Dominion Built of Praise. Jonathan Decter

observed, witnessed the proliferation of compound honorifics, including as their second terms words like dīn, “faith”; and dawla or mulk, “secular power,” or less commonly, compounded with umma, “nation” and milla, “religious community.”⁵⁶ Kramers argues that titles stressing worldly political affiliation, popular among the Shi‘ite Fatimids, were rejected by later Sunni dynasties in favor of titles stressing religious advocacy and fidelity.⁵⁷

      Titles of caliphs and other officials from Fatimid and Ayyubid Egypt are preserved in the handful of petitions addressed to powerful men by those of lower rank (including the truly lowly) found in the Cairo Geniza and the archive of Saint Catherine’s monastery in the Sinai desert.⁵⁸ S. M. Stern published three petitions addressed to Fatimid caliphs or viziers, all of whom seemed to expect a high degree of honorary “verbiage” when addressed. Marina Rustow and Geoffrey Khan are doing more work in this area presently. The formulas of titles in these documents do not merely list flattering praises but reflect fundamental conceptions of the state. The Fatimid caliph is referred to repeatedly with phrases such as “Justice of the prophetic dynasty” (‘adl aldawla al-nabawiyya); the wazīr Ṭalā’i is “the Most Excellent Lord, the Pious King,⁵⁹ Helper of Imams, Averter of Misfortune, Commander of the Armies, Sword of Islam, Succor of Mankind, Protector of the Qadis and the Muslims, Guide of the petitioners among the Believers.”⁶⁰ And so forth.

      Jews followed standard titulature practices when referring to Muslim leaders in Fatimid Egypt.⁶¹ A Jewish petitioner addressed Caliph al-Āmir (1101–30) “our Lord and Master, the Imām al-Āmir bi-Aḥkām Allah, Commander of the Faithful” and “the pure and noble prophetic Presence” (al-maqām al-nabawī al-ṭāhir al-sharīf).⁶² Similarly, TS NS 110.26r (Figure 4), published by Goitein, is composed in a mixture of Hebrew, Arabic, and Judeo-Arabic (Hebrew in plain font, Judeo-Arabic in italics, Arabic script in bold italics): “leader of the sons of Qedar, our lord and master the Imām … the great king, the Imām al-Āmir bi-Aḥkām Allah, Commander of the Faithful.”⁶³ During the second half of the twelfth century, the author of a letter offers extensive blessings for the “Place” (i.e., the ruler),⁶⁴ modified with a set of adjectives in Judeo-Arabic: “the holy, descended from ‘Alī, the Imāmī, belonging to the family of the Prophet, the pure.”⁶⁵ This formulation, with its focus on pure descent through Muḥammad and ‘Alī, is specific to Shi‘ite leadership and reflects Jews’ full awareness of Fatimid court practices; Jews did not hesitate to refer to the rulers’ descent from the “Prophet,” thereby glossing over the Jews’ complicated relationship with recognizing the legitimacy of Muḥammad’s prophetic claim.⁶⁶

      Addresses to Jewish dignitaries, whether sent from lower rank to higher or vice versa, also include lengthy lists of honorifics, a practice undoubtedly derived from the use of laqabs within Islamic society.⁶⁷ In some cases, Jewish leaders signed documents with ‘alāmas, which claimed status in the same manner as Muslim leaders.⁶⁸ Further, the recipient of a letter could expect to be addressed with a string of terms specific to his rank, mode of leadership (spiritual/mundane), and relationship to the author.

      In many cases, honorifics served as official titles.⁶⁹ Gaons bestowed titles upon subordinate representatives of the yeshivah when appointing them. As mentioned above, when Shemuel Ben ‘Eli appointed Zekhariah Ben Barkhael to the office of av bet din, he used the root lqb to describe the process of bestowing a title: “Our elevating his station (tarfī‘ manzilatihi) and our giving him the title (talqībuna) av bet din of the yeshivah.”⁷⁰ In a panegyric, Sahlān Ben Avraham (d. 1050) was praised for the very fact that he held “seven titles” (kinuyyin).⁷¹ In TS 8 J 16.18r, a certain Ovadiah is addressed as the “lofty lord (al-sayyid alajall), confidant of the state (amīn al-dawla), security of kingship (thiqqat almulk).” TS NS 246.22 is an early twelfth-century list, possibly a convenient reference for a scribe, of forty-three men along with their Hebrew titles. Each entry follows the same structure: “The sobriquets (alqāb) of So-and-So.”⁷²

Figure 4. Petition for al-Amir bi-Aḥkām Allah (Hebrew, Arabic, Judeo-Arabic). TS NS 110.26r. Reproduced by kind permission of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library.

      Bestowers of titles stress that they did not dole them out lightly or haphazardly, and titles seem to have been fairly specific to their holders; when Avraham ha-Kohen, who already possessed two Hebrew titles, was given a third, hod hazeqenim (glory of the elders), he was told that the name had been given “many years before to the [now deceased] elder Abū ‘Alī Ben Faḍlān at Baghdad” and “from then until now no one has been named this.” The author, whom Mann suggests was Daniel Ben ‘Azariah, specified his hope that the title would “elevate [Avraham’s] honor, magnify his name, and extend his authority.”⁷³

      State-oriented titles abound among addressees in the thirteenth-century dīwān of El‘azar Ben Ya‘aqov ha-Bavli. Here we encounter shams al-dawla (sun of the state), sharf al-dawla (nobility of the state), ‘izz al-dawla (might of the state), najm al-dawla (star of the state), and amīn al-dawla (confidant of the state).⁷⁴ In some cases, titles are hinted at within Hebrew panegyrics for these figures, as when amīn al-dawla Ben Manṣūr Ben al-Mashā’irī is called pe’er misrah ve-ne’eman ha-melukhah (wonder of dominion and confidant of sovereignty). Occasionally, Arabic laqabs are simply inserted into Hebrew poems.⁷⁵ The letters of Shemuel Ben ‘Eli also provide a wealth of information on titles and epithets, especially as they were bestowed upon lower ranks by the author. Terms such as amīn al-dawla, amīn al-mulk, thiqqat al-mulk, al-thiqqa, al-amīn, all of which signify that the figure is a trusted proxy of “sovereignty” or the “state,” are widely attested.⁷⁶ It is particularly interesting that Ben ‘Eli continued to use the style of titulature characteristic of Shi‘ite dynasties after, as Kramers suggests, such titles had been denounced by Sunni critics as emphasizing worldly over religious aspects of Islam.⁷⁷

      In Ben ‘Eli’s collection, the same individuals are sometimes described within a single letter both in Hebrew and in Judeo-Arabic, which allows for a useful comparison of political discourse in the two languages. In some cases, the Hebrew titles are much more elaborate and richer in literary references pertaining to Jewish dimensions of legitimacy. Two brothers described in Judeo-Arabic rather generically as “the two exalted elders” (al-shaikhaini al-jalīlaini) are described in Hebrew as “two precious elders, the praised brothers, the pure, the natives who are like bdellium and raised beds of spices [Sg 5:13], honest men [Gn 42:11], the priests, sons of the steadfast.”⁷⁸ The Hebrew, in addition to being more ornate, draws on their lineage, both to their immediate progenitors and to their descent from a long line of priests.

      On the other hand, the Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic sometimes mirror each other such that the Hebrew renders phrases whose origin is clearly Arabic. A certain Mevorakh is introduced in Judeo-Arabic as the “lofty minister, proxy of the nation, trusted one of sovereignty, beauty of the ministers”; in Hebrew, he is described as “our minister and noble one, the minister, the leader, the respected, our lord and master Mevorakh, minister of the nation, trusted one of sovereignty, splendor of the ministers, crown of the Levites, treasure of the yeshivah.” Again, the Hebrew adds specifically Jewish dimensions and introduces a first-person plural voice (“our lord and master”). But most of the Hebrew formulations are translations of Arabic epithets (amīn al-mulk = ne’eman ha-malkhut; jamāl al-ru’asā = hod ha-sarim).⁷⁹ Thus, much innovation occurred within the Hebrew language to accommodate the feel of Arabic praise writing and to capture a new mode of political discourse.

      An extraordinary amount of literary care went into the selection of terms of address, whether in Hebrew or in Judeo-Arabic. A fascinating example is ENA NS 18.30, a twelfth-century Geniza fragment that preserves three drafts