In a version recorded in three different forms between 1959 and 1963 in Los Angeles, the protagonists are the pope and a rabbi; in a Turkish version, the protagonists are Nasrettin Hoca and, once more, a Persian scholar (see Greene, “Trickster”).
In the Indian version, which has Sanskrit roots, the actors are Akbar and his vizier Birbal (Marzolph, Arabia Ridens, 1:145); for older Arabic versions, see al-Ṭurṭūshī, Sirāj, 370 (where the story is told to the caliph al-Maʾmūn), al-Ibshīhī, Al-Mustaṭraf, 1:108, and al-Damīrī, Ḥayawān, 1:160.
See Baer, “Significance,” 24–25, for examples of stories said still to be current. An anonymous pamphlet entitled Tamaddun al-fallāḥīn (The Civilization of the Peasants), undated but probably mid-twentieth-century, contains “pleasant stories and curious and comic anecdotes about the contentious peasants,” most of which are in colloquial Arabic and several of which recall those in Brains Confounded.
Not every digression can be attached without strain to the main frame of the work. The long passage narrating the death of al-Ḥusayn, introduced on the excuse that the word ṭafīf (“brimming”), which occurs in the “Ode of Abū Shādūf”, may derive from al-Ṭaff, the place where the Prophet’s grandson met his end, is more difficult to reconcile with the overall purpose of the book. It may be a particularly extreme example of al-Shirbīnī seeking to assert his credentials as a member of the erudite classes, in this instance going so far as to introduce material that cannot, by its nature, be treated humorously, or it may be that the reference to a dispute among Sufis over the final resting place of the martyr’s head (vol. 2, §11.31.14) points, in a coded way, to some allegiance of al-Shirbīnī’s.
Al-Shirbīnī lists seven poems under this heading (§§5.1–5.9.27). To these may be added three that occur as probative verses in the commentary on the first of the numbered poems. These extra poems are those starting shaḥṭiṭ ṣuḥaybak wa-rukhkhuh alfa farqillah (§5.2.4), taḍāl innak yā miḥrāt tāʿib jamāʿatak (the verse has no clear meter and the voweling is tentative), and qūmī mʿakī yā Khuṭayṭah shiʿratik bi-l-khayṭ (§5.2.15). Verses occurring (with minor variants) in both works are those beginning wa-llāhi wa-llāhi l-ʿaḍīmi l-qādirī (§5.5), hibābu furni-bni ʿammī (§5.6), saʾaltu ʿani l-ḥibbi (§5.7), wa-qultu lahā būlī ʿalayya wa-sharshirī (§5.3), raqqāṣu ṭāḥūninā (§5.8), and raʾayt ḥarīfī bi-farqillah (§5.9). Verses occurring in al-Shirbīnī only are mā ḍāl qamīṣī yushaḥṭaṭ (§5.2) and the three “extra” poems mentioned above.
I am indebted to Mark Muehlhaeusler for bringing this to my attention. The sentence reads “We learn, among other things, from Hazz al-quḥūf ʿalā sharḥ Abī Shādūf [sic] that pimping is of various kinds, styles, and types. One of these is called ‘turning a blind eye’ (al-taṭnīsh), when the man is not gainfully employed and the woman is well-off and feeds and clothes him. Thus if he notices anything about her, he can say nothing to her and all he can do is pretend not to know what is going on and behave as though he has seen and heard nothing.”
Muḥammad Qindīl al-Baqlī (ed.), under the title Our Egyptian Village before the Revolution – 1 (Qaryatunā l-Miṣriyyah qabla l-thawrah – 1). The retitling underlines the ideological impetus behind the work’s republication during the Nasserist era.
Mehren’s article is devoted mainly to the historical and literary background and a summary of the contents, and it has a limited Arabic-French glossary of words occurring in the work and “little used in the literary language” (Mehren, “Et Par Bildrag Bedømmelse”).
Spitta, Grammatik, Texts VIII and X. Spitta’s two texts combine three stories from Brains Confounded in an order different from that of the original and with passages originally in literary Arabic translated into colloquial. Spitta probably transcribed the stories as they were read to him by an informant from the book (Spitta, Grammatik; see, further, Davies, Profile, 34–35).
The issue of whether or not the “Ode” is “genuine” is inextricably bound up with question of al-Shirbīnī’s motives in writing Brains Confounded and his attitude towards its subjects. Arguments in support of a literalist reading are comprehensively presented and analyzed by Baer (“Significance,” 25–35), according to whom, in the light of the renewed interest in and empathy for the peasant that came with the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, “Shirbīnī’s book confronted [Egyptian scholars] with a difficult problem. How should they explain that a native Egyptian writer born himself in an Egyptian village mocked and despised the fellah as if he expressed the views of the fellah’s Turkish and Mamluk oppressors?” (p. 28). Baer detects two responses to this problem. The first is to see al-Shirbīnī in a favorable light. Scholars taking this approach believe that al-Shirbīnī intended to condemn the exploitation and oppression of Egyptians by the Ottomans “by describing the poverty of the people and their oppression by the
