Download PDF | Elsa Cardoso - The Door of the Caliph (Studies in Medieval History and Culture)-Routledge (2023).
293 Pages
The Door of the Caliph
This book focuses on the conceptualization of the court, palace and ruler of the Umayyad Caliphate of al-Andalus. Western terminology still plays a normative role in the representation of foreign courts, determining concepts that fit poorly into chronologies with their own dynamics and specificities, which is the case of Muslim courts. While Court Studies is a well-developed field for modern Western societies, Muslim medieval courts lack a consistent field of research. Sources elaborate a specific terminology for medieval Muslim court societies. In the specific case of the Umayyad Caliphate of al-Andalus, the court is usually articulated as Bāb Suddat al-Khalīfa (“The door of the Sudda of the caliph”) – a reference to the symbology of the main city gate of Cordoba – or simply as Bāb. Bāb Suddat al-Khalīfa became the most emblematic concept to name the Umayyad palace and its society, which will be additionally interpreted in the framework of the performance of ceremonial.
The strong conceptualization of the Umayyad court of Cordoba was highlighted through the articulation of ceremonial, as the mis-en-scène of the conceptualization, expressed by gestures, insignia and hierarchies. The preliminary comparative perspective with the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, the ‘Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates and the Byzantine Empire further discusses the Umayyad Andalusi model in relation to other dynasties. While this book focuses on the Umayyad conceptualization and articulation of ceremonial, this model will be discussed within the Mediterranean and Eastern framework of the 10th and 11th centuries, which broadens the interest of the book to other fields of research.
Elsa Cardoso is a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Languages and Cultures of the Mediterranean and the Near East (ILC) of the Spanish National Research Council (CSIC) in Madrid. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Lisbon in 2020. From April 2021 to March 2022, she was a postdoctoral fellow of the German DFG Center RomanIslam at the University of Hamburg. Her research focuses on the history of Islam and the history of al-Andalus. She has worked and published on the court, diplomacy and ceremonial of the Umayyads of Cordoba, considering a comparative perspective within the Mediterranean. She is also developing her research on the historiography of al-Andalus, as well as on the history of the Gharb al-Andalus.
Acknowledgements
This book is the result of my Ph.D. research titled “The door of the caliph in the Umayyad al-Andalus: from the conceptualization to the articulation of ceremonial” (University of Lisbon, Portugal, 2020), which received a fellowship funded by the Portuguese public agency for science and technology Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia – FCT, under the doctoral program Programa Inter-universitário de Doutoramento em História – PIUDHist at the Centre for History of the University of Lisbon (October 2015–February 2020, ref.: PD/BD/113904/2015). After receiving my Ph.D., I was able to pursue and develop my research on court and ceremonial with a postdoctoral fellowship at the RomanIslam – Center for Comparative Empire and Transcultural Studies (University of Hamburg, Germany).
The last stage of improvement and review of this book was possible with my current position with a postdoctoral contract Juan de la Cierva (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain) at the Instituto de Lenguas y Culturas del Mediterráneo y Oriente Próximo (ILC) of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) in Madrid. The research undertaken for this book benefitted from the interaction with colleagues, friends and professors through the years, and if I fail to mention them all, I am still thankful. I would like to thank my Ph.D. supervisors, Hermenegildo Fernandes of the University of Lisbon and Hugh Kennedy of the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London, for the support and confidence bestowed on my work.
I specially thank Maribel Fierro, whose patient reading of this book resulted in comments, suggestions and corrections which made possible its final result. I owe special thanks to Antonia Bosanquet of the University of Hamburg for her generous help with the English revision. Any mistakes are my sole responsibility. The suggestions, critics and clarifications of the director of the Conjunto Arqueológico de Madinat al-Zahra’ (Cordoba, Spain), Antonio Vallejo, on the archaeological site and its functions were of great value for this work. I also thank Alberto Montejo, former director of the Conjunto Arqueológico de Madinat al-Zahra’, who took me on a complete and enlightening guided visit to the site, and especially to the Hall of ‘Abd alRaḥmān III, the main stage of the object of study of this book, which had been closed for renovations.
I would like to remember Filomena Barros of the University of Évora (Portugal), who left us unexpectedly and whose classes influenced greatly my (critical) view on Islamic and Arabic Studies. Susana Gómez’s dedication to the material culture of al-Andalus, and especially of the Campo Arqueológico de Mértola (Portugal), has been of value to my work. I am also glad that through my work in this field of studies, I have found peers who have become friends. From the University of Lisbon, first I would like to thank Gonçalo Matos Ramos for his unconditional support, patience and companionship. To Inês Meira Araújo and Sónia Borges for their friendship and care. From the University of Hamburg (and beyond), I would like to thank Pablo Póveda for his guidance and friendship and again to Antonia Bosanquet, Joud Nassan Agha, José Carlos López, Alejandro Peláez and Lauro Olmo for their companionship and academic therapy. I would like to thank Alejandro García Sanjuán of the University of Huelva for his support and critical debates on the historiography of Portugal and Spain.
I would also like to thank my longtime friends, Luís, Joana, Miguel and Filipa, who heard strange stories and histories over the years. My most profound thanks to my family, in particular to my parents Elsa and Samuel who made possible my dedication to research and for supporting me no matter what. I also owe much to my “second parents,” my grandparents, Gracinda and António, who are always there, Ana for her strength, to the memory of José, who will accompany me always. I must thank deeply my best friend and sister Débora, whose unconditional support and affection have made possible my projects over the years. And because the greatest acknowledgements are left to the end, I dedicate this book to my daughter Mariana whose arrival in my life is like a sun rising from the west, as in the Umayyad panegyric, becoming the greatest “project” I have ever had. Last but not least, I am deeply thankful to Javier, whose revolutionary devotion, unexpectedly, is also like a rising sun shining over the two easts.
Foreword
Maribel Fierro
Institute of Languages and Cultures of the Mediterranean-CSIC
In this book, Portuguese scholar Elsa Cardoso offers us a comprehensive and detailed analysis of how the court was conceptualized in the Cordoban Umayyad caliphate. Her starting point is her familiarity with the field of court studies – still much under development as regards the Islamicate context. However, as Cardoso reminds us time and again, while a comparative perspective can prove especially productive here, we must at the same take care not to impose alien models on new realities. She fruitfully and skilfully combines the information found in the literary sources and the archaeological record, as her case study is illuminated by the imposing remains of Madīnat al-Zahrāʼ, the town built by ʽAbd al-Raḥmān III near his capital at Cordoba. The concept of “court” that emerges from her study is a political and social configuration in which the ruler and other categories of people carry out actions invested with meaning. The ensuing rituals and ceremonies were inevitably subject to changes and nuances, which need to be reconstructed and understood against the backdrop of the existing social and political relations that they were, in turn, shaping as well. While in his poetry the first Umayyad ruler in Cordoba, ʽAbd alRaḥmān I, asserted, “I need neither gardens nor grand palaces,/for I live in the desert, in tents,”1 in reality he and his successors had no choice but to undertake architectural enterprises.
The court, in fact, also had a material – and symbolic – dimension, whereby the palatine “door,” the Bāb al-Sudda, played a central role in visualizing sovereignty and power and projecting them out into society. The need for such visualization was especially urgent in the 10th century, when Umayyad rule in al-Andalus was elevated to the level of caliphate – a decision marked in significant ways by the challenge represented by the Fatimids’ establishment of a Shīʽī/Ismāʽīlī caliphate in North Africa. In the field of Andalusi studies, it is not unusual to boast that the societies that existed in al-Andalus (Muslim Iberia) are the most thoroughly studied of the pre-modern Islamicate world, thanks to the sustained efforts of scholars from diverse academic and linguistic backgrounds whose research has included history, archaeology, philology, literature, art, the sciences and more. Whether or not this claim can be proven, what this book does prove is that, despite such efforts, there are still areas in need of exploring, and that insightful studies such as Elsa Cardoso’s continue to expand and enrich our knowledge of the history of al-Andalus.
Introduction
When al-Ḥakam II received in 973 ambassadors sent by the Queen Regent Elvira Ramírez of León an unpredicted event disturbed the rules of attendance inside the caliphal majlis. The unexpected content and translation of the queen’s letter motivated the disapproval of the caliph and the dismissal of the envoys from the majlis, followed by their expulsion from the capital.1 According to Ibn Ḥayyān al-Qurṭubī, the caliph despised not only the content of the letter but also the translation of the interpreter, the qāḍī Asbagh b. ‘Abd Allāh b. Nabīl. This event triggered the end of the diplomatic reception and the expelling from the majlis of the ambassadors and the translator. The historian further adds that the caliph mainly blamed Asbagh, who was consequently deprived of his office. After being expelled from the majlis, the ambassadors and the interpreter were received by the ṣāḥib al-khayl (commander of the cavalry), Ziyād b. Aflaḥ, at the Dār al-Jund (House of the army), who reproached them and let them know how their role as envoys saved them from the prescribed punishment for their faults. The chronicle mentions how the iḥtijāz enjoyed by ambassadors – or “diplomatic immunity,”2 if we follow the translations – allowed them from being punished. We do not know the content of the letter of Elvira, neither what despised the caliph, nevertheless Asbagh suffered the most, as he was deprived of his office. According to Ibn Ḥayyān, he was the one to blame as he did not advise the Christian envoys about the insolent terms presumably contained in the letter from the queen-regent.
The ambassadors were afterwards escorted to the court of Elvira by Aḥmad b. ‘Arūs al-Mawrūrī, a jurist, and ‘Ubayd Allāh b. Qāsim, Bishop of Seville, as interpreter. Thus, the caliph expelled the ambassadors from his capital and territory. A caliphal guard escorted the envoys, who were then met halfway by a caliphal agent, Muḥammad b. Muṭarrif, near Western Galicia, to reach Elvira, who was probably reproached in her own court. Such an account is a good example of the perception of ceremonial in a Muslim medieval court. The ceremonial was not only a prescribed protocol – the existence of a kind of protocol does not mean that ceremonies followed always the same pattern and steps – but they were surely arranged in advance. Those who were honoured by a caliphal reception were previously advised of the steps taken in the ceremony. Words, gestures, costumes, everything was carefully measured, considered and prepared, perhaps even rehearsed, before the final performance of the actual ceremony. Such perception is also quite evident in the account of the embassy of John of Gorze, sent by King Otto I. After being held captive for almost three years in Cordoba, due to a presumable blasphemy contained in Otto’s letter to the caliph, John of Gorze was finally received by ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III in 956, with a new letter from the king, which, in the meantime, had been sent to Cordoba.3 Before the arrival of John, Cordoba had sent an embassy to the court of Otto I in 950, whose ambassadors were there for approximately three years, during which time one of them died. The biographer of John of Gorze, who accounts such events, also notices that the letter sent from Cordoba contained blasphemous considerations about Christ.
Thus, when John of Gorze arrived in Cordoba in 954 he was asked to show the content of the letter to the officials sent to the munya4 where he was lodged in the outskirts of Cordoba. The denial of John of Gorze, who insisted on showing the content of the letter only in the presence of the caliph, was not taken well by ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III, who made him know that he would only receive the monk if he would agree to carry the presents and dismiss the letter. Several men of the caliph were sent to John of Gorze to convince him to dismiss the letter. When the caliph sent a bishop, also called John, to reason with Otto’s ambassador, the abbot of Gorze finally gave his justification: the letter sent by ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III to Otto contained blasphemies against God, and for him it was only natural that the king would refute the caliph’s misconceptions. The caliph, feeling despised by the amount of time his ambassadors were kept in the court of Otto, informed the abbot of his intentions of keeping him in Cordoba for three times as much. According to John of Saint-Arnoul, John of Gorze’s biographer, the ambassador was harassed several times by the caliph’s emissaries, having also suffered several life threats and blackmail, such as presumably putting on his hands the destiny of the Andalusi Christians living in Cordoba. Finally, after dispatching the Christian Cordovan Recemund as an emissary to Otto I, another letter arrived at the Umayyad capital, with more presents, in June 956. At last, a reception was scheduled and the caliph sent his emissaries to John of Gorze, who let the abbot know that he was expected to be cleaned and dressed accordingly for the caliphal reception. He was given ten pounds for the expenses of the appropriate ceremonial attire. However, yet again, the ambassador of Otto did not comply with the rules of attendance and apparently, he distributed the money to the poor, refusing to dress anything else than his black religious costume, an anecdote clearly aiming at underlining the abbot’s religiosity and modesty.
Unexpectedly, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III agreed, further stating that he would be received even if he was wearing a sack. This anecdote evidences once more how ceremonial was carefully planned, being the duty of the caliph’s officials to make sure that even the content of letters was known to avoid any unpleasant surprise which would harm the honour of the ruler. Even the attire and hygiene were carefully planned, and those attending the ceremony were expected to dress according to their hierarchies.5 The accounts mentioned above perfectly fit the definition and interpretation of ceremonial. Ceremonial becomes interpretable in the eyes of those who are intended to witness it, the courtesans, subjects or foreign envoys. The recipients are expected to understand the meaning of the rituals played at a ceremony. Clifford Geertz has interpreted it as “a whole structure of meaning.”6 The deconstruction of the ritualization, which serves as an interaction between a certain group and cohesive identity, is nothing less than the interpretation and understanding of the symbology displayed. The questioning of the purpose of ceremonial must be somehow connected to the general idea of ceremonial as fascinating, seen as lacking objectives or practical purposes. Geertz has answered to those who were not convinced by this sheer fascination: “the exegetical task must be undertaken if one wants to be left with more than the mere fascinated wonderment.” And so, one must undertake the task of digging out the doctrine embodied by state rituals, even if its mere representation does not allow the immediate understating of its symbolism.7 Even sources describe the wonderment caused by ceremonial receptions staged at the Umayyad capital, which is the case of the account describing the mission of John of Gorze.
The bewilderment must give place to the analysis of its symbology, forms and response by those attending these ceremonies. Thus, the main purpose of this monograph is the conceptualization of the court, palace and ruler of the Umayyad Caliphate of al-Andalus (929– 1031). By conceptualization is meant not only the terminology addressed in Andalusi sources but also the idea, understanding and construction of the Umayyad court of Cordoba. How do sources name and define the concept of court and ruler? How were these concepts described and understood by the Umayyad Caliphate of al-Andalus? To which situations were these concepts associated? What was the meaning and symbology of these concepts? It is not by chance that pointing out the normative role played by the Western vision, terminology and understanding of the court has become an almost mandatory reference in works considering Islamic courts. While the first has been the subject of a prolific and constant historiography developed in the field of European Court Studies, the latter is still an underdeveloped field. Historiography has attributed this situation to a “problem of definition” for the Islamic model in general. At the same time, this situation results in the disregard of the specificities of each case study, neglecting concepts and terminology addressed in sources and, consequently, the dynamics and display of Islamic court societies.8 While Court Studies is a well-developed field, especially for the modern period, that is not the case for the study of Muslim medieval courts. Albrecht Fuess and Jan-Peter Hartung pointed out that after the work of Norbert Elias on Louis XIV’s court, which triggered a constant academic production on European court societies, several questions remain to be answered.9 As for Muslim court societies, the problem is more serious, according to the same authors, since the existing fragmentary case studies prevail on “basic research,” a situation they believe demands comparative perspectives “which recognize the specificity of the Muslim context.” For Nadia Maria El Cheikh, “the court was roused from its historiographical somnolence mostly through the efforts of Norbert Elias” whose “epoch-making studies restored the relevance and legitimacy of the court as a theme of research.”
However, as stated above, she also alerts to the “problem of definition,” related to the specificities of each case study, which for her explains partially the almost inexistence of court studies for some Islamic chronologies.10 Even renowned and revisionist historiography on al-Andalus has looked to the Umayyad court of Cordoba through the eye and model of the much later Versailles. For example, Pierre Guichard – who is a reference for the modern study of al-Andalus, which he approached with its own concepts, parting from the perspective of the “Muslim Spain” – labelled the seclusion of the figure of the ruler in al-Andalus as the “phenomenon of the ‘oriental’ isolation of the sovereign.” He further asserted that this “oriental” feature was reproduced in al-Andalus with the foundation of Madīnat al-Zahrā’, “the ‘Versailles’ of the Umayyads.”11 It is not the purpose of this monograph to provide a new perspective on European courts, but rather to address a field of studies that has deserved modest attention from scholars working on Islamic history and courts, a situation which has been partially attributed to the classical role of the European vision of the court. Thus, this monograph hopes to contribute to overcome this panorama, focusing on the case of the court of the Umayyad Caliphate of al-Andalus, while at the same time adopting a comparative approach to the courts of the ‘Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates and to the Byzantine Empire, in the light of a courtly common language within the Mediterranean and Eastern societies of the 10th century. The strong conceptualization of the Umayyad court of Cordoba was further highlighted through the articulation of ceremonial, as the mise-en-scène of these concepts, ideology and legitimacy, expressed by ritual, gestures, caliphal insignia and hierarchies, which were understood by the Mediterranean and Eastern paradigm of court and ceremonial.
The connection between the conceptualization of the Umayyad court of Cordoba and the articulation of ceremonial relies on the recognition of the concepts of the court or the appellations of the caliph – as the manifest representation of the court – as key when sources describe ceremonies. Ultimately, ceremonies are the staging of power and the conceptualization which embodies and legitimizes that power. Geertz’s study on the negara state of Bali addresses the power as “the myth of the exemplary centre.” For Geertz, power serves pomp, an overstatement12 easily understood if symbolism is not seen as the opposite of real, as contemporary anthropology has perceived it, which is a subsidiary view of the 19th century, focused merely on the “fascinated wonderment.
Considering the symbolic anthropological approach, Philippe Buc has warned about “the dangers of ritual,” doubting the applicability of 20th-century anthropological models to analyze medieval rituals. Buc has also warned historians about the dangers of manipulating the descriptions of ceremonies by medieval powers and authors.14 While the lack of consensus involved in the performance of rituals must be stressed, disregarding it on the grounds that “we do not have access to ritual practices, but only to texts depicting them,”15 would bring us perhaps to rethink the whole structure of the historiographical practice. As in all fields of historiography, manipulations happen in sources: in a narrative of a rebellion, a war, a political, social or economic event, inasmuch as in ritual performances and/or its descriptions. Furthermore, the lack of consensus also dictates the performance of rituals in medieval courts, to communicate hierarchy, either successfully or not. Both the conceptualization and the articulation of the ceremonial of Cordoba are discussed in this book, through the comprehensive survey of primary Andalusi sources. As underlined above, the monograph further considers a preliminary comparative approach, developed on examples contained in selected primary sources, but mainly resorting to secondary literature on the Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, the ‘Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates, and the Byzantine Empire. Sources elaborate a specific terminology for the medieval Muslim court societies and, in the specific case of the Umayyad Caliphate of al-Andalus, this research revealed that the court is usually addressed as Bāb Suddat al-Khalīfa (“The door of the Sudda of the caliph”) – a reference to the symbology associated to the main city gate of Cordoba – or simply as Bāb. Bāb Suddat al-Khalīfa appears to be the most emblematic concept to name the Umayyad palace, its society, the access and submission towards the caliph, which is additionally interpreted in the book in the framework of the performance of ceremonial, the language and terminology used in ceremonies, as well as within the Byzantine and Persian traditions, which overrun the concepts idealized for Western court societies.
As for the choice of chronology, the 10th century unlocks a privileged era for the articulation of the Umayyad ceremonial and court ritual within the political framework of the Mediterranean. Cordoba institutionalizes a ritualized ceremonial not only as a result of the political strength of the dynasty but also as a way to display a theatre of power. This research covers the period of the sovereignties of the first Umayyad caliph of al-Andalus, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III (r. 912–961), and of his son and heir, al-Ḥakam II (r. 961–976). ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III’s rise to power marks the institutionalization of a standardized ceremonial which coincides with the declaration of the Umayyad Caliphate of al-Andalus in 929. As noted by Miquel Barceló, ceremonial developed around the “evanescent caliph” was not the result of a mere ideological requirement, but the requirement was the result of a strong political power based on the thorough collection of taxes, which gave rise to a wide state bureaucracy, allowing the caliph to become an unattainable and invisible figure, though symbolically present at all times in his palace-city complex.16 The information recorded on rituals under the rule of al-Ḥakam II allows not only the development of the research on court studies and ceremonial, as it also evidences a strong complexification of ceremonies and ritual, in comparison with the rule of ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III. The death of al-Ḥakam II marked the end of a stable de facto power of the Umayyad caliphs of al-Andalus. His son and heir Hishām II (r. 976–1009, 1010–1013) ascended to the throne when he was only 11 years old, becoming a puppet caliph under the de facto rule of the ‘Amirid dynasty, first under the tutelage of the ḥājib Muḥammad b. Abī ‘Āmir al-Manṣūr (d. 1002), and then of his sons ‘Abd al-Malik al-Muẓaffar (r. 1002–1008) and ‘Abd al-Raḥmān Nāṣir al-Dawla al-Ma’mūn (r. 1009-1009), better known as Sanchuelo, as his mother, ‘Abda or Urraca, was the daughter of Sancho Garcés II of Pamplona (r. 970–994). After Sanchuelo made Hishām II name him his heir and successor of the Umayyad Caliphate in al-Andalus, such pretension of dismissing the Umayyad lineage triggered the assassination of the ḥājib in 1009.
This also gave rise to a troubled period which saw the succession of several Umayyad suitors for the seat of the caliphate, which finally culminated in the end of the Umayyad power of al-Andalus in 1031 and the beginning of the mulūk al-ṭawā’if (sing. ṭā’ifa, faction), petty kingdoms commonly known as the ṭā’ifa kingdoms. Thus, taking in mind the sources available and the historical and political context, this monograph will have as its main focus the sovereignties of both the first and the second caliphs of Cordoba, resorting however to other examples of rituals, ceremonies and insignia of the Umayyad ‘Amirate and the ‘Amirid period. The book is composed of two parts: the first part comprises the introduction (1. Introduction), the sources used for this research and the state of the art (2. Sources and State of the Art; 2.1. Sources; 2.2. State of the Art; 2.2.1. Muslim Courts; 2.2.2. the Byzantine Court), discussing the approach on court, ritual and ceremonial of the works concerning these issues, for the time and space framework selected. The quorum of the first part concerns the conceptualization of the court of the Umayyads of Cordoba (3. Concepts). An introductory part of the chapter aims at discussing the general interpretations of the court (3.1. The invented court: a Western imagery), adopting an essayistic and critical approach on the contemporary Western views of the court, and especially the oriental court, allowing for that purpose examples on art, music and literature, relevant to discuss the change in time of the concept. This introductory subchapter is followed by another which stances the definition of the court in historiographical studies addressing the Muslim courts, as well as the fundamental studies which allowed the development of this research and served as a methodological approach for this monograph (3.2. The concept of court). The chapter is then divided into three parts, which have been the result of the survey of sources concerning the Umayyad Caliphate of al-Andalus.
The first, 3.3. The Umayyad Caliph: a Sun-Caliph?, is the product of the conceptualization of the caliphal court of Cordoba centralized in the figure of the caliph, evoking astronomical metaphors to refer to the sovereign, especially in the panegyric poetry transmitted in historical compilation sources. As the ceremonial and the court are the main subjects of the book, the figure of the caliph was always the centre of the performance of ceremonial, even when he was not present, displaying for that purpose insignia which represented the image of the ruler. As mentioned above, the development of the field of Court Studies for Western societies has contributed to the general association of the court with a European court model, especially defining Versailles as a prototype. This does not mean that Court Studies developed for Western societies created this image, but rather that the prolific production about these court societies resulted in the general (and sometimes even academic) imagery around the French court society and its ruler. The imagery fashioned around Louis XIV as the “roi-soleil” was certainly not an original idea. It was already a reality for ancient societies, a metaphor inherited by the Islamic Empire after its conquests. For instance, the Umayyad caliph of al-Andalus was described as a “rising sun” (shamsan ṭāliʽatan),17 as well as “the sun of a caliphate” (shams khilāfatin) in panegyric poetry.18 This subchapter further addresses the official titles and other epithets of the Umayyad caliph, such as khalīfa and amīr al-mu’minīn, imām19 or mahdī, 20 reproduced in letters transmitted by narrative sources or in poetry contained in historical accounts.
The second subchapter discussing the Umayyad terminology is the central part of the conceptualization, 3.4. Bāb Suddat al-Khalīfa or the court of the caliph: an Umayyad Sublime Porte?, which this research has shown as the most iconic term to refer to the Umayyad court of Cordoba. For example, in March 938, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III received Muḥammad b. Hāshim al-Tujībī, the governor of Zaragoza, at his capital.21 According to the account, Muḥammad al-Tujībī went to the Bāb Suddat al-Khalīfa. 22 The term refers to the most important gate of the city of Cordoba and then of the palace complex of Madīnat al-Zahrā’, developing into an expression that referred to the palace, the entourage of the caliph, in short, to what we nowadays unjustly understand as the court. In sources, Bāb23 – a short concept resulting from the changes and shaping of the original concept of Bāb Suddat al-Khalīfa – turned out to be an all-encompassing abstract term. The terminology was comprehensively surveyed in sources accounting for the Umayyad caliphates of ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III and al-Ḥakam II. The references and examples shown in the subchapter underline the understanding of this terminology which takes us, once more, to the figure of the caliph, as well as his power, insignia, justice and punishment.
The use of the reference to the door as a metaphorical and abstract idea of the palace and the court was certainly not unknown to Ancient societies. However, the term became popularized in the West through European accounts on the Ottoman Bāb-i ‘Ālī, which was the representation of the court of the sultan, and became known in the West as the Sublime Porte. As stated above, this subchapter will address the symbology of the gate or the door in a comparative perspective with previous traditions, also addressing the architecture of the caliphal courts, through archaeological interpretations of historiography and art history. The door will be analysed as the public representation of the caliph, as well as the stage for submission, punishing traitors and others sentenced for their faults, usually associated with the breaking of the oath of allegiance. The third conceptual topic of the chapter of concepts concerns the spatial understanding of the court: the palace of the caliphate or the Qaṣr al-Khilāfa. Subchapter 3.5. Qaṣr al-Khilāfa: space and society discusses if such terminology addressed only the spatiality of the palace, or if it rather suggested a broader concept intending to designate the entourage and the administration of the Umayyad sovereign of al-Andalus, further resorting to a comparative approach, especially with the ‘Abbasid court. Thus, the chapter concerning the conceptualization of the Umayyad court of al-Andalus aims at demonstrating that far from thinking the Western court model as a paradigm, or as the maximum achievement of a developed court, the caliphal courts were in fact complex court societies. These courts created their own concepts and terminology, which was part of a common ceremonial, ritual and insignia language, shared by several caliphal and Muslim powers, but also inherited from previous empires and understood by other Christian and imperial powers.
The second part of the book is dedicated to the articulation of ceremonial, 4. A ceremonial common language in the Mediterranean: rituals of court in a comparative perspective. The articulation of ceremonial was the mis-enscène of the conceptualization of the court, the caliph, the hierarchy of the court and the administration. As underlined before, this second part must be understood as a preliminary study concerning the performance of ceremonial, in a comparative perspective, within the Mediterranean framework. Furthermore, this second part of the book dialogues frequently with the first part, as the concepts are mainly accounted and articulated in sources in ceremonial occasions and their descriptions, such as the reception and submission of tributaries or governors of al-Andalus, military parades, ritualized punishments or ceremonial receptions for the occasion of religious festivities. The selection of ceremonial situations was made according to the most relevant information available in the sources for the Umayyad Caliphate of al-Andalus.24 One of the themes addressed in this chapter is the bayʽa ritual,25 where both ceremonies of the oath of allegiance to ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III26 and al-Ḥakam II27 are discussed in the whole context of the Umayyad court ritual (4.1. The bayʽa: an introduction to palace ceremonies). The comparative perspective also allows us to understand how important the hierarchy and the distinguishable sovereignty insignia were.
The most distinguishable sovereignty insignia between Christian and Islamic courts is perhaps the wearing of the tāj (crown), which is why the connection between the subchapter 4.1 and 4.2. (The caliphal and imperial insignia) is made by the example of the imperial ceremony of the crowning of the Byzantine emperor.28 This subchapter will also discuss other insignia of power, such as the turban, the qalansuwa, caliphal garments, the sarīr (throne) or the sitr (curtain). Another subchapter is dedicated to the study of different types of ceremonies, between the palace and public rituals (4.3. Religious festivities, processions and military parades: an assessment of palace and public ceremonial). The religious festivities, for which the second caliph would hold a palace reception, at the main hall of the palace-city of Madīnat al-Zahrā’, the al-Majlis al-Sharqī, or the Eastern Hall, consist of the best documented palace ceremonies. For the 10th century these descriptions are perhaps the main source for understanding the organization and hierarchy of the caliphal court of Cordoba, as a great part of the accounts are dedicated to the organization of classes or order of precedence (marātib, tartīb) inside the majlis, aimed at insistently underlining the hierarchy within the court. What I have addressed as public ceremonial must be understood as ceremonies where the caliphal subjects could attend, as some of them were selected to take part of the processions and military parades, while others would gather to witness these scenes. While the majlis ceremonies or audience ceremonial articulated a language directed towards the elite of the hierarchy of the state, the processions, military parades or ridings were meant to have a much more public character.
The different stages of ceremonies will be addressed, to whom they were directed, who was the audience, what was the symbology of the stage of the ceremony, as well as the meaning of the gestures and procedures undertaken. I will make special mention to ritual gestures and salutations towards the caliph, drawing the attention to the kissing of the hand and the prostration, or proskynesis, as it was commonly known by the Ancient empires, a gesture apparently associated in the Umayyad al-Andalus – especially, but not exclusively – to the submission of tributaries, either Muslim or Christians, as it will be further discussed. The comparative perspective will also be important in this subchapter, as it is interesting to understand which specificities characterized the Umayyad ceremonial in al-Andalus. While being part of a common Mediterranean court language, there were nevertheless codes and particularities which made it possible to distinguish an ‘Abbasid from an Umayyad ceremony, or a Byzantine from a Fatimid procession. That was also one of the purposes of the ceremonial, to articulate a specific language that further underlined the identity and superiority of the dynasty and the state (dawla), while at the same time remaining widely understood, which was especially evidenced when envoys were received. Whereas innovations were intentionally incorporated within the court ritual – such as a gesture, the tāj or the sarīr – their assimilation was meant at exceeding and transforming the original meaning, turning it into specific Umayyad insignias. The symbology of the architecture in palatine receptions will also be addressed, especially relating to the ceremonial path crossed during reception days or the architecture of the main hall of receptions.
The military parade (burūz) was also a central part of the ritual life of the city and the dynasty, as they used a specific language and insignia – flags, banners – and were organized with great pomp when the Muslim army would leave in campaign, while the caliph would also lead the procession or attend it from the Bāb al-Sudda of Cordoba. The rukūb was also a public ceremonial occasion, where the caliph would be seen riding his horse, followed by his most worthy state officials, and in some cases by his heir. This organization also followed strict hierarchical rules of attendance. The accounts reporting these occasions are an opportunity to understand the structure of the hierarchy of the court and the gestures performed by the elite towards the caliph. These gestures differentiated from the salutations of the subjects, as not all of them had the honour to kiss or prostrate at the feet of the caliph and of the heir to the throne, as in the cases of al-Ḥakam II and the future Hishām II.29 Keeping in mind the public ceremonial setting, the last subchapter 4.4 (A liturgy of blood? An assessment of ritualized public executions under the rule of the Caliph ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III) will be devoted to the discussion of the existence of a liturgy of blood, developed around the theatralization of the death penalty. As the title specifies, the subchapter will focus on the rule of the first caliph of Cordoba, as the two most important episodes selected for discussion took part under his sovereignty. The punishments or executions were not part of a ritualized court setting but were certainly a ritual part of the life of the caliphal city.
These rituals could be attended by both high and low-rank caliphal subjects, which marks a clear contrast with the majlis ceremonies. As stated above, this part of the monograph arose from the analysis of two episodes of public punishments marking turning points for the rule of the Caliph ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III. First, the exhumation and crucifixion of ‘Umar b. Ḥafṣūn’s remains,30 after the conquest of Bobastro, which resulted in the declaration of the Umayyad Caliphate of al-Andalus in 929. Second, the public crucifixion and death penalty of the presumable traitors of the Battle of Simancas (939),31 which apparently marked the full dedication of the caliph to the construction of his palace city, no longer leaving Cordoba for military campaigns. This part of the book is linked to the subchapter concerning the Bāb Suddat al-Khalīfa, as the gate represented the court, the caliph and his power to decide capital punishment. In this sense, the gate was the stage for crucifixions, which was not a mere coincidence or detail. The punishment of the traitors of Simancas was a rare moment in which the caliph presided over the crucifixion and the death of the condemned, addressing the Cordovan population who attended the scene. To demonstrate the perception of the caliphal punishments as a ritual setting and its conception as ceremonies, I have proceeded to survey in sources capital punishments, and especially death by crucifixion and lancing, as well as other types of punishments presided by the first caliph himself. As for the method and the structure of this research, as stated before, I will focus on the solemn ceremonies taking place in the Umayyad Andalusi court society and to the attendance of these ceremonies; ascertain the political, religious and military context and motivations of ceremonies; draw and reconstruct the deployment of ceremonial and rules of attendance, such as previous preparation, military formation, architectural plans of palace-complexes, insignia and gestures, rules of precedence for officials and their role; define the historical process of the ceremonial symbology and growing dramatization, by contextualizing it within a political Mediterranean framework, thus determining its origin, features and models, making it essential the resort to the comparative perspective.
This is also the reason why the idea of ceremonial through history is discussed in this book in a more conceptual framework, where the Islamic medieval terminology and vision of rituals and ceremonial will take a leading part. In short, this monograph hopes to contribute to reverse a more or less generalized perception of the Western powers and courts as the producers of the pure, normative, standardized model of the court. The fact that the common use of the word court in the academic world is still a standard reveals the existence of such a generalized view, making its use compulsory. I also aim at demonstrating how terminology and conceptualization take a defining part in the construction of an imaginary around those words and concepts. This imaginary has usually led us to literary and movie descriptions of the court of Versailles, which are perceived as paradigmatic and must be put into perspective with different court models.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق