The Byzantines in Medieval Arabic Poetry: Abu Firas’ "Al-Rumiyyat" and the Poetic Responses of al-Qaffal and Ibn Hazm to Nicephore Phocas’ "Al-Qasida al-Arminiyya al-Malʿuna" (The Armenian Cursed Ode)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-weight: normal">Up until the Crusades, it was <em>al-Rūm </em>who were universally seen by Arab writers and Arab poets in particular as the Other <em>par excellence</em>. Nowhere is this more conspicuous than in the sub-genre of <em>Al-Rūmiyyat </em>(poems about the Byzantines), namely as found in the <em>Rūmiyyat</em> of Abu Firas al-Hamdani(d.968), and in the poetic responses of al-Qaffal(d</span><span><strong>. </strong></span><span style="font-weight: normal">946</span><span style="font-weight: normal">) and Ibn Hazm(d.</span><span><strong> </strong></span><span style="font-weight: normal">1064</span><span style="font-weight: normal">) to what was described by several medieval Muslim chronicles as <em>Al-Qasida al-Arminiyya al-Malʿuna </em>(The Armenian Cursed Ode). By exploring the forgotten views of the Byzantines in medieval Arabic poetry, this article </span><span style="font-weight: normal">purports to demonstrate that </span><span style="font-weight: normal">contrary to the impression left after reading Edward Said&rsquo;s groundbreaking <em>Orientalism: Western Conceptions of the Orient</em> (1978) and other postcolonial studies, Orientals have not existed solely to be &lsquo;orientalized&rsquo;. Perhaps even before this came to be so, they too had &lsquo;occidentalized&rsquo;</span><span><strong> </strong></span><span style="font-weight: normal">their Euro-Christian Other(s)</span><span><strong> </strong></span><span style="font-weight: normal">in a way that mirrored in reverse the subject/object relationship described as Orientalism.</span></font></font> <h1 style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; text-align: center" align="center"><strong></strong></h1><h1 style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; direction: ltr; unicode-bidi: embed; text-align: center" align="center"><strong></strong></h1>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".