David’s horses in Ibn al-Kalbi
Also from Ibn al-Kalbi’s Book of Horses, my translation:
David, the Prophet of God, was very fond of horses. He could not hear of a horse cited for his bloodline (‘irq), its authenticity (‘itq), it’s beauty (husn) or its speed (jari) without sending for it, until he gathered a thousand horses. There were none other on earth at the time. When God called David back [to him], Solomon inherited his kingdom and his inheritance. He sat in his father’s seat and said: “David did not bequeath me an asset I like better than these horses”. He trained them and served them.
Note the order of the qualities David was said to be seeking.
That is interesting. One would have thought that speed would have been first.
So some sense of certain bloodlines being more desirable than others was already in existence by the end of the eighth century, then? Definitely interesting!
Not very surprising, Ibn al Kalbi was one of the early philologists who were creating the Nasab (genealogy) system for the islamic tradition. Of course he is making sure that his reader understands the importance of bloodlines, it is a direct projection of what he had already established for the Muslim population. Totemism is as old as mankind I think.
Good point. He was trying to apply to horses what he had applied to humans.
Why try to second guess what Ibn al Kalbi’s motives were?
Why not accept that he accurately records that “David, the Prophet of God, ……could not hear of a horse cited for his bloodline (‘irq), its authenticity (‘itq), it’s beauty (husn) or its speed (jari) without sending for it, until he gathered a thousand horses.” And that “Solomon …..said: “David did not bequeath me an asset I like better than these horses”.”
This would mean that “some sense of certain bloodlines being more desirable than others was already in existence by” 1000 BCE, the time of David.
@ Christian: because all the work of Ibn al Kalbi discusses the topic in hindsight 😉 we cannot take it word for word as the truth, because we know what his motives were. Extensive research of his work and person has already been done. The horse book was never treated the same until I recently wrote a chapter about it, contextualising it in the same manner contemporary work was analysed.