The cultural history of the Islamic lands is full of paradoxes, one being the disparity between doctrinal dogma against and actual development of the performing arts. Take the Mamluk period (1250–1557), a time that saw the heyday of the “Sunni revival” championed by the likes of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328) and Ibn al-Ḥājj (d. 1336) whose writings against all forms of music were to become a talking point in some circles for centuries. On the other hand, this was also a time that witnessed robust music making and the production of academic texts on music theory. The book under review is an introduction, analysis and critical edition of such a text, The Enticing Roads to Rhythms and Modes by Ibn Kurr (Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā b. Ḥasan al-Baghdādī, born in Cairo to an Iraqi refugee family, d. 1357). The eight chapters are bracketed within a tripartite composition: “Prelude” (ch. 1, introduction), “Interlude” (ch. 4, divides the topics analysed in ch. 2–6), and “Postlude” (ch. 7, conclusion). Chapter 8 describes the text, and is followed by a glossary, bibliography, index, and an Arabic edition.
Ibn Kurr's treatise is one of the representative texts that emerged outside of “the Systematist school”, namely the philosophical-theorist tradition of al-Farābī, Ibn Sīnā, and the Ikhwān al-Ṣafā, and further articulated in the corpus such as Ṣafī al-Dīn al-Urmawī’s (d. 1294) Kitāb al-adwār, or Book of Cycles, among others. Al-Urmawī’s text, which forms the base for Owen Wright's The Modal System of Arab and Persian Music, a.d. 1250–1300 (Oxford, 1978), is used here as the reference point to contrast Ibn Kurr's “non-Systematist” treatment. The comparison goes beyond purely theoretic laundry listing, insofar as the two texts reflect the state of affairs of music making, in Baghdad and Cairo, in the pre- and post-Mongol eras, respectively.
A refreshing and effective feature of the book is a holistic approach that ties the analysis to the original layout of the text. Folio by folio, the reader stays with the flow of Ibn Kurr's narrative; but chapter by chapter, we are also guided by Wright's thematic units: “Introduction”, “Rhythm”, “Performance strategies and formal procedures”, “Mode” and “Comparisons”. Among these, chapters on rhythm and mode form the core. Interestingly, these two sections in the original were termed muqaddima, literally “introduction”, namely a themed essay.
In both rhymed prose and a conventional manner, the Preamble (fols 1v–5v; ch. 2) touches upon several themes, chief among them a defence of music and the claim of the superiority of theory over practice. In Wright's assessment, some of Ibn Kurr's assertions and accusations evidence his unfamiliarity with the Systematist discourse, which might not be a bad thing at all.
Regarding the first muqaddima-essay, on rhythm (fols 5v–22r; ch. 3), Wright points out that Ibn Kurr's account is derivative of, and variant from, the Systematist formulations. However, it approaches the question of internal structure from a different angle and provides a novel categorization of variant structures, with an associated nomenclature. Despite some inconsistencies, his account is nevertheless considerably richer in detail than those of the Old School.
Aspects related to practice were not the primary concern of the theorists. A separate section on performance was not by Ibn Kurr's design. Rather, this portion at the end of the first muqaddima was singled out for separate treatment (fols 22v–24r; ch. 4), insofar as it, in Wright's view, marks a transition away from the conventions (of fixed structures and specific forms), emphasizing processes related to the performance of a composition (ʿamal). Noticeable also is a change of vocabulary and of writing. The “new” technical terms pertain to performance strategy and impromptu. The changing texture of the writing hints at the influence of other unidentified materials.
Ibn Kurr did not set out to write a refutation of the Systematist system; rather, his genius lies in his novelty. This is particularly true regarding the second muqaddima-essay, which deals with Mode (fols 24v–47r; ch. 5). Ibn Kurr's theoretical propositions and descriptions of individual items, according to Wright, have no obvious antecedents, but are marred by a compressed and unclear presentation. As such, the order of folios was slightly re-arranged to facilitate analysis. After a discussion of the basics – scale, intervals and hierarchies of modes – the focus shifts to a detailed analysis of individual modes, chief among them the three major types: hank (shadd in al-Urmawī) or major modes; āwāz, or derived modes; and ṣawt, or “number” modes. This last class, a group of modes where the names indicate successive scale degrees, was not mentioned by al-Urmawī. Ibn Kurr's was the earliest text to show an enlargement of the series, which was first listed by a later Systematist theorist al-Shīrāzī (d. 1311). Along with other “secondary modes” they map out an inventory of modes by category, laying the ground for Wright's synthesis of their linkages, conspectus, and combinations.
Ibn Kurr's approach, which places emphasis on descriptive accuracy without an analogous bias, is in sharp contrast to that of the Systematists, which seeks an analytical uniformity. In the ensuing chapter 6, comparisons were made between Ibn Kurr and the Systematists regarding a host of topics (combinations, various modes, derivations and regional variations). Chapter 7 sums up the findings by positioning Ibn Kurr's work in context and detailing its potential for future study, not only of musicology, but also in the broader cultural, social and intellectual arenas. The compact text hints at the vibrancy and sophistication of the musicians, audiences, institutions and artistic/literary scenes in Cairo. In light of the lamentable lack of a Mamluk answer to the classical canon, Kitāb al-aghānī, or Book of Songs, it has much to offer.
The edition has been fastidiously prepared. The philology is near impeccable. Wright has done a superb job of deciphering a codex that demands considerable guesswork (words without dots). Since the sole codex demonstrates traits of Middle Arabic, the editorial hand was sensible and less intrusive. Variations and corrections are only found in the apparatus. This cautiousness extends to the title: despite an alternate, al-anġām (Brockelmann; preferred by Wright; pp. 11, 14), in place of al-adwār, the latter (so appears in the manuscript) remains. The argument for yuʿīduh (li-yuʿīdahu; pp. 42–3, 300) over li-baʿīdihi, however, is perhaps overkill: the latter is grammatically invalid in Classical Arabic, and awkward even in Middle Arabic. The production overall is exemplary. I only spotted a few errors (p. 21, naṣarah; p. 25, 5b for 5v; p. 77, approximation [to] it; p. 175, ʿuššāq; p. 235, The Review of Mamluk Studies for Mamlūk Studies Review).
The book under review makes important contributions to the study of Perso-Arab musicology. Students of Arabic literature, performance and cultural history (this reviewer included) will also benefit from it tremendously.
