Introduction
Grammatically speaking, the Arabic term badīʿ is an adjective with the basic meaning of “new,” conveying the notions of novelty, originality, and lack of precedent. It can have a negative connotation in the sense of “newfangled” and is also linguistically related to the term bidʿa, which denotes an impermissible religious invention. In the Quran (Q 46/al-aḥqāf: 9), the Prophet already denies being “something unprecedented” (bidʿan) among God’s messengers. On the other hand, it can also be used in the sense of “original, wonderful.”1 Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, I: 167. God himself is called badīʿ in the Quran twice (Q 2/al-baqara: 117; Q 6/al-an-ʿām: 101), meaning the one who brought the heavens and the earth into existence without precedent. As a technical term in the fields of literature, poetics, and rhetoric, the nominal form al-badīʿ (lit. “the new”) is usually translated as “rhetorical figures.” While this is not incorrect, it does not fully capture the semantic range associated with the term’s historical development. Focusing on the period from the second/eighth to the seventh/thirteenth century, this article traces the semantic development of the term badīʿ from its early association with the “new style” of “modern” (muḥdath) poetry to its establishment as a comprehensive category of linguistic embellishments. It further argues that this development was accompanied by a shift towards a more positive attitude to the concept.
Corpus
From the early Abbasid period onward, badīʿ is discussed in a wide range of sources across different fields of knowledge. A comprehensive analysis of all these texts is therefore not feasible. Instead, the present entry draws on a selection of particularly significant sources from the second/eighth to the seventh/thirteenth century, which are cited and discussed individually where relevant. Among them are works on poetics, literary criticism, and Quranic hermeneutics, reflecting the diverse intellectual contexts in which the concept of badīʿ was discussed during this period. All primary sources considered here are available in printed editions, although the quality of these editions varies considerably.
Terminological Analysis and Historical Semantics
Badīʿ as the “New Style” (Second and Third/Eighth and Ninth Centuries)
In the second/eighth and third/ninth century, the term al-badīʿ initially referred to the new style that was considered characteristic of the “modern” poets (al-muḥdathūn) like Abū Tammām (d. 232/845) in the early Abbasid period. This style was particularly criticized by those who considered the early Arab’s poetry to be authoritative and were skeptical of any innovations that deviated from it.2 Bauer, “Rhetorik,” 115; van Gelder, “Badīʿ.” However, the exact nature of these innovations is disputed among contemporary scholars, with particular focus on a statement by the Basran writer al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/868–69). In his al-Bayān wa-l-tabyīn (“Elucidation and Clarification”), he quotes the following verse by the poet al-Ashhab b. Rumayla (d. 90/708):
هُمُ ساعدُ الدَّهْرِ الذي يُتَّقى بهِ وما خير كَفٍّ لا تنوءُ بساعدِ
They are the forearm of fate, with which one shields oneself.
What good is a hand that is not raised by a forearm?
He then comments on the passage: “His statement ‘They are the forearm of fate’ is nothing else than an analogy, and this is what the transmitters of poetry call ‘the new style’ (قوله هم ساعد الدهر إنما هو مثل وهذا الذي تسميه الرواة البديع).” As another example, al-Jāḥiẓ also refers to a hadith of the Prophet that states: “God’s razor is the sharpest and God’s forearm is the strongest (موسى الله أحدّ وساعد الله أشدّ).”3 Al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān wa-l-tabyīn (ed. Haroun), IV: 55. Based on these and similar findings, Wolfhart Heinrichs considers the controversy surrounding the new style at that time to have centered primarily on a controversy about the “borrowing-metaphor” (arab. al-istiʿāra), found in phrases such as “the forearm of fate” and taking on particularly daring forms in the modern poetry of the Abbasid period.4 Heinrichs, “Istiʿārah and Badīʿ,” esp. 193–95. On the other hand, Suzanne Stetkevych points to the Muʿtazilite theological implications behind an interpretation that understands “God’s forearm” as metaphorical rather than anthropomorphic language. Based on further evidence, she considers the new style an expression of the conceptualizing mentality of theologians that influenced the poems of that time.5 Stetkevych, “Toward a Redefinition of ‘Badīʿ’ Poetry,” esp. 3–5; Stetkevych, Abū Tammām and the Poetics of the ʿAbbāsid Age, esp. 6–8, 37. The lack of consensus on this subject is likely due in no small part to the fact that the term al-badīʿ was probably not yet used in the third/ninth century as a clearly defined literary term, but rather as a general label for the controversial style of certain poets.6 See also Bonebakker, “Ibn al-Muʿtazz and Kitāb al-Badīʿ,” 398. For an overview of further sources on badīʿ in the second and third/eighth and ninth centuries, see Bonebakker, “Ibn al-Muʿtazz and Kitāb al-Badīʿ,” 396–99, and Kanazi, Studies in the Kitāb aṣ-Ṣināʿatayn, 144–45.
This changed, however, with Kitāb al-Badīʿ (“The Book of the New Style”), an influential contribution to the debate by the Abbasid prince ʿAbdallāh ibn al-Muʿtazz (d. 296/908), written in 274/887. In it, the author claims to have explained for the first time what the new style actually is, namely a total of five linguistic art forms (funūn): al-istiʿāra (lit. “borrowing,” see above), al-tajnīs (lit. “assimilation”), al-muṭābaqa (lit. “correspondence”), radd al-ʿajuz ʿalā l-ṣadr (lit. “returning the end of the verse to its beginning”) and al-madhhab al-kalāmī (lit. “the theological style”).7 Ibn al-Muʿtazz, Kitāb al-Badīʿ (ed. Kratchkovsky), 58. Some of these art forms can indeed be compared to rhetorical figures from the Greco-Latin tradition, although in most cases they do not match them completely. Tajnīs and muṭābaqa, for example, are often translated as “paronomasia” and “antithesis” respectively. In addition, however, Ibn al-Muʿtazz names thirteen other “embellishments” (maḥāsin), which he distinguishes from the forms of badīʿ and which in part also show parallels to certain rhetorical figures (e.g., al-ifrāṭ fī l-ṣifa and “hyperbole”). Consequently, it can at best be said that the term al-badīʿ in Ibn al-Muʿtazz encompasses certain rhetorical figures that he considered characteristic of the new style of his time. Indeed, several of these figures were also discussed by his teacher, Abū l-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā Thaʿlab (d. 291/904), whose Qawāʿid al-shiʿr (“The Principles of Poetry”) does not employ the term badīʿ at all.8 Thaʿlab, Qawāʿid al-shiʿr (ed. ʿAbd al-Tawwāb), 35–42 (al-tashbīh), 45–49 (al-ifrāṭ fī l-ighrāq), 53–56 (al-istiʿāra), 56–58 (ḥusn al-khurūj), 58–59 (mujāwarat al-aḍdād), 59–63 (al-muṭābiq). See also Bonebakker, “Ibn al-Muʿtazz and Kitāb al-Badīʿ,” 403–4.
Ibn al-Muʿtazz did not believe that these figures were limited to the modern poets. Rather, the central thesis of his work is that all the badīʿ forms can already be found in early Arabic poetry, as well as in the Quran and the early Islamic tradition, and he supports this claim with examples throughout the book. According to him, the modern poets like Abū Tammām had merely made far more excessive use of them, which sometimes compromised the quality of their poems.9 Ibn al-Muʿtazz, Kitāb al-Badīʿ (ed. Kratchkovsky), 1–3. His thesis is most likely primarily apologetic in nature: Ibn al-Muʿtazz, who himself was an important badīʿ poet, attempts to defend the new style here by pointing out that it is in fact not “new” at all and therefore does not deviate from the standard of early Arabic poetry. Such an argument is apparently based on a rather negative connotation of the “new” (al-badīʿ).10 Harb, Arabic Poetics, 41–43; Heinrichs, “Istiʿārah and Badīʿ,” 188–89. However, if al-badīʿ is not new at all, then the already vague distinction between it and the other embellishments (maḥāsin) becomes even more blurred in terms of terminology. The author therefore writes: “Anyone who adds something to the new style from these embellishments or from elsewhere […] may choose to do so. (ومن أضاف من هذه المحاسن أو غيرها شيئا إلى البديع […] فله اختياره).”11 Ibn al-Muʿtazz, Kitāb al-Badīʿ (ed. Kratchkovsky), 58. In fact, this is exactly what happened in the following centuries.
Badīʿ as a Rhetorically Beautiful Embellishment (Fourth–Seventh/Tenth–Thirteenth Centuries)
In the wake of Ibn al-Muʿtazz, the term al-badīʿ underwent a semantic shift, becoming a collective term for linguistic embellishments in the discussions of poetry and eloquence (balāgha). It is in this sense that it is often translated as rhetorical figures.
From the end of the fourth/tenth century onwards, despite Ibn al-Muʿtazz’s distinction, the term al-badīʿ was understood by scholars as a synonym for maḥāsin. For example, Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī (d. 430/1013) explains that al-badīʿ can be learned and practiced, since “the literati of our time set forth the embellishments in a volume (أدباء زماننا يضعون المحاسن في جزء).”12 Al-Bāqillānī, Iʿjāz al-Qurʾān (ed. Saqr), 111, cf. also the translation A Tenth-Century Document (trans. Grunebaum), 53–4. In his al-ʿUmda fī ṣināʿat al-shiʿr wa-naqdihi (“The Mainstay on the Art and Criticism of Poetry”), Ibn Rashīq al-Qayrawānī (d. 456/1065) even points out that Ibn al-Muʿtazz himself had permitted the embellishments (maḥāsin) to be called badīʿ as well.13 Ibn Rashīq al-Qayrawānī, al-ʿUmda (ed. Shaalan), I: 427–28. Finally, in his work Taḥrīr al-taḥbīr (“The Refinement of Ornamentation”), Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ al-Miṣrī (d. 654/1256) speaks of the “sobriquets of the embellishments of speech, that are designated with the epithet al-badīʿ (ألقاب محاسن الكلام التي نعتت بالبديع).”14 Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ al-Miṣrī, Taḥrīr al-taḥbīr (ed. Sharaf), 83. According to him, later theorists understood al-badīʿ in Ibn al-Muʿtazz as an umbrella term for the maḥāsin as well and followed his permission to combine both.15 Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ al-Miṣrī, Taḥrīr al-taḥbīr (ed. Sharaf), 83, 87.
This can indeed be observed in Abū Hilāl al-ʿAskarī’s (d. after 400/1009) Kitāb al-Ṣināʿatayn (“The Book of the Two Arts”). His chapter on badīʿ covers not only the embellishments (maḥāsin) of Ibn al-Muʿtazz, but also figures discussed in Qudāma b. Jaʿfar’s (d. between 320/932 and 337/948) Naqd al-shiʿr (“Poetic Criticism”), although Qudāma himself had not used the term badīʿ. Furthermore, al-ʿAskarī claims to have discovered new figures and presents a total of 39 types (anwāʿ) of badīʿ.16 Al-ʿAskarī, Kitāb al-Ṣināʿatayn (ed. al-Bijawi and Ibrahim), 266–430, esp. 266–67 and Kanazi, Studies in the Kitāb aṣ-Ṣināʿatayn, 144–90, esp. 144–48, 175. This tendency toward expansion continued with later authors. For example, Usāma b. Munqidh (d. 584/1188) offers 95 forms (abwāb) in his monographic treatise on badīʿ,17 Ibn Munqidh, al-Badīʿ fī naqd al-shiʿr (ed. Badawi and al-Majid), 9–11. although several of them are defects rather than embellishments (e.g., al-ghalaṭ, al-fasād). Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ ultimately lists more than 120 figures, 30 of which he claims to have discovered himself. At the same time, he presents Qudāma alongside Ibn al-Muʿtazz as the second great founder of literature on badīʿ, thereby retroactively incorporating an author who did not use this term himself. This retroactive attribution reflects the semantic expansion of badīʿ quite well.18 Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ al-Miṣrī, Taḥrīr al-taḥbīr (ed. Sharaf), 83–4, 86–7, 94–5.
Ibn al-Muʿtazz’s central thesis that badīʿ was not actually new seems to have gained acceptance among later writers as well. For example, in his Muwāzana (“The Weighting”), Abū l-Qāsim al-Ḥasan b. Bishr al-Āmidī (d. 371/981) has his fictional supporter of the poet al-Buḥturī (d. 284/897) say that Abū Tammām had by no means established a new form of poetry, since badīʿ already existed among the early Arab poets as well as in the Quran.19 Al-Āmidī, al-Muwāzana (ed. Saqr and Muharib), I: 14. Al-ʿAskarī even suspects that the claim that al-badīʿ was invented by the modern poets merely serves to cast them in a better light, since it is a form of speech with extreme beauty (ghāyat al-ḥusn) and supreme excellence (nihāyat al-jūda).20 Al-ʿAskarī, Kitāb al-Ṣināʿatayn (ed. al-Bijawi and Ibrahim), 267. Such a statement is remarkable because it also reflects a shift in attitude toward badīʿ since the time of Ibn al-Muʿtazz, who drew on the authority of earlier poets to defend the moderns against criticism rather than to diminish their accomplishments.
Since they no longer considered al-badīʿ as something new, it seems logical that later treatises on badīʿ always included examples from early Arabic poetry and the Quran. Furthermore, from the fourth/tenth century onwards, scholars debated as to whether badīʿ should even be considered part of the Quran’s inimitability (iʿjāz). Thus, badīʿ was no longer only discussed as a subject of poetic criticism, but also one of Quranic hermeneutics. The scholars’ assessments in this regard varied considerably. While al-Bāqillānī rejected al-badīʿ as an element of the Quran’s inimitability, arguing that it could be learned by humans as well, Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ even wrote a special treatise, Badīʿ al-Qurʾān, to demonstrate the Quranic iʿjāz through its masterful deployment of badīʿ.21 Al-Bāqillānī, Iʿjāz al-Qurʾān (ed. Saqr), 66–112, esp. 66, 107, 111; Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ al-Miṣrī, Badīʿ al-Qurʾān (ed. Sharaf), 14, n. 3/ Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ, al-Burhān fī iʿjāz al-Qurʾān (ed. Matlub and al-Hadithi), 36.
Ibn al-Muʿtazz’s view that modern poets such as Abū Tammām should only be criticized for their excessive use of the forms of badīʿ was also accepted. This often involved a discussion of the difference between “natural” (maṭbūʿ) and “artificial” (maṣnūʿ) or “forced” (takalluf) poetry.22 See Schoeler, Einige Grundprobleme der autochthonen und der aristotelischen arabischen Literaturtheorie, 33–37; cf. also Kanazi, Studies in the Kitāb aṣ-Ṣināʿatayn, 29–31. Al-Bāqillānī, for example, at times uses the term ṣanʿa, which can mean both “craftsmanship” and “artificiality,” almost synonymously for badīʿ, and criticizes its excessive use by Abū Tammām as an aesthetically displeasing form of artificiality (taṣannuʿ, takalluf).23 Al-Bāqillānī, Iʿjāz al-Qurʾān (ed. Saqr), 107–110. See also Schoeler, Einige Grundprobleme der autochthonen und der aristotelischen arabischen Literaturtheorie, 34, and Kanazi, Studies in the Kitāb aṣ-Ṣināʿatayn, 25–28. Similar remarks can be found in the works of ʿAlī al-Jurjānī (d. 392/1002) and Ibn Rashīq as well.24 ʿAlī al-Jurjānī, al-Wasāṭa (ed. Ibrahim and Bijawi), 32–34; Ibn Rashīq al-Qayrawānī, al-ʿUmda (ed. Shaalan), I: 208-17. See also Schoeler, Einige Grundprobleme der autochthonen und der aristotelischen arabischen Literaturtheorie, 35–37. The important scholar of eloquence, ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī (d. 471/1078 or 474/1081) also explains in his book Asrār al-balāgha (“The Secrets of Eloquence”) that the beauty of the various types (aqsām) of badīʿ lies in their conveyance of a specific meaning, and refers to Abū Tammām’s forced use (takalluf) of them as a negative example.25 ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, Asrār al-balāgha (ed. Shakir), 6–20/ al-Jurjānī, Asrār al-balāgha (ed. Ritter), 5–20.
Such discussions also associate the concept of badīʿ with embellishments comparable to a piece of jewelry created through skilled craftsmanship. ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī therefore draws a parallel between the use of badīʿ and a bride’s adornment (ḥaly), which beautifies her as long as she does not wear too much of it.26 ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, Asrār al-balāgha (ed. Shakir), 9/ al-Jurjānī, Asrār al-balāgha (ed. Ritter), 9. Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ also uses the image of verbal adornment (ḥaly al-kalām),27 Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ al-Miṣrī, Taḥrīr al-taḥbīr (ed. Sharaf), 83. but, unlike al-Jurjānī, he regards the Quran’s use of numerous badīʿ forms as a positive rhetorical quality, particularly highlighting those verses in which the text manages to do so without resorting to excessive wording or compromising clarity.28 Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ al-Miṣrī, Badīʿ al-Qurʾān (ed. Sharaf), 120, 146–47/ Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ, al-Burhān fī iʿjāz al-Qurʾān (ed. Matlub and al-Hadithi), 170, 204–6. He even conceptualizes a distinct figure under the name al-ibdāʿ to account for this rhetorical quality.29 Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ al-Miṣrī, Taḥrīr al-taḥbīr (ed. Sharaf), 611–15; Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ, Badīʿ al-Qurʾān (ed. Sharaf), 340–43/ Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ, al-Burhān fī iʿjāz al-Qurʾān (ed. Matlub and al-Hadithi), 435–38. Cf. also the article by Geert Jan van Gelder on this figure: “Al-Ibdāʿ.”
In addition to books on poetic criticism and Quranic eloquence, badīʿ can also be found in works that aim to impart practical knowledge about literature and poetry. Al-ʿAskarī, for example, conceived his Kitāb al-Ṣināʿatayn for those who wish to write prose and poetry themselves, and emphasizes that the style of his presentation is also suitable for beginners.30 Al-ʿAskarī, Kitāb al-Ṣināʿatayn (ed. al-Bijawi and Ibrahim), 3, 54. The aforementioned badīʿ monographs by Usāma b. Munqidh and Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ can also be understood from this perspective. Both authors, for instance, identify the sources they consulted in their introductions, and in each chapter, they do not simply compile illustrative examples (shawāhid), but also consistently provide a definition of the respective badīʿ form. In addition, Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ is clearly attentive to conceptually distinguishing potentially similar forms. The aim of Ibn Munqidh’s work is to systematically compile material scattered throughout books on poetic criticism, and Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ states in his Taḥrīr al-taḥbīr that he seeks to correct the errors of previous badīʿ monographs.31 Ibn Munqidh, al-Badīʿ fī naqd al-shiʿr (ed. Badawi and al-Majid), 8; Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ al-Miṣrī, Taḥrīr al-taḥbīr (ed. Sharaf), 91–2. Both authors therefore seem to have conceived of their books as a kind of reference work on the figures of badīʿ and Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ in particular appears to have achieved considerable success in this regard. For instance, Shihāb al-Dīn Maḥmūd al-Ḥalabī (d. 725/1325), in his manual on chancery style, Ḥusn at-tawassul ilā ṣināʿat al-tarassul (“The Excellent Approach to the Art of Epistolary Composition”), draws extensively on Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ, quoting him on several occasions and adopting a substantial portion of his material, including 16 of the 30 figures that Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ claims to have introduced.32 Cf., for example, al-Ḥalabī, Ḥusn al-tawassul (ed. Yusuf), 272, 275, 284. An even greater number, namely 20 of these figures, can be found in Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Ḥillī’s (d. ca. 750/1350) Badīʿiyya commentary, which also reproduces the introductory bibliography from Taḥrīr al-taḥbīr, supplementing it with a further 30 titles.33 Al-Ḥillī, Sharḥ al-Kāfiya al-badīʿiyya (ed. Nashawi), 54, 335–55; cf. also von Hees, “Badīʿ” (forthcoming).
Finally, some authors also use the term badīʿ as a noun or adjective to describe a positive rhetorical quality in general. Al-Bāqillānī, for example, speaks at one point of “the rhetorical beauty in the composition of the Quran (بديع نظم القرآن),34 Al-Bāqillānī, Iʿjāz al-Qurʾān (ed. Saqr), 111; al-Bāqillānī, A Tenth-Century Document (trans. Grunebaum), 53. and ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī uses badīʿ several times in the sense of “original” to denote a good rhetorical feature.35 Cf., for example, ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, Asrār al-balāgha (ed. Shakir), 165, 342/al-Jurjānī, Asrār al-balāgha (ed. Ritter), 151, 316, and ʿAbd al-Qāhir al-Jurjānī, Dalāʾil al-iʿjāz (ed. Shakir), 59, 75/al-Jurjānī, Die Geheimnisse der Wortkunst (trans. Ritter), 186, 368. Therefore, in contrast to Ibn al-Muʿtazz, the new appears with a positive connotation here, in the sense of “original, wonderful.”36 For details on this shift in aesthetic evaluation, see Harb, Arabic Poetics, esp. chapter 1, 25–74. Accordingly, a title such as Badīʿ al-Qurʾān by Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ can be understood not only in the technical sense as “The Stylistic Devices of the Quran,” but also as “The Rhetorical Wonders of the Quran.”
Conclusion
As a technical term in the fields of literature, poetics, and rhetoric, al-badīʿ underwent a remarkable semantic shift during the period examined here, alongside a discernible change in attitude toward it. In the second/eighth century, the term initially referred to the new style of the modern poets, which was viewed with some suspicion precisely because of its novelty in comparison with early Arabic poetry. Ibn al-Muʿtazz’s Kitāb al-Badīʿ, composed in 274/887, therefore adopts a largely apologetic stance by arguing that badīʿ can in fact already be found in early Arabic poetry and even in the Quran. At the same time, it offered the first influential attempt to define this term by identifying it with a group of five linguistic art forms, while only loosely distinguishing these from a number of other embellishments (maḥāsin).
From the fourth/tenth century onwards, however, this distinction was gradually abandoned. Building on Ibn al-Muʿtazz’s own suggestion that the category could be expanded, later scholars progressively enlarged the corpus of badīʿ forms (abwāb al-badīʿ), so that by the seventh/thirteenth century Ibn Abī l-Iṣbaʿ was able to describe more than 120 such forms in two monographic works. It is in this development that the semantic shift became apparent, as scholars now explicitly equated badīʿ with linguistic embellishments (maḥāsin). As an ornament of speech, badīʿ thus came to be viewed far more positively than before. According to al-ʿAskarī, the modern poets would indeed have deserved credit had they truly been the inventors of badīʿ. This attribution, however, was widely rejected, and scholars consistently pointed to examples from early Arabic poetry and the Quran to illustrate the various forms of badīʿ.
Nevertheless, even after this semantic shift, badīʿ was by no means regarded as an exclusively positive phenomenon. Several literary critics associated it with artificiality, particularly when its forms were used excessively. Likewise, scholars disagreed over the extent to which badīʿ should be regarded as an element of the Quran’s inimitability, given that its forms could, in principle, be learned and reproduced by human authors as well. At the same time, however, the term could also be employed positively in connection with the Quran, not least as an adjective describing its rhetorical qualities.
By the end of the seventh/thirteenth century, badīʿ had thus emerged as a concept situated at the intersection of several fields of knowledge, most notably poetics, literary criticism, and Quranic hermeneutics. It was not until the eighth/fourteenth century that two major contexts for its discussion became firmly established: the science of rhetoric (ʿilm al-balāgha) on the one hand, and the poetic genre of the Badīʿiyyāt together with its commentary tradition on the other.
