which memory has been preserved in fictional accounts that have proliferated down the centuries and in contrasting popular myth and the expressions of sorrow that have become part of a haunting splendour that is still tangible. And Drayson notes, the passionate grief expressed by the Andalusi poets following Boabdil’s exile attaches no blame to the young monarch himself. Nevertheless, perceptions such as his weakness and apparent incapacity were to emerge in some frontier ballads such as The Ballad of the Boy King, and this allowed erroneous confusion to have an impact on his reputation, which was perpetuated by sixteenth-century Spanish writers such as the Murcian novelist Ginés Pérez de Hita, who portrayed Boabdil as a vengeful and petulant tyrant. Nevertheless, his rehabilitation was to follow and Boabdil’s reputation as a reflective unifying figure was the subject of Dryden’s Conquest of Granada, and the quest to seek out a more flattering and authoritative reputation was pursued by Washington Irving, convinced as he was that the sultan had been woefully misrepresented by Pérez de Hita and others. And the recognition that was to come from other European writers was eventually reflected in the works of more recent writers and artists from within the Peninsula itself. Drayson has ensured that Boabdil’s legacy, though mixed, has been nudged towards a more positive appraisal. The conspicuous inaccuracies are small and, in terms of the subject, of little account, even if they include some curious insertions. For example, it is not clear why Drayson puzzlingly refers to Hernando de Baeza, Boabdil’s interpreter, as a Morisco author; and early in her book Charles Martel (c. 688–741) is wrongly identified as Charlemagne’s grandson. But the story is a great one, engagingly and wittily told and it has all the elements of high drama, intrigue, passion, celebration and catastrophe. But this ultimate tragedy had within it elements of true virtue and bravery. For Drayson argues that the sacrifice of Boabdil in slipping quietly away into the Alpujarra Mountains would save the citizens of his beloved city from untold loss of life at the hands of the overwhelming Aragonese-Castilian royal house. While Boabdil enjoyed the idea and glamour of war, his poor leadership undermined his ability as a military strategist. Yet in terms of personal sacrifice he would remain a brave and humane figure – even if his family saw him as a weak and indecisive ruler.

中文翻译：

---

Aghlabids 和他们的邻居：9 世纪北非的艺术和物质文化

那些记忆被保存在几个世纪以来激增的虚构描述中，以及对比流行的神话和悲伤的表达，这些表达已经成为仍然有形的令人难以忘怀的辉煌的一部分。德雷森指出，安达卢西诗人在博阿卜迪尔流亡后表达的强烈悲痛并没有责怪这位年轻的君主本人。然而，诸如《童王之歌》等一些边疆民谣中出现了诸如他的软弱和明显无能等观念，这使得错误的混淆对他的声誉产生了影响，这种情况在 16 世纪的西班牙作家如穆尔西亚小说家吉内斯·佩雷斯·德希塔 (Ginés Pérez de Hita) 将博阿卜迪尔描绘成一个复仇和暴虐的暴君。尽管如此，他的康复随之而来，Boabdil 作为反思统一人物的声誉是德莱顿征服格拉纳达的主题，华盛顿欧文追求寻求更讨人喜欢和权威的声誉，他深信苏丹已经悲惨了佩雷斯·德·希塔 (Pérez de Hita) 等人歪曲了事实。来自其他欧洲作家的认可最终反映在半岛内最近的作家和艺术家的作品中。德雷森确保 Boabdil 的遗产虽然喜忧参半，但已被推向更积极的评价。明显的错误很小，就主题而言，即使它们包括一些奇怪的插入，也没有多大意义。例如，不清楚为什么德雷森会令人费解地提到 Hernando de Baeza，Boabdil 的翻译，作为一个 Morisco 作家；早在她的书中，查尔斯·马特尔（Charles Martel，约 688-741 年）被错误地认定为查理曼大帝的孙子。但这个故事是一个伟大的故事，引人入胜和诙谐地讲述，它具有高度戏剧性、阴谋、激情、庆祝和灾难的所有元素。但这场终极悲剧中蕴含着真正的美德和勇敢。因为德雷森认为，博阿卜迪尔悄悄溜进阿尔普哈拉山脉的牺牲将使他心爱的城市的公民免于在压倒性的阿拉贡-卡斯蒂利亚王室手中无数的生命损失。虽然 Boabdil 喜欢战争的理念和魅力，但他糟糕的领导能力削弱了他作为军事战略家的能力。