convinced that his excuse had worked and that he had been gifted with this stratagem! (J. #39).

Although this anecdote would appear superficially to be completely different from the Marwazi anecdote, its structure is nevertheless identical. The demand (A) is there but the host, Abu Mazin, does not recognize the demand, or feigns not to, thus breaking the chain at point B.

C: The break here involves a host who need not admit what the hospitality implies. Zubayda ibn Humayd, for example, asked his servant to present the guests with the backgammon "table" instead of the table of food (J. #35). Then there is the case of Muhammad ibn Abi al-Muammal who would hold the toothpick in his hand, just to discourage any visitor from thinking he might get lunch (J. #96).

D: The break here involves the presentation by the bakhil of an insufficient quantity of whatever goods might be involved. A good example of this type is the anecdote involving Musa ibn Janah, who served a dish in which one could count the grains of rice (J. #156). There is also the case of the bakhil who served bread which was too small (J. #53), and yet another bakhil who did not serve enough bread (J. #54).

E: Here, while the goods presented might be of sufficient quantity, the quality would be such as to effect a break in the chain. This is well illustrated by a host who served suspicious-looking stews (J. #65).

The final step in the chain, and in a certain sense the last chance for the bakhil to keep his goods from being consumed, is step F. The break in the chain at this stage involves some type of a ruse which will take effect even though the goods have been presented in sufficient quantity as well as quality. An excellent example is that of a host who ordered the servant to sprinkle one, two, or even three flies on the food simply to make it unappetizing for the guests (J. #153). The ruse, however, need not be necessarily so physical. The bakhil might attempt to destroy the emotional climate, thus making it impossible for others to partake of the goods. This might involve, for example, counseling the guest against eating. One host urged his guest to partake of the dishes which had already been injured and not to touch those which were healthy (J. #44).

Although the logical progression from point A in the hospitality chain to the point at which the chain is broken would dictate the presence of every point along the chain up to the break, the narrative does not necessarily have to include all of the points. In other words, if the break in the hospitality chain is to occur, for example, at point F, it is not imperative that the narrative include points A, B, C, D, and E. They can be assumed actions without whose implied presence point F could not take place. In the case of the bakhil whose servant sprinkled flies on the food (J. #153), for example, the break occurs at point F. Yet the anecdotal narrative in this case is condensed to such a degree that we are merely presented with the fact that the host urges his servant to sprinkle the flies so that his guests will shrink in disgust. But this function-generating action, the ruse to keep the goods from being consumed, would be nonsensical unless we assumed all of the preceding logical steps in the hospitality situation: the demand made on the host, his recognition of this demand, his recognition that the demand in this case implied food, his presentation of the food in sufficient quantity and quality. It is within this context, which is not stated in the narrative but assumed by the reader, that the break makes sense.

The above discussion of the hospitality chain might suggest that the act of hospitality, considered as an abstraction representing certain goods and services, dealt exclusively with providing a good meal. Indeed, in the great majority of anecdotes this is the case, and the actual goods in question, when they are named, are most usually food. Nevertheless, hospitality can represent other goods and services as well. In the Marwazi anecdote (J. #12) discussed above, it is clear that the Iraqi was expecting not only a good meal but also a comfortable place to spend the night. In this way, one can speak of a plurality of possible chains and it is often only when the anecdote proceeds along a given chain that it is possible to see precisely what services are being denied.

In the case of the Marwazi anecdote, the demand for shelter is implicit in the Iraqi's long journey. In anecdote J. #39, discussed above, Jabal explicitly stated that all he wanted was shelter. His remark that he is satiated, while it increases the odiousness of the bakhil's rejection, also indicates that no food is demanded. This anecdote, like that of the Marwazi, involves a break early in the chain.

The break can, however, occur further along in the chain, as illustrated by the following: al-Makki related that he had spent the night at the house of Ismail ibn Ghazwan, who had only invited him because he was aware that al-Makki not only had already eaten dinner at Muways' house but that he also carried some wine. When it was well into the night, al-Makki lay on the rug to sleep, using his arm as a pillow. There was nothing in the room but a prayer rug, one cushion, and one pillow. Ismail took the pillow and threw it to al-Makki. But al-Makki refused it and returned it to him. So Ismail refused but al-Makki refused in turn. Then Ismail replied that his guest could not possibly use his elbow as a pillow while he himself had an extra one. So al-Makki accepted the pillow and placed it under his cheek. But the strangeness of the place and the dryness of the bed kept him from sleeping. Ismail, thinking him already asleep, crept up slowly and pulled the pillow from under his head. When al-Makki saw him walking away with the pillow, he laughed and said: "You did not need it…" Ismail replied: "I only came to arrange your head." al-Makki said: "I did not speak to you until you had walked away with it." But Ismail answered: "I had come for that purpose, but when I got the pillow in my hand, I forgot what I had come for. Wine, as you know, destroys the memory" (J. #159).

In this anecdote, the break actually occurs at point F. Given that F is well into the hospitality chain, the goods/services are not generalized but specified, a pillow. Ismail, the host, has fulfilled all the points along the chain, recognizing the demand, recognizing its implication, of fering the pillow. It is when his guest is about to use the pillow, i.e. to consume the goods, that he breaks the chain. By pulling the pillow from under al-Makki's head, Ismail is making it physically impossible for him to use it.

This anecdote, like the story of Jabal, focuses on shelter by explicitly excluding food. Yet, in both cases, the manner of exclusion implies that the situation is abnormal, that food would otherwise be expected. The chain can concern shelter because the guest has already eliminated the demand for food to which he would otherwise be entitled, and the rejection of this second, more modest, claim only increases the bukhl of the host. In a sense, therefore, these two exceptions prove the rule of the importance of food in the Hospitality anecdote. Interestingly enough, in both anecdotes, the host uses wine to provide himself with an excuse to get out of his predicament.

The more normal characterization of hospitality involving food and shelter can be seen in the anecdote in which Mahfuz an-Naqqash invited al-Jahiz to his home on a cold, rainy night and offered him exceptional colostrum and dates. The host, nevertheless, attempted to discourage his guest from eating, citing concern over the latter's health as justification. The stratagem, however, is not successful and the episode only serves to induce great mirth on the part of al-Jahiz (J. #143).

In this example, the hospitality clearly involves both food and shelter, though since it is the enjoyment of the food which is being contested, it is the food branch of the chain which is being broken. Viewed this way, the break occurs at point F. On the other hand, it can be questioned whether the chain is actually broken. The consumption of the food is not really at issue here since the bakhil could be said to have destroyed the neces sary emotional climate for its enjoyment. In a certain sense, however, he has not succeeded even here since the entire maneuver only provokes al-Jahiz's merriment. This other aspect of the anecdote relates to another category, the Bakhil = Victim anecdote, which will be discussed below."¹¹⁶

As the above discussion has demonstrated, the Hospitality anecdote can manifest itself along various chains. Yet no matter how different the chains might be, they are always broken. This is necessary since the situation dictates no refusal on the part of the host. Indeed, in certain cases, as was seen, the host even goes so far as to extend an invitation to the guest (see, among others, J. #12, J. #143, J. #159, discussed above). The break in the chain must be done with a stratagem, since, without it, the break would not take place. This break, of course, constitutes the second function which was analyzed above as the avoidance on the part of the host without an actual refusal. Since this can only be accomplished by a stratagem, the second function must be embodied in a stratagem. In certain cases, as indicated in the above analysis, the text is limited to the stratagem, the first function forming part of an implied narrative. Indeed, the strata gem/function is the only part of the narrative which must receive rhetorical expression. Without it, the Hospitality anecdote ceases to exist.

Thus, the anecdotes in the Hospitality category, like those in the Object, revolve around a stratagem. Together, these two categories represent over one half (54.7%) of the anecdotal corpus, and are concerned almost exclusively with food.

The third category to be discussed will be called the Agent/Victim category. It comprises sixty-one anecdotes (25% of the total). The anecdote from which the function will be derived is the following:

One night, the candle went out. Ali al-Uswari attacked some of the food which was in front of someone else, taking advantage of the darkness and putting into practice the saying that night hides better the calamity. But the other fellow noticed it, having an eye only for this type of thing. So he said: "It is for this reason that kings used not to eat with the rabble" (J. #63).

In this anecdote, what is in effect taking place is that Ali grabs some food from someone else. By doing this, he is depriving the other person of that food, at the same time as benefiting himself.¹¹⁷ In other words, there is a transfer of the food from one party to the other. The function in this category is embodied by the action in which the transfer of value occurs. The agent in the above example, Ali, is the bakhil. He acquires his gain at the expense of the victim, the second party from whom the food was taken. Though this anecdote takes place within the setting of hospitality, i.e. several guests are eating at the home of a host, it is not a Hospitality anecdote, since it displays the Agent/Victim and not the Hospitality functional morphology.

Within the same setting of hospitality, the Agent/Victim function can be embodied in different actions: al-Kindi used to invite himself to his tenants' homes. The tenants put up with this because of his goodness, his excessive bukhl, and the charm of his conversation (J. #85). Here, al-Kindi's action involves his eating at his tenants' homes. The transfer of value is from the tenants to himself, he being the Agent, and the tenants, the Victims. This same pattern of transfer occurs, for example, in another anecdote involving a bakhil who, although he inherited a great fortune, was nevertheless in the habit of eating dinner at his friends' homes (J. #40).

The action of the bakhil in the Agent/Victim category need not be directed necessarily to other guests or strangers. It could be aimed at the family or servants of the bakhil. There is the case of al-Anbari who, after eating dates, threw the pits to his old wet nurse who would suck on them. If, however, he saw her chewing a pit too vigorously, he would lose his temper (J. #119).

One of the distinctive features of the Agent/Victim category is its tendency to include references to money and commercial relations. Coins make their appearance in the following anecdote: Zubayda ibn Humayd, the moneychanger, borrowed two dirhams and a qirat [one twelfth of a dirham]¹¹⁸ from a greengrocer located in front of his house. When he paid him back after six months, he gave him two dirhams and the weight of three grains of barley. The grocer became angry and said to him: "You have a hundred thousand dinars and I am a greengrocer who does not have even a hundred fals. I live only by my work and by saving one grain or two. A camel driver and a porter came crying at your door but you had no money and your manager was not there, so I paid your debt of two dirhams and the weight of four barley grains. Now, six months later, you pay me back two dirhams and the weight of three barley grains!" Zubayda replied: "You fool! You lent me the money in the summer and I am paying you back during the winter. Since three humid winter grains are heavier than four dry summer grains, I do not doubt that you made a profit" (J. #32).

In another anecdote, Khalid ibn Yazid mistakenly gave a beggar a dirham instead of a fals. When he noticed what he had done, he took back the dirham and gave him a fals (J. #49).

There is a second phase of the Agent/Victim category which, though built around the same functional pattern (remembering that the function is an action/role relationship), displays actions whose tendency is sufficiently distinct to give it some of the qualities of a separate category. In the Agent/Victim anecdotes discussed above, the actions all tend to be positive, the bakhil often physi cally depriving his victim of a good, in the strongest case, taking it out of his hand. In this second phase of the Agent/Victim anecdotes, while the role relationships have remained the same, the nature of the action shifts from positive to negative; the bakhil, no longer taking from the victim, is now performing the negative act of refusing (or avoiding) to give, share, lend, etc. Oviously, in some cases, it is not possible to distinguish systematically between positive and negative acts. Al-Anbari, for example, could be accused at the same time of either the positive act of chewing all of the meat from the date pits or the negative act of not giving this to his wet nurse, and in that sense one can speak properly of a continuum from wholly positive to wholly negative acts. Nevertheless, in the anecdote with al-Anbari, the deprivation is real, tangible, and immediate, as is the benefit of the bakhil, and the victim is definite. In the anecdotes of the second phase, however, as will be seen later, the negative aspects of the action can become so strong that the victim can be theoretical and not appear at all.

That, of course, is only one extreme. At the other end of the spectrum, we find anecdotes like the following: Abu Ishaq Ibrahim ibn Sayyar an-Nazzam once asked one of his neighbors, of Khurasani origin, to lend him his frying pan. The Khurasani replied that he used to own one but that it was stolen. So Ibrahim borrowed one from another neighbor. But as soon as the Khurasani heard the sizzling of the meat in the pan and smelled the dish, he reproached Ibrahim for not having informed him that he needed it for cooking meat or grease. For in that case, he continued, he would have rushed to lend him the pan. His fear was that Ibrahim would use it to fry vegetables and that this would cause the iron to burn if fried without fat. However, he would certainly not have refused to lend it had he known it would be used for this particular dish, since the pan would be in better condition after the cooking than it would be remain ing unused in his own home (J. #14).

In this example, the act is the negative one of refusing to lend the pan, though this refusal was couched in an excuse, swiftly abandoned in the encounter. In another example, al-Asmai went to great lengths to justify a refusal to give or lend money (J. #235).

In these instances, it can be seen that a refusal is reasonably direct, much more so than would be tolerated in a Hospitality anecdote. In fact, there is no question of hospitality where a refusal does occur.

Nevertheless, there need not be even so much as a positive refusal to a specific request. This can be shown in the anecdote of a certain bakhil who justified his tendency rarely to laugh with the fact that the laughing man is more inclined to generosity, i.e. giving to another (J. #142). In this anecdote, the refusal has become diffused into a tendency or desire to avoid giving. The victim or victims, though we must suppose that there have been some, do not appear in the narrative.

This development is taken to its furthest extreme in the case of a Khurasanian who was asked why he was eating alone on a boat full of people. He replied that it was rather the others who, in his view, were behaving abnormally by eating together (J. #16).

The motivation, of course, of this solitary diner is a reluctance to share his food. One cannot speak of a refusal since no demand was made and the eventual victim at whose expense the bakhil believes he is benefiting is several levels removed from the narrative. What is happening is that the Khurasanian is eating alone in order to avoid a situation where he might be called upon to share, and the victim, if there is one, is any person who might otherwise have been in a position to share his food.

As the last example shows, food is still the most common concern of the bakhil, representing almost one half of the Agent/Victim anecdotes. Money, which makes its first appearance in quantity in this category, is present in slightly over one third of the anecdotes. In addition, it should be noted that the Agent/Victim anecdotes are spread fairly evenly throughout the text.

There is a very small category of anecdotes, five in all which in terms of the nature and goals of the function-embodying action is similar to some of the last examples of the second phase of the Agent/Victim category discussed above. Nevertheless, despite these strong similarities, the form of the function is so distinctive that these anecdotes must be treated as a separate category.

This category will be called the Collective category because its function can only be expressed in a collective context. It is well illustrated by the following A group of Khurasanians shared a house and did without a lamp as long as they could. Then they divided the expense among themselves but one of them refused to pay his share. For this reason, when the lamp was brought out, they would blindfold him with a handkerchief. This continued until they went to sleep and put out the light, at which time they uncovered his eyes (J. #6).

In this example, the role of the bakhil has been diffused over the entire company, all of whose members are agents and victims at the same time. The man who refused to pay is clearly a bakhil and an agent in this refusal. But the other members of the company are also bakhils in grudging him this and covering his eyes, for which act he is a victim. Thus, the function, when seen as an action, is a simultaneous attack and defense on the part of a plurality of bakhils, all attempting to maximize their gain at the expense of their fellows. When, on the other hand, the function is seen as a role/action relationship, all the participants are bakhils, and each bakhil is an agent and victim at the same time.

The collectivity, equivalence, and simultaneity of the action are even more clearly apparent in two further anecdotes. In one, a group of fifty Khurasanians making the pilgrimage together all ate separately when they stopped to eat (J. #7). In another anecdote, it is explained that the inhabitants of Merv, when they traveled together, would bring their meat in common and then divide it among themselves. The cooking was also done in common in one large pot, but each traveler attached his piece of meat to a string that bore a distinctive mark so that he could find it when the cooking was done (J. #13).

In a sense, it could be said that this morphology is produced by taking the Agent/Victim assumptions about the nature and role of the bakhil and then forcing him into a situation where all characters are bakhils. They are then obliged, by their nature and circumstances, to be both agents and victims.

Another distinctive quality of these five anecdotes is that they are all in the chapter on the Khurasanians. This is only logical because it is easier to construct a scenario involving several bakhils if one starts with a collectivity enjoying a reputation for bukhl. Conversely, this Collective function is an excellent way of characterizing a given group of people, in this case the Khurasanians.

Bakhils are also victims, and, indeed, exclusively so, in the next category of anecdotes which will be considered, the Bakhil = Victim category. There are twenty such anecdotes (8.2% of the total). The functions in this category will be derived from the following anecdote:

Thumama did not like to have strange guests brought to his table, preferring to eat with one of his servants. Qasim at-Tammar brought to lunch one day someone whom Thumama did not like. After Qasim repeated this action many times, Thumama got angry and asked him why he did so. Qasim answered that he wanted to give his friend the reputation of generosity and spare him that of bakhl. Some time after this, a guest asked to leave because his stomach was in motion. Qasim insisted that the guest stay and "do his ablutions" there, since the cabinet was empty and clean. In the following days Qasim repeated his gesture again and still once more. Thumama then became quite angry and protested that Qasim invited people to his house so he would not seem a bakhil, but should someone have to let people defecate in his house in order not to be taken for a bakhil with food? (J. #224).

This anecdote, and thus the Bakhil = Victim category, has a morphological structure consisting of two functions. In the first, some action is done to the bakhil, generally something is taken from him or imposed upon him. In the second function, he reacts to this with displeasure, though this may be shown by the actions or protests of the bakhil and/or told by the narrator.

What this pattern of functions represents in terms of the bakhil is that the bakhil has become a victim. The first function shows that he is not an agent, that he is acted upon, and the second that he is victimized and thus unhappy. In effect, in this category, the role of bakhil and that of victim are inextricably intertwined. It is only because he is a bakhil that our hero is upset since the same action done to a generous man should not have displeased him. Or, put another way, given the action of the anecdote, it is his status as a bakhil which forces him into the role of victim, just as it is his status as a victim which shows that he is a bakhil. This same pattern can be seen in a similar anecdote where a bakhil is rendered miserable by the arrival of unexpected guests, one of whom devours a fish which he had intended for himself as a delicacy (J. #100).

One of the interesting qualities of the Bakhil = Victim category is its tendency to annex plot structures from the Hospitality anecdote through the narrative elaboration of the first function. A good example is the anecdote about a host who used to have a kid brought out at the end of a meal. He never touched it, and neither did his guests. One day, however, a Bedouin, unused to this custom, attacked the kid, going so far as to rip the meat off the bones, which, of course, provoked an angry response from the host (J. #191). As we know from other anecdotes (for example, J. #93, J. #193), and as is clear from the narrative, reserving the kid for the end of the meal was a hospitality stratagem. But here, the bakhil is victimized through his failure and the reader can see that he is a victim both from the expression of his unhappiness and from the unhappiness, or victimization, which can be deduced from the failure of his attempt. What is also particularly intriguing in anecdotes of this type is that the bakhil has shifted from agent to victim in the course of the narrative as the anecdotal structure has shifted from a possible Hospitality to a Bakhil = Victim anecdote.

This shift from agent (in the grammatical sense) to victim is also present in the anecdote in which al-Jahiz spends the night at the home of Mahfuz an-Naqqash (J. #143) which was discussed above in the Hospitality category. The reasons for considering it a Hospitality anecdote have already been given. Al-Jahiz's laughter at the end, especially when coupled with the fact that he had eaten the milk and dates, might argue for considering this anecdote a Bakhil = Victim anecdote. The second function in the Bakhil = Victim morphology would then be argued as not being rhetorically present in the text but deducible from the narrative. In fact, whatever the functional ambiguities of this anecdote, it is clear that from a literary point of view it has a composite structure. The literary significance of this composite structure will be discussed in Chapter VI below.

The Bakhil = Victim anecdotes, which, it should be noted, tend to be concentrated in the last third of the work, almost exclusively deal with food and take place in a hospitality setting. This would seem to be because it is only in such a setting that the bakhil is rendered power less by the taboo on the outright refusal of hospitality which was discovered in the Hospitality category.

There are anecdotes in which no physical act of bukhl is performed, assumed, recommended, referred to, or alluded to. Such a one is the story of Ismail ibn Ghazwan who suggested to his guest that bakhils were more intelligent than generous people and cited the names of several noted bakhils as evidence (J. #160). In this anecdote, we know that Ismail is a bakhil not because of any concrete action but because he has recommended and defended the abstract quality of bukhl. The function-generating action here is thus the act of preaching bukhl. This category is therefore called the Preaching category. On occasion, this praise of bukhl can be shown, indirectly, through the praise of riches.

This category also includes anecdotes which can be called negative Preaching anecdotes. In this phase, we have a development seen in the negative Agent/Victim category discussed above. We are told about a certain bakhil that though he was capable of discussing a myriad of subjects, he never uttered the word "generosity" (J. #215). In the same vein, Tahir al-Asir mentioned that what indicated that the Byzantines were the most miserly of people was the fact that there did not exist in their language a word for generosity (J. #216). In these two examples, the action is, in fact, the negative act which completely eliminates the word "generosity." Thus, bukhl is, in the last analysis, being approved. But this approval of bukhl is not taking place through a positive statement extolling the quality but through an action which can be seen as negative in two separate ways. First, the protagonist's attitude towards bukhl is shown by his negative attitude to its opposite, generosity,¹¹⁹ and second, his attitude to generosity is shown by his negative action of never uttering the word.

What is most interesting about the Preaching anecdotes is that they are in fact almost identical in content and very similar in form to the non-anecdotal bukhl statements discussed in Chapter III above. The Preaching anecdotes could be considered miniature versions of the bukhl statements or the bukhl statements could be considered giant examples of the Preaching anecdotes. It has already been observed in Chapter III that the bukhl statements create a sense of variety and a pause between the more actionoriented anecdotal sections. If one remembers that the anecdotes of the Object and Hospitality categories, which by themselves constitute over one half of the anecdotal corpus, are completely based around stratagems and that in the other categories, with the exception of the Preaching anecdotes, stratagems are often present, it can be seen that the great majority of anecdotes are concerned with stratagems. The vital importance of the stratagem, especially as concerns the Hospitality category, did not, needless to say, go unnoticed by our author. In one of the numerous anecdotes about Muhammad ibn Abi al-Muammal, he mentions offhandedly that Muhammad outdid all others when it came to ruses or stratagems concerning his food.¹²⁰ This preponderance of stratagems is only increased when one excludes the Preaching anecdotes. The Preaching anecdotes, of course, like the bukhl statements, are based on interesting arguments. The stratagems and the arguments, thus, when added together, represent almost the totality of the book. Or, as al-Jahiz put it, and so much more eloquently, in his introduction: "In this book you will have three things: the exposition of a curious argument, the discovery of a brilliant stratagem, and the benefit of a marvelous anecdote."¹²¹

But the Kitab al-Bukhala of al-Jahiz possesses more than this mere organization of content. The corpus of anecdotes itself displays an interesting economy of roles. A role, as it was observed above, can be understood as a character defined by an action which he performs, is subjected to, or is likely by his nature to perform. A bakhil, of course, is such a role. It has, however, become evident in the course of the analysis of the morphological categories that this concept of role has to be qualified with another. Sometimes the bakhil was the subject of an action, at other times its object, or more specifically as has been observed above, the agent or the victim of an action.

This division corresponds to Claude Bremond's distinction between agent and patient, the agent being the person who performs an action, the patient being the person who is subjected to it.¹²² While agent and victim well describe the functional roles played by the bakhil in the anecdotes, agent and patient will be taken here, and again following Bremond, as the necessary theoretical subdivisions of the larger role of bakhil. If we divide the bakhil, who is after all the principal actor in all of these narratives, into his two potential roles of agent and patient, we observe the economy of roles and actions….

The bakhil's relationship to the action, i.e. whether agent or patient, is linked, of course, to the presence and activity of others in the anecdote. If one starts with a uniform set of characteristics, principally desire to gain, considered as inherent in the role of the bakhil, one can plot the morphological categories as the expression of this nature or role according to the presence or nature of any other actors and according to the agent or patient status of the bakhil.

By himself, free to act as an agent, and in contact with the physical environment, the bakhil seeks to maximize his gain from the physical environment, thus generating the Object anecdote. In the presence of others, the bakhil can act as an agent and he will thus seek to gain at the expense of the other party, which generates, according to circumstances, the Agent/Victim or the Hospitality anecdote. But the bakhil, in the presence of others who are not themselves bakhils, can also be the patient of the action. Acting out his fundamental role of bakhil, he then becomes a victim, which results in the Bakhil = Victim anecdote. Finally, the bakhil can be interacting with other bakhils, in which case all become the focus of the anecdote, and as each one tries to act out his nature as bakhil, all are forced into the simultaneous position of agent and patient, characterized by the Collective anecdote.

This initial analysis, while it delineates the relationship between the categories and the agent and patient divisions of the bakhil role, fails to account for the variety of functional morphologies actually present in the corpus. What, for example, differentiates the hospitality from the Agent/Victim anecdote, since in that schema they are identical? and, why is the bakhil, given his uniform nature, sometimes able to play the role of agent and other times forced into that of victim? To answer these questions, it is necessary to add one more element to the analysis. This element is the taboo on the outright refusal of hospitality which was observed to function in the Hospitality and Bakhil = Victim categories. Thus, one more dimension needs to be added, and that is the presence or absence of a hospitality situation, this being defined as the situation in which the bakhil is a host and another character is his guest….

When the bakhil acts as agent in a situation in which the taboo is not present, he is free to operate and the Agent/Victim relationship is established. It should be noted that when the bakhil is acting to prevent the creation of a hospitality situation, as in certain negative Agent/Victim anecdotes, no hospitality situation exists, formally speaking, and the taboo is not in effect. All that can be said about this type of anecdote is that it can be assumed that the bakhil wishes to prevent the formation of such a situation because he knows that if he does not, he will have to deal with the taboo. When, on the other hand, the bakhil finds himself in a hospitality situation, either because he has invited guests or because they have dropped in unexpectedly, he has to work around the taboo which he does through one of the stratagems involved in the second function of the Hospitality anecdote. The other important tendency of the hospitality situation is that it can force the bakhil into the position of patient, as in the Bakhil = Victim anecdote. It is the taboo of the hospitality situation which is capable of rendering the bakhil helpless. This is, of course, assuming that he does not have a workable stratagem which would allow him to assume or regain his role as agent. If he were not in a hospitality situation, given his proclivities, he would fight back more openly and effectively, which would create a negative Agent/Victim anecdote, in which process, of course, the bakhil would regain his stature as an agent. For the bakhil to be forced into the position of patient in a non-hospitality situation, the other party would have to be moving against him in an improper manner. In other words, the major factor, other than the hospitality situation and its taboo, which can force the bakhil into the position of patient is another bakhil. This is the case in the Collective anecdote. It should be observed, however, that since every bakhil is being forced into the role of patient by every other bakhil, each bakhil is acting as an agent as well.

It is also possible, using a Greimasian conceptual model¹²³ to summarize the Hospitality and Bakhil = Victim categories as opposite results for the bakhil of the social constraints placed upon him in a hospitality situation. This, in fact, leads us to the following binarism:

Hospitality vs. Bakhil = Victim

The two role options of the bakhil can also be portrayed as:

Agent vs. Patient

The two sets of binary oppositions, in effect, revolve around a common denominator, the taboo on refusal. It is this common denominator, or semantic axis, as Greimas would phrase it,¹²⁴ which determines the possible role options, and, therefore, the two categories as well….

If the bakhil is successful in extricating himself from the taboo, he is an Agent, and a Hospitality category is produced. If, however, he is not successful, he becomes a Patient and a Bakhil = Victim category results.

Thus, it is only when the final dimension of hospitality versus non-hospitality has been added to the preceding schemata that the full range of functional morphologies can be both individually defined and integrated in a total analysis. But this final dimension, unlike the agent/patient distinction for example, would not have been derived from a completely abstract or universal narratological analytical framework. That is, of course, because the morphological categories were created not by the systematic analysis into logical subdivisions of an unexamined unified potentiality but by the identification of functional morphological patterns in the text.

This in turn demonstrates that these functional patterns are far more than merely distinguishable in the text but are in effect realities that precede the composition of the text, and act as a skeleton upon which it has been fleshed out, in a word, as its structure.

Notes

¹ Among the modern Arabic studies, see Taha al-Hajiri, al-Jahiz, Hayaiuhu wa-Atharuhu (Cairo: Dar al-Maarif, 1969); Jurj Ghurayyib, al-Jahiz, Dirasa Amma (Beirut: Dar ath-Thaqafa, 1967); Hanna al-Fakhuri, al-Jahiz (Cairo: Dar al-Maarif, 1964); Wadia Taha an-Najm, al-Jahiz wal-Hadira al-Abbasiyya (Baghdad: Matbaat al-Irshad, 1965). In the West, Jahizian studies in this century have received their greatest impetus from the extremely important work of the French scholar Charles Pellat, especially his Le milieu basrien et la formation de Gahiz (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1953). Other studies dealing with al-Jahiz (especially the Bukhald) have appeared, but they are, as a rule, repetitive and simply present a few anecdotes. They will not be considered in this study. See, for example, D. R. Marshall, "An Arab Humorist—Al-Jahiz and the 'Book of Misers,'" Journal of the Faculty of Arts of Malta, IV (1970), pp. 77-97; R. Dagorn, "L'Histoire d'al-Kindi, extraite du Kitab al-Buhala' d'al-Gahiz," Revue de l'Institut des Belles Lettres Arabes, XXXVIII (1975), pp. 281-298.

² Pellat, Milieu, pp. XVII-XIX.

³ Pellat, Milieu, p. XVII. Some of the other sources, Pellat notes, are relatively late and cannot be used without certain precautions. My own work in biographical traditions, as well as a cursory examination of most of the other sources listed by Pellat, only supports Pellat's conclusions.

⁴ Al-Masudi, Muruj adh-Dhahab wa-Maadin al-Jawhar, ed. C. Barbier de Meynard (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1874), ν. VIII, pp. 33-36.

⁵ Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Tarikh Baghdad (Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Arabi, n.d.), v. XII, pp. 212-220.

⁶ Ibn Asakir's biography of al-Jahiz is in, Majallât al-Majma al-Ilmi al-Arabi, IX (1929), pp. 203-217. Thereafter, MMIA.

⁷ Yaqut, Irshad al-Arib ila Marifat al-Adib, ed. D. S. Margoliouth (London: Luzac & Co., 1923-1931), v. VI, pp. 56-80.

⁸ A. J. Arberry, "New Material on the Kitab al-Fihrist of Ibn al-Nadim," Islamic Research Association Miscellany, I (1948), pp. 34-45. Cf. Charles Pellat, "Al-Djahiz," EI², p. 387, and Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-Fihrist, ed. Rida Tajaddud (Teheran: Teheran University Press, 1971), pp. 208-209.

⁹ Ibn Qutayba, Tawil Mukhtalif al-Hadith, ed. Muhammad Z. an-Najjar (Cairo: Maktabat al-Kulliyyat al-Azhariyya, 1966), pp. 59-60; Gérard Lecomte, Le traité des divergences du hadit d'Ibn Qutayba (mort en 276/889) (Damascus: Institut Francais de Damas, 1962), pp. 65-67.

¹⁰ Pellat, "Al-Djahiz," p. 385.

¹¹ Al-Kutubi, Uyun at-Tawarikh, MS. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Arabe 1588, folios 155r-155v.

¹² Pellat, Milieu, p. 56ff.

¹³ Al-Kutubi, Uyun, fol. 155v.

¹⁴ For a discussion of this subject, see Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies, e d. S. M. Stern (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967), v. I. p. 101ff.

¹⁵ Al-Khatib, Tarikh, v. XII, p. 213; Ibn an-Nadim in Arberry, "New Material," p. 35.

¹⁶ Pellat, Milieu, p. 58.

¹⁷ Pellat, Milieu, p. 63.

¹⁸ Pellat, "Al-Djahiz," p. 385.

¹⁹ Yaqut, Irshad, v. VI, p. 56.

²⁰ Pellat, Milieu, p. 64.

²¹ Pellat, Milieu, p. 64.

²² Al-Masudi, Muruj, v. VIII, p. 35.

²³ Ibrahim ibn Sayyar ibn Hani ibn Ishaq an-Nazzam was an important Mutazili theologian of the Basra school, who died between 220 and 230 (835-845). His thought was dominated by two tendencies: zeal for the tawhid (monotheism in its strictest form) and zeal for the Quran. See H. S. Nyberg, "Al-Nazzam," EI¹, pp. 892-893.

²⁴ Muhammad ibn Abd al-Malik ibn az-Zayyat was an unusually cruel vizier who died by being tortured in a way he himself had invented and inflicted on his enemies. See D. Sourdel, "Ibn al-Zayyat," EI², pp. 974-975.

²⁵ Ibn an-Nadim in Arberry, "New Material," p. 39.

²⁶ For this transmitter of information about al-Jahiz, see Pellat, Milieu, p. XVIII.

²⁷ Yaqut, Irshad, v. VI, p. 56.

²⁸ Pellat, Milieu, pp. 66-67.

²⁹ Abu Ubayda Mamar ibn al-Muthanna was a celebrated philologist who died in the year 209/824-825. Aside from his authorship of works on tribal customs and history, he is linked rightly or wrongly with the Shuubiyya, a party which professed the superiority of the Persians over the Arabs in the early Abbasid period. See H. A. R. Gibb, "Abu Ubayda," EI², p. 158, and Goldziher, Muslim Studies, v. I, p. 179ff.

³⁰ Al-Asmai, Abu Said Abd al-Malik ibn Qurayb, was also a celebrated philologist who died in the year 213/828. His forte in philological studies was apparently lexicography. He had an excellent memory, and assiduously collected grammatical and lexicographical material from the Bedouins in the environs of Basra. See B. Lewin, "Al-Asmai," EI², pp. 717-719.

³¹ Abu Zayd Said ibn Aws al-Ansari was a grammarian and lexicographer who died in the year 214 or 215/830-831. He was considered to be superior to his contemporaries al-Asmai and Abu Ubayda in grammar. See C. Brockelmann, "Abu Zayd al-Ansari," EI², p. 167.

³² Lewin, "Al-Asmai," p. 717. All three are cited in Yaqut, Irshad, v. VI, p. 56.

³³ Al-Akhfash al-Awsat, Abu al-Hasan Said, was a grammarian who died between 210 and 221/825-835. See C. Brockelmann and Charles Pellat, "Al-Akhfash," EI², p. 321.

³⁴ Yaqut, Irshad, v. VI, p. 56.

³⁵ Ibn Asakir, MMIA, IX, p. 203. Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ibrahim al-Ansari al-Kufi was a religious legist who died in the year 182/798. See J. Schacht, "Abu Yusuf," EI², pp. 164-165.

³⁶ Pellat, Milieu, p. 69. Yazid ibn Harun was a famous hafiz (one who has committed the Quran and numerous hadiths to memory) who was born in 118/736 and died in the year 206/821. See adh-Dhahabi, Kitab Tadhkirat al-Huffaz (Hyderabad: Matbaat Majlis Dairat al-Maarif al-Uthmaniyya, 1968), v. I, pp. 317-320.

³⁷ Pellat, Milieu, p. 69.

³⁸ Ibn Asakir, MMIA, IX, p. 203. Al-Hajjaj ibn Muhammad was yet one more hafiz who died in the year 206/821. See adh-Dhahabi, Huffaz, v. I, p. 345.

³⁹ Ibn Asakir, MMIA, IX, p. 203. Thumama ibn Ashras was a theologian who lived under the early Abbasids. See M. Horten, "Thumama b. Ashras," EI¹, pp. 739-740.

⁴⁰Hadith in its technical usage is the sum of the traditions regarding the acts or the sayings of the Prophet. The hadith is considered as the authority which comes directly after the Quran. See J. Robson, "Hadith," EI², pp. 23-28, and Goldziher, Muslim Studies, v. II, pp. 17-251.

⁴¹ See note 23 above.

⁴² Yaqut, Irshad, v. VI, p. 56.

⁴³ For the nature of Kalam, Mutazilism, and the role of an-Nazzam in this movement, see W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Philosophy and Theology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1962), pp. 58-70.

⁴⁴ Pellat, "Al-Djahiz," p. 386. See, also, al-Jahiz's inclusion in Ibn al-Murtada, Tabaqat al-Mutazila, ed. S. Diwald-Wilzer (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1961), pp. 67-70. Cf. al-Qadi Abd al-Jabbar, Firaq wa-Tabaqat al-Mutazila, eds. Ali S. an-Nashshar and Isam ad-Din M. Ali (Alexandria?: Dar al-Matbuat al-Jamiiyya, 1972), pp. 73-76.

⁴⁵ Yaqut, Irshad, v. VI, p. 56.

⁴⁶ Az-Zabidi, Taj al-Arus, eds. Abd as-Sattar Ahmad Farraj et al. (Kuwait: Matbaat Hukumat al-Kuwayt, 1965-1976), v. III, pp. 81-86.

⁴⁷ Yaqut, Kitab Mujam al-Buldan, ed. F. Wustenfeld (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1866-1870), v. IV, p. 484.

⁴⁸ Yaqut, Buldan, v. IV, p. 484.

⁴⁹ Pellat, Milieu, p. 11.

⁵⁰ Pellat, Milieu, p. 244; al-Jahiz, al-Bayan wat-Tabyin, ed. Abd as-Salam Muhammad Harun (Cairo: Muassasat al-Khanji, n.d.), v. IV, p. 23; al-Jahiz, al-Hayawan, ed. Abd as-Salam Muhammad Harun (Cairo: Mustafa al-Babi al-Halabi, 1965-1969), v. III, p. 360.

⁵¹ For the anecdotes of the masjidiyyun, see al-Jahiz, Bukhala, pp. 29-34.

⁵² This is illustrated by a passage in al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 201.

⁵³ Pellat, Milieu, pp. 244-245; al-Jahiz, Bayan, v. IV, p. 23, al-Jahiz, Hayawan, v. III, p. 360; al-Hajiri, "Notes," in al-Jahiz, Bukhala, pp. 295-296. For the discussion of the "bourgeoisie," see Chapter VII below.

⁵⁴ Pellat, "Variations," p. 21.

⁵⁵ Charles Pellat, "Gahiziana III. Essai d'inventaire de l'oeuvre Gahizienne," Arabica, III (1956), pp. 147-180.

⁵⁶ Charles Pellat, The Life and Works of Jahiz, trans D. M. Hawke (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969), pp. 10-27.

⁵⁷ Cf. Ibn Qutayba, Mukhtalif al-Hadith, p. 59.

⁵⁸ Pellat describes this book as one in which the author "asserts the legitimacy of the first three Caliphs, attacks the claims of the Shia and thereby justifies the accession of the Abbasids to power." See Pellat, "Al-Djahiz," p. 386.

⁵⁹ Pellat, "Al-Djahiz," p. 386.

⁶⁰ Pellat, "Al-Djahiz," p. 386.

⁶¹ Al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 1; al-Jahiz, Hayawan, v. I, p. 3.

⁶² This book has been edited by Muhammad Mursi al-Khawli (Cairo: Dar al-Itisam lit-Tab wan-Nashr, 1972).

⁶³ Al-Jahiz, "Kitab al-Qiyan" in Abd as-Salam Muhammad Harun, ed., Rasail al-Jahiz (Cairo: Muktabat al-Khanji, 1965), v. II, pp. 139-182.

⁶⁴ Taha al-Hajiri, "Introduction," in al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 36.

⁶⁵ Al-Jahiz, Hayawan, v. I, p. 4.

⁶⁶ See note 24 above.

⁶⁷ This anecdote is discussed in detail in Chapter VI below.

⁶⁸ Al-Hajiri, "Introduction," p. 37.

⁶⁹ Ahmad ibn Abi Duad al-Iyadi, Abu Abd Allah, was a Mutazili qadi who died in the year 240/854. He was the patron of men of letters other than al-Jahiz and was also afflicted with hemiplegia. See K. V. Zettersteen and C. Pellat, "Ahmad b. Abi Duad," EI², p. 271.

⁷⁰ On this famous family of physicians, see D. Sourdel, "Bukhtishu," EI², p. 1298.

⁷¹ Ibn Nubata al-Misri, Sarh al-Uyun fi Sharh Risalat Ibn Zaydun, ed. Muhammad Abu al-Fadl Ibrahim (Cairo: Dar al-Fikr al-Arabi, 1964), pp. 253-254.

⁷² There is a statement attributed to al-Jahiz and quoted in al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, in which our author says that there are only three pleasures that remain: censuring the bakhil, eating dried meat, and scratching an itch. Al-Khatib, Bukhala, pp. 63-64. Van Vloten, in the Preface to his edition of al-Jahiz's Bukhala, states that this passage confirms "qu'à un âge avancé Djahiz se complaisait à blâmer les avares," G. van Vloten, "Préface," in al-Jahiz, Kitab al-Bukhala, ed. G. van Vloten (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1900), p. v. There is no reason to assume, however, in the absence of further information, that al-Jahiz could not have made this statement while not yet "advanced in age."

⁷³ Ibn an-Nadim, al-Fihrist, ed. G. Flugel (Beirut: Maktabat Khayyat, n.d.), p. 104.

⁷⁴ Al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 148.

⁷⁵ W. Marcais, "Quelques observations sur le texte du 'Kitab el-Buhala' (Le Livre des Avares) d'el-Gahiz," in Mélanges Rêne Basset (Paris: Editions Ernest Leroux, 1925), v. II, p. 434, emphasis mine. Though this was written in 1925, it is quoted approvingly by Charles Pellat in the introduction to his translation. See Pellat, Livre, pp. VIII-IX. Cf. Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba, p. viii, where he contrasts the methodical spirit of Ibn Qutayba with the "brillant désordre des écrits d'al-Gahiz."

⁷⁶ Pellat, Livre, p. II.

⁷⁷ Charles Pellat, "Gahiziana, II: Le dernier chapitre des Avares de Gahiz," Arabica, II (1955), pp. 322-352.

⁷⁸ Pellat, "Gahiziana, II," p. 322.

⁷⁹ Pellat, "Gahiziana, II," p. 322; GAL Sup. 1:245, no. 48.

⁸⁰ Pellat, "Gahiziana, II," p. 322.

⁸¹ The issue of whether or not al-Jahiz's work is an attack on the non-Arabs will be discussed at length in Chapter VII.

⁸² Pellat, "Gahiziana, II," p. 323.

⁸³ Al-Hajiri, "Introduction," p. 38; al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 1.

⁸⁴ Al-Hajiri, "Introduction," p. 39.

⁸⁵ Al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 213.

⁸⁶ The Arabic word here is al-kalam, which Pellat translates as "histoire," but prose seems to make more sense in this context. See Manfred Ullmann et al., Worterbuch der Klassischen Arabischen Sprache (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1970), v. I, p. 335.

⁸⁷ Al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 243.

⁸⁸ Taha al-Hajiri, "Preface," in al-Jahiz, Bukhala, pp. 13-14; MS. Istanbul, Koprulu 1359; MS. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Arabe 6011.

⁸⁹ See, for example, W. Montgomery Watt, "The Authenticity of the Works Attributed to al-Ghazali," Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1952), pp. 24-45. Cf. Franz Rosenthal, The Technique and Approach of Muslim Scholarship (Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum, 1947), pp. 45-48.

⁹⁰ Al-Hajiri, "Preface," pp. 13-14.

⁹¹ Al-Jahiz, Bukhala, Koprulu 1359, fol. 124 recto.

⁹² These chapter divisions are based on those in the editon of Taha al-Hajiri. Van Vloten, in his edition, and Pellat, in his translation, have slight variations which are not significant for the organization of contents in the work. In addition, these chapter divisions by Taha al-Hajiri are borne out by the divisions in the manuscripts themselves. See al-Jahiz, Bukhala, ed. van Vloten; Pellat, Livre.

⁹³ In some places, the edition has Abu Fatik and, in others, Abu al-Fatik, though Pellat, in his translation, has rendered them all as Abu al-Fatik. It is possible that the different forms represent an onomastically permissible variation similar to that found in laqabs. Cf. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Tabsir al-Muntabih bi-Tahrir al-Mushtabih, eds. Ali Muhammad al-Bijawi and Muhammad Ali an-Najjar (Cairo: ad-Dar al-Misriyya lit-Talif wat-Tarjama, 1964-1967), v. III, p. 1063.

⁹⁴ On this vocabulary, see C. E. Bosworth, The Medieval Islamic Underworld: The Banu Sasan in Arabic Society and Literature (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976), pt. I, p. 34ff.

⁹⁵ J. H. Kramers, "Sahl b. Harun," EI¹, p. 62; Pellat, Livre, p. 346.

⁹⁶ Goldziher, Muslim Studies, v. I, p. 149.

⁹⁷ Goldziher, Muslim Studies, v. I, p. 137ff; H. A. R. Gibb, "The Social Significance of the Shuubiya," in H. A. R. Gibb, Studies on the Civilization of Islam (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), pp. 62-73.

⁹⁸ Goldziher, Muslim Studies, v. I, p. 149.

⁹⁹ Pellat is also in doubt about the authenticity of this epistle. See Pellat, Livre, p. 13.

¹⁰⁰ Ibn an-Nadim, Fihrist, ed. Flugel, p. 120; al-Hajiri, "Notes," in al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 270. Al-Husri, Zahr al-Adab, v. III, p. 888, also gives the risala as having been addressed to the afore-mentioned vizier.

¹⁰¹ Yaqut, Irshad, v. IV, pp. 258-259; al-Hajiri, "Notes," p. 270.

¹⁰² Al-Hajiri, "Notes," p. 270; an-Nuwayri, Nihaya, v. III, p. 317ff; Ibn Abd Rabbihi, Iqd, v. VI, p. 200ff.

¹⁰³ Perhaps the only way to solve the problem would be a statistical stylistic analysis comparing the suspect text with the works of al-Jahiz and extant works of Sahl ibn Harun. A beginning could be made with Sahl ibn Harun, Kitab an-Namir wath-Thalab, ed. Abdelkader Mehiri (Tunis: Publications de l'Universite de Tunis, 1973). The editor's discussion on pp. 28-29 shows some of the problems which would be encountered.

¹⁰⁴ Al-Hajiri, "Notes," p. 269.

¹⁰⁵ Ibn Qutayba, Mukhtalif al-Hadith, pp. 59-60. Cf. Lecomte, Traite des divergences, pp. 65-67.

¹⁰⁶ Al-Jahiz, "Kitab Fasl ma bayn al-Adawa wal-Hasad," in Harun, Rasail al-Jahiz, v. I, p. 351. See, also, Rosenthal, Technique, p. 45.

¹⁰⁷ Muhammad ibn Ziyad was a transmitter of poetry. See al-Jumahi, Tabaqat Fuhul ash-Shuara, ed. Mahmud Muhammad Shakir (Cairo: Dar al-Maarif, 1952), pp. 285, 347; Ibn al-Mutazz, Tabaqat ash-Shuara, ed. Abd as-Sattar Ahmad Farraj (Cairo: Dar al-Maarif, 1968), p. 229.

¹⁰⁸ Al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 77.

¹⁰⁹ Al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 78.

¹¹⁰ Al-Jahiz, Bukhala, pp. 78-80.

¹¹¹ G. van Vloten, "Preface," in al-Jahiz, Bukhala, ed. van Vloten, p. 5. Van Vloten may have been referring, for example, to the discussion of the generosity of the Blacks which is similar to that in the Bukhala. See al-Jahiz, "Fakhr as-Sudan ala al-Bidan," in Harun, Rasail al-Jahiz, v. I, p. 196.

¹¹² Al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 185.

¹¹³ Al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 5.

¹¹⁴ The distribution of anecdotes by morphological categories will be discussed in Chapter IV. It can be noted here, however, that since the structures of these anecdotes support a large variety of organizations, the morphologies are not necessarily significant for perceived variety.

¹¹⁵ It has not seemed practical to give complete and integral translations of the anecdotes discussed in Chapters IV and V. Such translations would often be rather long and, given the number of anecdotes discussed, would unnecessarily lengthen these chapters by including within them translations of a quarter or a third of the two texts themselves. In addition, both texts are edited and, thus, readily available. On the other hand, mere references to the anecdotes would make their discussion unintelligible or oblige the reader to be constantly referring back to another text. The procedure which has been adopted is the presentation of English versions of these anecdotes which have been drafted for narratological accuracy as well, as far as possible, as semantic and syntactic accuracy, but of course not rhetorical accuracy. In all cases, these versions have been drawn from the Arabic text. The original anecdotes are cited by numbers in parentheses….

¹¹⁶ For a complete translation and discussion of this anecdote, particularly as concerns its humor-generating techniques, see Chapter VI below.

¹¹⁷ Such an action was apparently characteristic of Ali al-Uswari, since a similar act was attributed to him in another story, where it serves another purpose. See al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 69.

¹¹⁸ The qirat is, in fact, a weight and could vary, as it was "pegged to the fluctuating and diversified value of the fals," A. L. Udovitch, "Fals," EI,² p. 769; Jacob Lassner, The Topography of Baghdad in the Early Middle Ages (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970), p. 236, note 5.

¹¹⁹ For a discussion oubukhl as the opposite of generosity, see Chapter VII below.

¹²⁰ Al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 99.

¹²¹ Al-Jahiz, Bukhala, p. 5.

¹²² See, for example, Bremond, Logique, pp. 137-241.

¹²³ See the provocative discussion of Propp and the subsequent reduction of the Proppian functions in Greimas, Sémantique, p. 192ff.

¹²⁴ Greimas, Semantique, p. 21.