poem based on an already established kharja (the last
line in the song)—that is, starting from the end—or
based on an established prosodic pattern (contrafaction)
are all typical compositional techniques that enhance the
circular effect. Thus, Al-Shushtarı ̄ was very conscious
of specifi c structural patterns and their signifi cance to
the art of critical interpretation.
The third manifestation of that general literary con-
cern lies in the element of performance itself, which
is naturally realized with the pioneering use of the
zajal. Because this is a poem composed to be sung or
performed in public (sometimes in a choral manner), it
affords the audience or recipients interaction with the
art presented. The active participation involved here
is what distinguishes Al-Shushtarı ̄ ’s mystical work,
adding a new dimension to S.u ̄ fi poetry in general, and
invigorating the whole mystical experience. S.u ̄ fi poetry
here is thus no longer intellectually exclusive or highly
theoretical and unreached, but a living part of the mys-
tical existence. Al-Shushtarı ̄ even included within the
lyrics themselves, and among his other created person-
alities, the persona of the zajjal (the zajal’s composer)
or singer—that is, the persona of the poet/artist.
The two other personae are the ascetic, pious faqir
(epithet for S.u ̄ fi) and its symbolic counterpart, a wanton
drunk. The fi rst persona, the wandering, “ecstatic” S.u ̄ fi,
seems to embody the character of Al-Shushtarı ̄ himself,
a S.u ̄ fi faqir who wandered in various lands and took his
zajal singing in the streets and marketplaces. At times,
however, Al-Shushtarı ̄ adopts the Quzm a ̄ni wanton
persona; as he says in his “Zajal 99,” he literally puts on
his defi ant and unorthodox hat (exchanging his turban
for a monk’s hood). Of course, this device of putting
on literary masks serves an important artistic purpose:
the personalities ultimately join to form an underlying
unity between literature and S.u ̄ fism.
As has been shown, the use of symbols and circular
structure are ways of enhancing the concept of S.u ̄ fi
exegesis and establishing the necessity of critical in-
terpretation. In the same manner, drawing attention to
performance and to various personae or voices further
proves how Al-Shushtarı ̄ was aware that he presented
a new art—not merely a S.u ̄ fi philosophical treatise
or didactic poetry—and that he was interested in the
intricate artistry of composition.
In the fi nal analysis, the novel aesthetic position of
Al-Shushtarı ̄ is that critical interpretation, from the S.u ̄ fi
perspective, is a “circular” process in which an “essen-
tial,” spiritual truth becomes a poem: then by means of
interaction with an interpreting audience (through public
performance) the poem is returned to its origins. The
correspondence between the theological dimension and
the aesthetic dimension has one purpose: to illuminate
the nature of the process of interpretation when linked
to religious hermeneutics. Al-Shushtarı ̄’s poetry illus-
trates his characteristic blend of appealing and melodic
simplicity, on the one hand, and sophisticated and even
enigmatic complexity on the other. He was able to make
“perfect form” (i.e., (zajals and muwashshah. as) in art
indistinguishable from mystical pursuit.
See also Ibn Quzm nFurther Reading
Corbin, H. Creative Imagination in the Sufi sm of Ibn ‘Arabı ̄.
Trans. R. Manheim. Princeton, N.J., 1969.
Monroe, J. Hispano-Ambic Poetry. Berkeley, 1974.
“Prolegomena to the Study of Ibn Quzm a ̄ n: The Poet as Jongleur.”
In The Hispanic Ballad Today: History, Comparativism, Criti-
cal Bibliography. Ed. S. G. Armistead, A. Sanchez-Romeralo,
and D. Catalán. Madrid, 1979. 77–129.
Shushtarı ̄ , al-, A. al-H. asan. Dı ̄ w a ̄ n. Ed. A. S. al-Nashshar. Cairo,
1960.
Stern, S. M. Hispano-Arabic Strophic Poetry. Ed. L. P. Harvey.
Oxford, 1974.
Omaima Abou-BakrSIGER OF BRABANT
(ca. 1240–November 10 1284)
This scholastic philosopher, an important representative
of thirteenth-century heterodox Aristotelianism, played
a prominent role in the debate on the proper place of phi-
losophy with respect to theology and Christian faith.
The details of Siger’s biography are largely unknown.
He was born around 1240 or shortly thereafter in Bra-
bant and started his academic career circa 1255–1260
in Paris, where he received an M.A. in 1260–1265. On
November 10, 1284, he died in Orvieto, killed by his
secretary.
His oeuvre includes commentaries on Aristotle’s
Physics, Metaphysics, and On the Soul, and a number
of separate questions dealing with logic, philosophy of
nature, metaphysics, and ethics. Most of his writings
resulted from his teaching as a master of arts at Paris.
His published work probably dates from around 1270
and thereafter.
In his early writings, Siger professes the ideal of the
pure philosopher searching for truth unaided by Chris-
tian revelation and trying to reveal the exact teachings
of Aristotle, the philosopher par excellence. This attitude
was seen as a serious threat to theology by a number of
theologians, whose reaction was refl ected in the famous
Parisian Articles of 1270 and 1277, issued by Bishop
Stephen Tempier. In his later work, however, Siger is less
radical and steers a middle course between philosophy
and Christian faith.
Of central importance was Siger’s theory of the hu-
man intellect. In line with the teachings of Averröes,
Siger holds that humans receive intellectual knowledge
from a single, pure intellectual substance, which is theSIGER OF BRABANT