Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rum, 1270s-1370s: Production, Patronage and the Arts of the Book [1 ed.] 1474451489, 9781474451482

Table of contents :
Title page
Copyright
Contents
Figures
Series Editor’s Foreword
Acknowledgements
Note on Transliteration and Translation
Abbreviations
Introduction
Chapter One Illuminated Manuscripts in Late Thirteenth-century Konya
Chapter Two Early Fourteenth-century Manuscripts from Konya and Sivas
Chapter Three Two Manuscripts from Southwestern Rum
Chapter Four Satı ibn Hasan: A Mevlevi Patron of Erzincan
Epilogue
Appendix Catalogue, Transliterations and Translations
Bibliography
Illustration Acknowledgements
Index

Citation preview

EDINBURGH STUDIES IN ISLAMIC ART SERIES EDITOR:ROBERT

HILLENBRAND

Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Ru ¯m, 1270s–1370s

Edinburgh Studies in Islamic Art Series Editor: Professor Robert Hillenbrand Advisory Editors: Bernard O’Kane and Scott Redford Series titles include: Isfahan and its Palaces: Statecraft, Shi‘ism and the Architecture of Conviviality in Early Modern Iran Sussan Babaie The Making of the Artist in Late Timurid Painting Lamia Balafrej Text and Image in Medieval Persian Art Sheila S. Blair The Minaret Jonathan M. Bloom Reframing the Alhambra: Architecture, Poetry, Textiles and Court Ceremonial Olga Bush The Seljuqs and their Successors: Art, Culture and History Edited by Sheila R. Canby, Deniz Beyazit and Martina Rugiadi The Wonders of Creation and the Singularities of Painting: A Study of the Ilkhanid London QazvÈnÈ Stefano Carboni The Making of Islamic Art: Studies in Honour of Sheila Blair and Jonathan Bloom Edited by Robert Hillenbrand Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval RËm, 1270s–1370s: Production, Patronage and the Arts of the Book Cailah Jackson Islamic Chinoiserie: The Art of Mongol Iran Yuka Kadoi Rum Seljuq Architecture, 1170–1220: The Patronage of Sultans Richard P. McClary Medieval Monuments of Central Asia: Qarakhanid Architecture of the 11th and 12th Centuries Richard P. McClary The Dome of the Rock and its Mosaic Inscriptions Marcus Milwright The Shrines of the ‘Alids in Medieval Syria: Sunnis, Shi‘is and the Architecture of Coexistence Stephennie Mulder China’s Early Mosques Nancy Shatzman Steinhardt edinburghuniversitypress.com/series/esii

Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Ru ¯m, 1270s–1370s Production, Patronage and the Arts of the Book Cailah Jackson

To the memory of Menchie

Edinburgh University Press is one of the leading university presses in the UK. We publish academic books and journals in our selected subject areas across the humanities and social sciences, combining cutting-­edge scholarship with high editorial and production values to produce academic works of lasting importance. For more information visit our website: edinburghuniversitypress.com © Cailah Jackson, 2020 Edinburgh University Press Ltd The ­Tun – ­Holyrood Road 12 (2f) Jackson’s Entry Edinburgh EH8 8PJ Typeset in Trump Medieval by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire and printed and bound in Malta by Melita Press A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978 1 4744 5148 2 (hardback) ISBN 978 1 4744 5151 2 (webready PDF) ISBN 978 1 4744 5150 5 (epub) The right of Cailah Jackson to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498). Published with the support of the University of Edinburgh Scholarly Publishing Initiatives Fund.

Contents

List of Figures vi Series Editor’s Foreword xiii Acknowledgements xiv Note on Transliteration and Translation xvi Abbreviations xvii Map 1: Anatolia, c. 1275 xix Map 2: Anatolia, c. 1330 xx Map 3: Anatolia, c. 1370 xxi INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1  Illuminated Manuscripts in Late Thirteenth-­ century Konya

23

CHAPTER 2  Early Fourteenth-­century Manuscripts from Konya and Sivas

82

CHAPTER 3  Two Manuscripts from South-­western RËm 148 CHAPTER 4 SåtÈ ibn Óasan: A Mevlevi Patron of Erzincan

169

EPILOGUE 226 Appendix: Catalogue, Transliterations and Translations 231 Bibliography 266 Illustration Acknowledgements 290 Index 292

Figures

1.1 1.2 1.3

Text page, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 10a Text page, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fol. 90b Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 57a 1.4 Frontispiece, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fol. 1a 1.5 Illuminated text, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fol. 2b 1.6 Finispiece, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fol. 330b 1.7 Finispiece medallion, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fol. 331b 1.8 Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 1b 1.9 Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 53a 1.10 Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 98a 1.11 Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 159a 1.12 Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 208a 1.13 Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 266a 1.14 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 6a 1.15 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 161a 1.16 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 208b 1.17 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 212a 1.18 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 268a 1.19 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 9a 1.20 Headpieces, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fols 102b, 212b, 270b 1.21 Illuminated text, Qur’an, Persia or the Jazira, c. 1000–50, KC, QUR284, fol. 201a 1.22 Text page, Qur’an, Persia or the Jazira, eleventh century, TSMK, R. 14, fol. 27b 1.23 Text page, Qur’an, Khurasan, 1177–8, TSMK, E. H. 42, fol. 95b

27 27 28 29 29 30 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 45

vii

FIGURES

1.24 Ònce Minareli Medrese (portal), Konya, c. 1265 1.25 Frontispiece, Qur’an juzʾ (vol. 4 of 30), Cairo, c. 1370–5, CBL, Is.1464, fol. 2a 1.26 Frontispiece, Qur’an juzʾ (vol. 2 of 4), Konya, late thirteenth or early fourteenth century, FAS, S1986.25, fol. 1b 1.27 Illuminated text, Qur’an juzʾ (vol. 2 of 4), Konya, late thirteenth or early fourteenth century, FAS, S1986.25, fol. 2b 1.28 Inscribed pointed oval, Bible (New Testament), Mår ʿAzÈza (Jilu), 1212–13, The Morgan Library & Museum, New York, M.235, fol. 10a 1.29 Inscribed pointed oval, DÈvån, Konya (probably), late thirteenth century (before 1288), SK, Ayasofya 3879, fol. 1a 1.30 Headpiece, DÈvån, Konya (probably), late thirteenth century (before 1288), SK, Ayasofya 3879, fol. 1b 1.31 Book stand, Konya, 1279–80, MMK, 332 1.32 Book stand leaf, Konya, 1279–80, MMK, 332 1.33 Frontispiece, al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya, Konya, c. 1282, SK, Ayasofya 2985, fol. 1a 1.34 Headpiece, al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya, Konya, c. 1282, SK, Ayasofya 2985, fol. 1b 1.35 Illuminated bifolio, Kitåb al-Shifåʾ, Maragha and Harput, 1275–6, SK, Ayasofya 2442, fols 1b–2a 1.36 The angel ShamhËrash, Daqåʾiq al-Óaqåʾiq, Aksaray and Kayseri, 1273, BNF, Persan 174, fol. 83a 2.1 Pointed oval, al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya, Konya, 1311, SK, Ayasofya 2445, fol. 1b 2.2 Dedication, al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya, Konya, 1311, SK, Ayasofya 2445, fol. 2a 2.3 Dedication, al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya, Alanya, 1228, SK, A∞ir Efendi 316, fol. 1a 2.4 Text page, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­1, fol. 242b 2.5 Framed text with Persian translations, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­2, fols 374b–375a 2.6 Frontispiece, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­1, fol. iia 2.7 Illuminated text, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­1, fol. iiia 2.8 Illuminated text, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­1, fol. 411a 2.9 Frontispiece, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­2, fol. 1a 2.10 Illuminator’s inscription, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­2, fol. 401b

46 47 49 49 51 54 54 55 56 60 61 69 70 87 88 89 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

viii

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

2.11 Colophon/dedication, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­2, fol. 402a 2.12 Headpieces, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­1, fols iiib, 100b, 142b 2.13 Verse markers, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­1, (clockwise from top-left) fols 5b, 87a, 169a, 366a 2.14 Wooden window shutter, RËm, late thirteenth or fourteenth century, Ònce Minareli Medrese Ta∞ ve Ah∞ap Eserler Müzesi, Konya 2.15 Certificate of commissioning, Qur’an, Tabriz (probably), 1315, TSMK, E. H. 248, fol. 54a 2.16 Upper cover, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­2 2.17 Lower cover, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­1 2.18 Upper doublure, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-­1 2.19 Later medallion, al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya, Konya (probably), early fourteenth century, SK, A∞ir Efendi 316, fol. iia 2.20 Later reading note, al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya, Konya (probably), early fourteenth century, SK, A∞ir Efendi 316, fol. 106b 2.21 Text page (detail), Intihånåma, Konya, 1314, BNF, Supplément persan 1794, fol. 4b 2.22 Illuminated text, Intihånåma, Konya, 1314, BNF, Supplément persan 1794, fol. 3a 2.23 Text page (detail), MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 3b 2.24 Text page, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 109b 2.25 Frontispiece medallion, Intihånåma, Konya, 1314, BNF, Supplément persan 1794, fol. 2a 2.26 Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 2a 2.27 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 51a 2.28 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 87a 2.29 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 146a 2.30 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 194a 2.31 Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 249b 2.32 Headpieces, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fols 51b, 146b, 250b 2.33 Pointed oval, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 1a

98 99 100 101 102 103 103 104 105 105 107 108 109 110 111 113 114 114 115 115 116 117 118

ix

FIGURES

2.34 Pointed oval, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 114a 2.35 Pointed oval, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 220a 2.36 Full-­page illumination, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 2a 2.37 Full-­page illumination, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 114b 2.38 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 4a 2.39 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 116a 2.40 Marginal medallion, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 220b 2.41 Headpiece, MasnavÈ (Book Three), Sivas, 1318, SK, Nafiz Pa∞a 650, fol. 3b 2.42 Decorated text page, MasnavÈ (Book Three), Sivas, 1318, SK, Nafiz Pa∞a 650, fol. 1a 2.43 Headpiece, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Konya, 1340, Sam Fogg, fol. 1b 3.1 Dedication, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1349, SK, Fatih 2841, fol. 1a 3.2 Colophon, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1349, SK, Fatih 2841, fol. 176a 3.3 Dedication, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1351, SK, Ayasofya 2067, fol. 1a 3.4 Watermark, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1351, SK, Ayasofya 2067 3.5 Text page, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1349, SK, Fatih 2841, fol. 1b 3.6 Contents pages, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1349, SK, Fatih 2841, fols 2b–3a 3.7 Hamidid family tree (manuscript patrons highlighted) 4.1 Dedication, waqf note and note about paper, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 147b 4.2 Upper cover, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69 4.3 Lower doublure, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69 4.4 Script, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod.Mixt.1594, fol. 11b; DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 16a; MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 5b 4.5 Dedication, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod.Mixt.1594, fol. 1a 4.6 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod.Mixt.1594, fol. 1b

119 120 121 122 123 124 125 127 127 130 151 151 152 153 154 154 157 173 174 175

176 178 179

x

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

4.7

Illuminated text, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod.Mixt.1594, fol. 2b 4.8 Colophon, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod.Mixt.1594, fol. 75a 4.9 Medallion, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod.Mixt.1594, fol. 77b 4.10 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod.Mixt.1594, fol. 78b 4.11 Finispiece medallion, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod.Mixt.1594, fol. 159a 4.12 Contents page, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 2a 4.13 Frontispiece, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 3a 4.14 Illuminated text, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 4a 4.15 Headpieces, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fols 4b, 22a, 52a and 94b 4.16 Text bands, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fols 19a, 22a and 52b 4.17 Finispiece medallion, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 66a 4.18 Finispiece medallion, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 69b 4.19 Finispiece medallion, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 94b 4.20 Finispiece panel, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 124b 4.21 Headpieces, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fols 40a, 64b and 90b 4.22 Finispiece panel, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 75b 4.23 Finispiece panel, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 86a 4.24 Finispiece panel, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 90b 4.25 Finispiece panel, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 121b 4.26 Illuminated calligrapher’s note, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 130b 4.27 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 3b 4.28 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 5a 4.29 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 60a

180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 188 189 190 190 191 192 192 193 193 194 195 197 198 199

FIGURES

4.30 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 85a 200 4.31 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 120b 201 4.32 Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 154a 202 4.33 Headpieces, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fols 5b, 33b and 121b 203 4.34 Dedication, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 188b 204 4.35 Detached frontispiece folio, Shåhnåma, Shiraz (probably), late 1340s or early 1350s, FAS, LTS1998.1.1.70a 205 4.36 Frontispiece (detail), Qur’an, Damascus, c. 1330–40, KC, QUR807, fol. 1a 205 4.37 Mosque portal (detail), Sahip Ata Külliyesi, Konya, 1258 206 4.38 Frontispiece dedication, Taqwı-m, Konya (probably), 1369–70, UBL, Or. 563, fol. 1a 207 4.39 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1373, SK, Halet Efendi 171, fol. 212b 207 4.40 Frontispiece, DÈvån, RËm (possibly), 1391, MMK, 75, fol. 2a 209 4.41 Headpiece, DÈvån, RËm (possibly), 1391, MMK, 75, fol. 2b 209 4.42 SåtÈ’s family tree and Mevlevi links 212 4.43 Medallion, Maqålåt, RËm (possibly Erzincan), before 1387–8, SK, Fatih 2788, fol. 1a 214 4.44 Headpiece, Maqålåt, RËm (possibly Erzincan), before 1387–8, SK, Fatih 2788, fol. 1b 214 A.1 Colophon, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fols 329b–330a 232 A.2 Dedication, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fols 332b–333a 233 A.3 Colophon and waqf note, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 325b 235 A.4 Colophon, al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya, Konya, c. 1282, SK, Ayasofya 2985, fol. 372b 239 A.5 Colophon, al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya, Konya, 1311, SK, Ayasofya 2445, fol. 56b 241 A.6 Colophon, Intihånåma, Konya, 1314, BNF, Supplément persan 1794, fol. 221a 245 A.7 Colophon, MasnavÈ (Book Three), Sivas, 1318, SK, Nafiz Pa∞a 650, fol. 158b 246 A.8 Calligrapher’s note, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 49a 247 A.9 Calligrapher’s note, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 85b 248

xi

xii

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

A.10 Calligrapher’s note, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 192b A.11 Calligrapher’s note, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 249b A.12 Colophon, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 317b A.13 Waqf note, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 315b A.14 Colophon and later inscription, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1351, SK, Ayasofya 2067, fol. 200b A.15 Colophon, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 147a A.16 Colophon, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 195a A.17 Mustanjid’s note, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 195b

249 249 250 252 256 259 263 264

Series Editor’s Foreword

‘Edinburgh Studies in Islamic Art’ is a venture that offers readers easy access to the most up-­to-­date research across the whole range of Islamic art. Building on the long and distinguished tradition of Edinburgh University Press in publishing books on the Islamic world, it is a forum for studies that, while closely focused, also open wide horizons. Books in the series, for example, concentrate in an accessible way, and in accessible, clear, plain English, on the art of a single century, dynasty or geographical area; on the meaning of works of art; on a given medium in a restricted time frame; or on analyses of key works in their wider contexts. A balance is maintained as far as possible between successive titles, so that various parts of the Islamic world and various media and approaches are represented. Books in the series are academic monographs of intellectual distinction that mark a significant advance in the field. While they are naturally aimed at an advanced and graduate academic audience, a complementary target readership is the worldwide community of specialists in Islamic ­art – p ­ rofessionals who work in universities, research institutes, auction houses and ­museums – ­as well as that elusive character, the interested general reader. Professor Robert Hillenbrand

Acknowledgements

The origins of this book lie in my doctoral thesis, which I could not have completed without the unstinting support and enthusiasm of my supervisor, Zeynep Yürekli. Her insights and advice have been much appreciated at all stages of the process, and her generosity, kindness and unfailing good humour will be remembered always. My examiners, Scott Redford and Oya Pancaro©lu, made several valuable suggestions to improve the thesis. I remain immensely grateful for their careful reading of my work and their professional support long afterwards. I also thank Òlker Evrim Binba∞, Luke Treadwell, Oliver Watson and Jeremy Johns for their useful comments on early drafts of thesis chapters. Feedback from the anonymous peer reviewers has also been essential in refining the final text. Naturally, all remaining errors are my own. The research undertaken for this book and its publication expenses were supported by the Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani Scholarship, the Barakat Trust, the Khalili Research Fund, Wolfson College (University of Oxford), the Gibb Memorial Trust, the Historians of Islamic Art Association, the Medieval Academy of America and the Society of Antiquaries of London. I am sincerely thankful to all for their funding. Many people took the time to answer my questions, correct mistakes or send me references, articles and images. They are thanked individually in the relevant places. I could not have completed this project without access to, and copyright permissions from, several collections. I would therefore like to express my profound gratitude to the following: Serpil Ba©cı, Saqib Baburi (British Library), Esra Müyessero©lu (Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi), Nahla Nassar (the Khalili Collections), Ferruh Özpilavcı (Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi), Osman Nuri Solak (Ònebey Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi), Elaine Wright (the Chester Beatty), the Freer Gallery of Art and the Arthur M. Sackler

acknowledgements

Gallery, the Morgan Library & Museum, the Bibliothèque nationale de France, the Bursa Türk Òslam Eserleri Müzesi, the Bursa Vakıflar Bölge Müdürlü©ü, the John Rylands Library, the Konya Bölge Yazma Eserler Kütüphanesi, the Milli Kütüphane, the New York Public Library, Sam Fogg, the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, the Ta∞ ve Ah∞ap Eserleri Müzesi, the Universitaire Bibliotheken Leiden and the Yusuf A©a Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi. I would like to thank Naci Bakırcı at the Mevlana Müzesi in particular for his help and patience over the years. Without his assistance, this book could not have been published in this form. Sincere thanks must also go to Nicola Ramsey, Kirsty Woods and Eddie Clark at Edinburgh University Press, who have been delightful, diligent and accommodating. I am also very grateful to Elizabeth Welsh for her meticulous copy-­editing, and to Patricia Blessing and Richard McClary for their valued advice on the publishing process. I wholeheartedly thank my mother-­in-­law, Maureen Jalili, for all of her help in the form of babysitting and bottomless tea and my brother, Rory Jackson, who remains convinced that I am a character from The Da Vinci Code. To say that I am also grateful to my husband, Duraid Jalili, for his unceasing support, encouragement and devotion through many years of reading, writing and (my) whingeing does not begin to do justice to the depths of my appreciation. Finally, to our son, Elian: you didn’t help with this book at all (in fact, quite the opposite), but I love you very much anyway.

xv

Note on Transliteration and Translation

Arabic and Persian texts have been transliterated according to guidelines suggested by the International Journal of Middle East Studies. For the sake of accuracy and consistency in discussing this complex multilingual environment, most names and titles are transliterated according to Arabic spellings, with some exceptions, including, for example, the Turkish title ‘bey’ (rather than ‘bag’ or ‘bek’). All translations are the author’s unless otherwise noted.

Abbreviations

BL British Library, London BNF Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris BSM Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich CBL Chester Beatty (formerly Chester Beatty Library), Dublin DAK Dår al-­Kutub, Cairo EI2 P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W. P. Heinrichs (eds), Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second edition (online), Leiden: Brill. EI3 Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas, Everett Rowson (eds), Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE (online), Leiden: Brill. FAS Freer Gallery of Art and the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Washington DC IK Ònebey Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Bursa KC Khalili Collections, London MK Milli Kütüphane, Ankara MMA Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York MMK Mevlana Müzesi, Konya NK Nuruosmaniye Kütüphanesi, Istanbul ONB Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna RCEA Étienne Combe, Jean Sauvaget and Gaston Wiet (eds) (1931–96), Répertoire chronologique d’épigraphie arabe, 18 vols, Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale. SK Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Istanbul SPBU Saint Petersburg State University Library, Saint Petersburg SZB Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Berlin TDVIA Halis Ayhan and Ahmet Yılmaz (eds) (1988–2016), Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Òslâm Ansiklopedisi, 46 vols, Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı Òslâm Ansiklopedisi Genel Müdürlü©ü.

xviii

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

TIEM TSMK UBL WAM YAK

Türk ve Òslam Eserleri Müzesi, Istanbul Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi, Istanbul Universitaire Bibliotheken Leiden, Leiden The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore Yusuf A©a Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Konya

CRETE

500 km

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

Map 1  Anatolia, c. 1275.

0

 Kütahya

 Ankara

R. Kzılırmak

GARMIYANIDS

 Eskişehir

 Sinop

RUM SELJUK SULTANATE

Amasya 

Kastamonu

CHUBANIDS

BLACK SEA

 Sivas

 Tokat

Niksar 

 Samsun

 Erzincan

 Erzurum

 Bayburt

 Trabzon (Trebizond)

EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND Ani 

 Kars

R. Euphrates

MAMLUK SULTANATE

 Sites of late thirteenth-century illuminated manuscript production in Rūm

CYPRUS

Famagusta

R. Tigris

ILKHANATE Lake Van  Kırşehir  Afyonkarahisar SAHIB FAKHR  Ahlat Kayseri   Elazığ (Harput) Aksaray İzmir (Smyrna) AL-DIN 'ALI Akşehir  Malatya Elbistan  Selçuk  Birgi (Pyrgion) (Melitene)  Niğde Konya (Ephesus, Ayasuluk)  Tire  Diyarbakır (Amid) Eğirdir Beyşehir Denizli (Ladik) QARAMANIDS Balat (Miletus) Rumkale (Qal’at al-Rum)  Mardin  Sis Karaman (Larende)    Șanlıurfa Korkuteli (İstanos)  ARMENIAN CILICIA Antalya Tarsus  Yumurtalık (Ayas) Ermenek  ARTUQIDS Alanya (Ala’iyya) Sinjar Antakya (Antioch)  Aleppo RHODES Raqqa

BYZANTINE EMPIRE

 Constantinople  İzmit (Nicomedia)  İznik (Nicaea) R. Sakarya Bursa (Prusa) 

Edirne (Adrianople)

BYZANTINE EMPIRE

INANCHIDS

500 km

Akşehir

Kayseri  Aksaray  Niğde

 Kırşehir

Amasya 

Elbistan  DHULQADIRIDS

ILKHANATE

Sivas

 Tokat

Niksar 

 Samsun

CYPRUS

Famagusta

R. Euphrates

MAMLUK SULTANATE

Ani 

 Kars

Lake Van  Ahlat

 Erzurum

 Elazığ (Harput)  Malatya

 Erzincan

 Bayburt

 Trabzon (Trebizond)

EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND

 Sites of early/mid-fourteenth-century illuminated manuscript production in Rūm

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

Map 2  Anatolia, c. 1330.

0

CRETE

 Birgi  Tire

GARMIYANIDS

 Ankara

R. Kızılırmak

JANDARIDS

 Afyonkarahisar

 Kütahya

 Sinop Kastamonu

BLACK SEA

R. Tigris

Konya  Diyarbakır (Amid) Eğirdir Beyşehir Balat  MANTASHIDS Denizli (Ladik) QARAMANIDS ASHRAFIDS  Sis Rumkale (Qal’at al-Rum)  Mardin  Karaman (Larende)   Șanlıurfa Korkuteli (İstanos) ARMENIAN CILICIA Antalya Tarsus  Yumurtalık (Ayas) HAMIDIDS ARTUQIDS Alanya (Ala’iyya) Sinjar Aleppo Antakya (Antioch)  RHODES Raqqa

AYDINIDS Selçuk (Ayasuluk) 

İzmir

SARUKHANIDS

KARASIDS

 Constantinople  İzmit  İznik OTTOMANS Bursa  R. Sakarya  Eskişehir

Edirne (Adrianople)

BYZANTINE EMPIRE

CRETE

GARMIYANIDS

500 km

 Kırşehir

ERETNIDS

Sivas

 Tokat

Niksar 

 Erzincan

PIR HUSAYN

 Erzurum

 Bayburt

 Trabzon (Trebizond)

 Şebinkarahisar

QILICH ARSLAN

HAJJI AMIR

EMPIRE OF TREBIZOND

Famagusta

R. Euphrates

MAMLUK SULTANATE

 Sites of late fourteenth-century illuminated manuscript production in Rūm

CYPRUS

Akşehir

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

İzmir

Map 3  Anatolia, c. 1370.

0

 Afyonkarahisar

 Kütahya

 Eskişehir

 Ankara

 Samsun TAJ AL-DIN

HAJJI SHAD GALDI

Amasya 

NASIR AL-DIN BAKHTIYAR BEY

R. Kızılırmak

JANDARIDS

Kastamonu

 Sinop

Ani 

 Kars

Lake Van

R. Tigris

 Ahlat Kayseri   Elazığ (Harput) Aksaray  Malatya Elbistan  AYDINIDS QARAMANIDS  Niğde  Birgi Selçuk (Ayasuluk)  Tire Konya DHULQADIRIDS  Diyarbakır (Amid) Eğirdir Beyşehir Balat  MANTASHIDS Denizli (Ladik) Rumkale (Qal’at al-Rum)  Mardin  Sis HAMIDIDS Karaman (Larende)    Șanlıurfa RAMADANIDS ARMENIAN CILICIA Korkuteli (İstanos)  Antalya Tarsus  Yumurtalık (Ayas) ARTUQIDS Alanya (Ala’iyya) Sinjar Aleppo Antakya (Antioch)  RHODES Raqqa

SARUKHANIDS

OTTOMANS

 Constantinople  İzmit  İznik R. Sakarya Bursa 

BYZANTINE EMPIRE

Edirne (Adrianople)

BLACK SEA

Introduction

This book considers a complex artistic medium in a complex historical and geographical setting. It is about illuminated Islamic manuscripts produced in the Lands of RËm between the 1270s and ­1370s – ­a time of profound political fragmentation and frequent outbreaks of violence. In addition to analysing the manuscripts’ visual and physical characteristics, this study considers their production and patronage circumstances and what these may reveal about the wider contemporary artistic, intellectual and cultural context. Most of the fifteen illuminated manuscripts discussed are religious in nature and include Qur’ans and Sufi texts. However, advice literature and historical chronicles also form part of the corpus. All of the manuscripts are dated or dateable, and all are written in either Arabic or Persian. Most were produced in Konya, the former capital of the Seljuk Sultanate of RËm, although some were copied in other towns, such as Sivas and Òstanos (today known as Korkuteli). In 1243, the Mongol and Seljuk armies clashed at the Battle of Köseda©. The Mongols emerged triumphant, and the Seljuks, already weakened by the domestic BåbåʾÈ revolt (c. 1240), became vassals of their new overlords.1 Although Anatolia’s internal borders had been somewhat fluid since the initial Seljuk expansion into the region from the late eleventh century, the defeat of the presiding Seljuk regime instigated a period of intense territorial fracture. This state, which saw periodic eruptions of hostility and the rise and fall of many local power holders, lasted until the temporary unification of much of the Anatolian plateau under the Ottoman ruler BåyazÈd I (r. 1389–1402).2 The chronological scope of this ­book – ­spanning from the 1270s through to the 1 ­ 370s – f­ alls between two well-­known and dominant Anatolian dynasties: the RËm Seljuks and the Ottomans. The production of this material in this politically complicated milieu is one reason why these manuscripts have remained little-­ known in the wider field of Islamic art, which, to a large extent,

2

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

often continues to be oriented around dynastic periodisation.3 Accordingly, the late medieval era in RËm has often been divided by scholars into the ‘Seljuk’, ‘Beylik’ (‘principality’ in Turkish, used to refer to the medieval Turcoman polities) and ‘Ottoman’ periods. Sometimes the ‘Beylik’ period is referred to as the ‘pre-­Ottoman’ period, reflecting the prioritisation of the Ottomans in the chronology of the region’s history. With some recent exceptions, scholars have been remarkably persistent in employing this dynastic framework in both historical and art historical scholarship, even though it does not readily reflect the political nuances of the time.4 Indeed, where illuminated manuscripts are concerned, the Ottomans appear to have played no significant part in their production until the early fifteenth century, so the use of ‘pre-­Ottoman’ here would be entirely irrelevant. Although a dynastic or imperial focus can, of course, be perfectly fitting in some instances, it is particularly inappropriate for understanding the arts of the book in this context. As we shall see, the production and patronage circumstances of this material reveal much about activities on the sub-­dynastic level. This level of patronage can be overlooked, especially in surveys of Islamic art and architecture, where the focus often turns towards imperial and dynastic levels of artistic production. Both the reading and the writing of manuscripts were activities closely associated with scholarly and literary circles. Such circles could include a relatively diverse cross-­section of society. Indeed, research into reading practices and manuscript culture has uncovered much about medieval Islamic education and scholarly and scribal culture.5 Naturally, the arts of the book can only tell us a limited amount about such circles, since illuminated manuscripts were generally not used for pedagogical purposes (though the teaching of young royals may be a notable exception). However, as complex artistic objects, illuminated manuscripts have the potential to reveal details regarding patronage, craftsmanship and consumption in a way that unilluminated manuscripts might not. Focusing on aspects of production and patronage also helps us to partially reconstruct elements of the artistic context, such as the backgrounds and affiliations of artists and patrons, the nature of workspaces, collaborations between different types of artists and the process of assembling the manuscript itself. Examining artists and patrons also brings art objects and historical texts together by situating these individuals in their cultural environment, rather than leaving them as disembodied names on a page. By looking in depth at individual patrons, this book works to transcend the limitations that a focus on specific dynasties can create. As precious possessions that were expensive to produce, it can be helpful to think about illuminated manuscripts as objects that would have been handled by only a few people. Their consumption and circulation would have been relatively private, unlike, say, the public-­

introduction

facing nature of the built environment or the often-­ commercial character of, for example, ceramic manufacture. Medieval treatises on calligraphy emphasise the intimate quality of manuscripts and, generally speaking, it can be difficult to convincingly argue that manuscripts’ visual elements directly reflect the contemporary political situation.6 Questions of consumption, circulation and function are particularly important for highly portable objects like manuscripts, which could be transported, gifted or appropriated with relative ease. Although the specifics are not always forthcoming, especially in earlier periods where evidence is often lacking, viewing manuscripts as whole, physical objects that exist across time and space remains of the utmost importance for a full and balanced understanding of the arts of the book.7 Thinking about manuscripts’ portability and circulation elicits broader questions about the role of networks in artistic production, both at the local and the transregional levels. Uncovering and acknowledging networks, be they of the economic, political, social or artistic variety, is vital to appreciating the frequent mobility of artists and the visual interactions between local and neighbouring manuscript production centres. Artists, as well as scholars, dervishes, bureaucrats and merchants, may have moved for economic reasons, to escape natural or man-­made disasters, or because they were taken prisoner and forcibly transported. Whatever the reason, artists took their ideas, motifs and techniques with them to new places. They may also have taken manuscripts, though there is no evidence for that in the present study. RËm was, of course, hardly an isolated entity, sitting at the crossroads between the Byzantine Empire, the Mongol realm and the Mamluk Sultanate. This situation is reflected to certain extents in the visual appearance of its illuminated manuscripts, which adopted elements from other manuscript production centres, such as Baghdad and Cairo. However, as will become apparent, there was also room for motifs and patterns that were distinctive to RËm, particularly Konya. I tentatively term this the Konya ‘school’ of illumination (see Chapter 2). Crucially, ‘school’ is used here in the loosest sense, not to delineate a discrete and unchanging sphere of activity, but rather to highlight a noteworthy concentration of visual elements not seen elsewhere in the contemporary manuscript record. The term ‘school’ is used carefully here with these caveats. Manuscript production centres, in general, are perhaps better thought of as dynamic, overlapping hubs on a regional continuum, rather than as enclosed spheres of static tradition. The late medieval Lands of Ru¯m: historical and scholarly contexts The porousness and interconnectedness of networks are evinced in the notion of RËm itself. In the premodern period, geographical scope is often a complex issue, but particularly so in the context

3

4

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

of late medieval Anatolia, where political boundaries were relatively changeable. Even before the arrival of the Mongols in the mid-­thirteenth century, Anatolia was already fragmented internally. Following the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, in which the Great Seljuks defeated the Byzantine Empire, Turkic settlers slowly trickled into the region. From the eleventh century onwards, power in the region was divided between various Byzantine polities (c. 330–1453), the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (1198–1375) and several Islamic principalities. These Islamic polities included the Danishmandids (1071– 1178), three branches of the Artuqids (1102–1409), the Saltuqids (1071–1202) and the Mangujakids (1072–1277), who variously were hostile to, or allied with, the RËm Seljuks. By the turn of the twelfth century, the Seljuks had absorbed a large proportion of the Anatolian peninsula into their realm. Throughout the medieval period, the region experienced continued hostilities and shifting borders while also encountering occasional pockets of stability. Following their loss at Köseda©, the Seljuks’ power as rulers declined. In the former Seljuk capital of Konya, day-­to-­day political authority became divided between ambitious bureaucrats (who ostensibly served the puppet Seljuks), Mongol governors and local beys (prince or governor, Ar. amÈr) who were often members of Turcoman polities (see maps 1–2). By 1308, the Seljuks disappeared entirely from the historical record. Following the death of the Ilkhanid ruler AbË SaʿÈd (r. 1316–35) without an heir, the Mongol regime disintegrated into a handful of rival successor states, such as the Injuids (1325–53) and the Jalayirids (1335–1432). With the Ilkhanate gone, several groups vied for control in RËm creating a complex network of alliances and competition. These groups included the Eretnids, the Qaramanids, the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt and Syria and, latterly, forces headed by TÈmËr (r. 1370–1405) (see map 3). In addition to these were the Byzantine Empire’s Palaeologian dynasty (1261–1453) and their rivals, the House of Kantakouzenos (fl. 11th–15th c.), the Empire of Trebizond (1204–1461), the Lusignan Kingdom of Cyprus (1192–1489), the Knights Hospitaller (from c. 1099) and the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. The ‘Lands of RËm’ (bilåd al-RËm) appears to have been the preferred nomenclature of medieval Muslim writers. Unlike ‘Turkey’ (a modern political entity) or ‘Anatolia’ (a geographical descriptor for the whole plateau), ‘RËm’ is a term that more accurately reflects medieval usage for, and conceptions of, the region. For modern scholars, ‘RËm’ also has the advantage of evoking a region at the intersection of multiple languages, religions and cultures.8 According to Islamic geographers spanning the ninth to eleventh centuries, ‘bilåd al-RËm’ was the ‘Byzantine Empire’ and ‘Europe’, perhaps formed as a Christian ‘mirror image’ of ‘bilåd al-Islåm’.9 In the centuries following Muslim penetration into Anatolia, however, polities such as the Seljuks and Danishmandids adopted ‘RËm’ as part of their

introduction

state identities. This choice was perhaps intended to suggest their status as heirs to the Byzantines and also to remain familiar to the substantial local Christian Greek population.10 The coinage of the Danishmandid ruler, Malik Mu˙ammad GhåzÈ (r. 1134–42), for example, featured Greek text reading: ‘The king of all Rome and the East’.11 ‘RËm’ was not a territory with fixed borders. Writers in the later medieval period differed as to its precise extent, though broadly agreed that it was located in central and parts of eastern and western Anatolia. For example, the Ilkhanid historian and geographer Óamdallåh al-­MustawfÈ al-­QazwÈnÈ (d. after 1340) stated that RËm (in terms of the Ilkhanid province) stretched from Erzincan in the east to Afyonkarahisar in the west.12 Northern towns included Kastamonu and Samsun, while towns in the south included Elbistan and E©irdir. The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, the Byzantine Kingdom of Trebizond and the region of Diyår Bakr were, al-­QazwÈnÈ noted, geographically close but culturally and politically separate entities. Unlike al-­QazwÈnÈ, Shihåb al-­DÈn A˙mad al-ʿUmarÈ (d. 1349) and Ibn Ba††Ë†a (d. 1377) include, as part of RËm, more of western A ­ natolia – ­a region that, following the dissolution of the RËm Seljuk state, was primarily populated by Turcoman principalities.13 At the height of their power, the RËm Seljuks established a strong and enduring trade network that was furnished with caravanserais (khåns) and connected RËm to its many neighbours.14 Caravanserais were not only economically valuable, giving shelter to merchants and their goods, but also provided rooms, food and other supplies to travellers, thereby supporting their safe passage and the economic prosperity of nearby towns. These networks connected RËm’s towns to Egypt, the Levant, the Jazira, greater Persia, the Black Sea and Crimea, Cilician Armenia and Constantinople. As Anatolia was rich in natural resources, with copious grazing lands, cereal crops, fruits, pulses, vegetables, minerals, metals and other goods like cloth, brassware and wine, the region was familiar to Christian and Muslim traders from across the Mediterranean. Both before and after the Mongol conquest, the region was frequented by Persian, Greek, Armenian, Frankish, Genoese and Venetian merchants.15 With the political fragmentation of former Seljuk territories that ensued after the region became part of the Mongol empire, towns other than Konya emerged as centres of political and economic power. Commercial activity in Sivas, Sinop, Alanya and Antalya, in particular, were vital for the regional economy, while other towns such as Tokat, Kayseri, Bursa, Denizli and Amasya also grew in importance to become hubs of activity. According to surviving illuminated manuscript evidence, however, Konya was the dominant centre for the production of the arts of the book and maintained its position as a location of cultural and intellectual pursuits throughout the later medieval period.

5

6

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Throughout the medieval era, RËm’s towns were populated by people of various religious backgrounds and ethnic origins, including Persian and Turkish-­speaking Muslims, Mongols, Christian Greeks and Armenians, and European merchants. The Seljuk caravanserai network and the devastation resulting from the Mongol conquests in Persia further facilitated the movement of scholars, dervishes and artists into RËm. Before the arrival of the Mongols, notable individuals such as Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAlÈ RåwandÈ (d. after 1204) and Ibn al-ʿArabÈ (d. 1240) resided in RËm, while after the invasions, Najm al-­DÈn RåzÈ Dåya (d. 1256) and Siråj al-­DÈn al-­UrmawÈ (d. 1283) also lived in the region. This mobility in turn encouraged the cultivation of cultural, intellectual and artistic exchange throughout the urban centres of the Muslim world. Throughout the thirteenth century, Konya increasingly became part of the scholarly itinerary, joining such places as Córdoba, Cairo, Aleppo, Damascus and Samarkand. Patricia Blessing has discussed how the Sunni Revival that took place in the Muslim East from the eleventh century did not occur in RËm because Islam was not securely established as the dominant religion there.16 The diverse religious nature of society in medieval RËm and its position as a ‘frontier’ between Christian and Islamic realms inhibited the formation of a mainstream religious faith, as was the case in older Islamic urban centres. Indeed, while RËm’s towns did not have the same venerable reputation as the more traditional centres of Islamic learning mentioned above, the region witnessed the arrival of intellectuals whose works and activities fell outside the ÓanafÈ school (madhhab), such as Ibn al-ʿArabÈ, Båbå Ilyås (d. 1240) and Shams al-­DÈn TabrÈzÈ (d. c. 1247).17 In many cases, these individuals stayed for extensive periods, enjoying the religious tolerance and patronage they found there. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Sufi scholar Najm al-­DÈn RåzÈ praised the RËm Seljuk rulers for their endowments of educational foundations and sponsorship of both scholars and dervishes.18 The relative intellectual and religious openness of society in this period was made possible by the total breakdown in Seljuk rule, which had faced a series of difficulties even before the Mongol invasion. In a time of relative political instability and socio-­religious flexibility, Sufis became essential representatives of the Islamic faith and made crucial contributions to socio-­religious, political and economic life.19 This group included the Mevlevi dervishes who, as we will see, played a significant part in the production and patronage of illuminated manuscripts. Dervishes held a degree of authority over the local population and could become legitimising intermediaries between political elites and the devoted public or, indeed, sources of rebellion, as in the case of the aforementioned BåbåʾÈ revolt.20 The Mevlevis’ patron saint was Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad RËmÈ (d. 1273), who lived in Konya for most of his life. RËmÈ moved to the region around 1212 as a very young child with his father, Bahåʾ al-­DÈn

introduction

Walad (d. 1231), a ÓanafÈ scholar from Balkh (located in present-­day Afghanistan). Bahåʾ al-­DÈn and his son lived in several places in RËm before settling in Konya in the 1220s.21 RËmÈ first became a murÈd (disciple) of Sayyid Burhån al-­DÈn, who was a former pupil of RËmÈ’s father. Upon the death of Burhån al-­DÈn around 1239–40, RËmÈ continued his education in the scholarly centres of Aleppo and Damascus, presumably due to their prestige and because comparable facilities were not available locally. Although both RËmÈ and his father appear to have shared an interest in taßawwuf and asceticism, it was not until RËmÈ met the QalandarÈ shaykh Shams al-­DÈn TabrÈzÈ in Konya in 1244 that his faith took on more ecstatic forms.22 By the time that he died in 1273, RËmÈ had amassed a sizeable group of devotees across all strata of society in Konya.23 According to surviving evidence, some of the wealthier of these disciples were active in the patronage of illuminated manuscripts. Moreover, the craftsmen who produced these manuscripts for Mevlevi patrons were, for the most part, also followers of RËmÈ and his son Sul†ån Walad (d. 1312), who became the Mevlevis’ leader following the death of RËmÈ’s immediate successor, Óusåm al-­DÈn ChalabÈ, in 1284. As a predominantly urban Sufi group, the early Mevlevis had regular interactions with other socio-­ religious groups inhabiting Konya, such as the ʿulamåʾ and the akhÈs.24 This is not to say, however, that such groups occupied separate spheres. Indeed, the activities of the Mevlevi community took place in a variety of settings, including madrasas, zåwiyas and khånqåhs (respectively, Arabic and Persian terms for Sufi lodges). For example, an illuminated manuscript examined in Chapter 2 has parts that were copied in RËmÈ’s shrine (‘turba’) and madrasa (‘madrasa-yi khudåvandigår’).25 The worlds of Sufis and scholars frequently overlapped, but such relationships were not always without tension. According to the Mevlevi hagiographer Shams al-­DÈn A˙mad AflåkÈ (d. 1360), soon after RËmÈ’s death in 1273, ‘partisan jurists and conservative ascetics’ complained to the parvåna (literally, ‘butterfly’; personal assistant to the sultan) MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån (d. 1277) that the Mevlevis’ performance of the samåʿ was ‘unlawful’.26 In other instances that were recorded by AflåkÈ, the chief qå∂È (judge) of Konya, Siråj al-­DÈn al-­UrmawÈ, is shown as questioning RËmÈ’s authority, which always results in his intellectual and spiritual submission to the Mevlevi leader.27 Whilst being mindful of AflåkÈ’s understandable bias towards RËmÈ and the Mevlevis, these examples of friction hint at the competition that existed among Sufis and scholars for audiences, resources and influence in this culturally and religiously heterogeneous context. Such tensions should not, however, give the impression that clear lines were drawn between ‘orthodox’ and ‘heterodox’ forms of Islam, or between how religion was practised in the madrasa or the khånqåh. The apparent opposition between Sufis and scholars is paralleled by the division of ‘popular’ Turkish folk culture and ‘high’

7

8

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Persianate urban culture in some scholarship, particular from early twentieth-­ century Turkey. Mehmed Fuad Köprülü (1890–1966), for example, explored this division in his 1918 publication, Türk Edebiyatında Òlk Mutasavvıflar (Early Sufis in Turkish Literature). In this groundbreaking work, which focuses on the poetry of the Central Asian Sufi A˙mad YasavÈ (d. 1166) and the Anatolian Sufi YËnus Emre (d. c. 1320), Köprülü contends that the widespread Islamisation of Turkish people in Anatolia largely occurred through the activities of båbås, whose ‘heterodox’ version of Islam was adapted from a context of Central Asian shamanism.28 In Köprülü’s view, the båbås and their Sufi ‘veneer’ were in opposition to the sophisticated Arab and Persian Sufis of RËm’s urban centres, such as Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ, for instance. This dichotomy of ‘orthodox’ (‘müte∞erriʿ’) urban Islam and ‘heterodox’ (‘aykırı’) rural Islam has had a profound impact on understandings of the Islamic histories of Central Asia, Persia and Anatolia in both Turkish and Western academia.29 However, textual evidence suggests that despite generally being composed in two languages for different audiences, the so-­called ‘great and little traditions’ were not opposed and did not exist in isolation from each other.30 As Ahmet Karamustafa has discussed, ‘folk’ Sufis of the ‘little’ tradition such as Geyikli Båbå or YËnus Emre were not ‘shamans in disguise’, but were instead highly literate and integrated into the contemporary network of ‘mainstream’ Sufis.31 Indeed, Turkish-­speaking ‘folk’ Sufis w ­ ere – a­ s Köprülü himself r­ecognised – w ­ ell-­versed in the literary genres of poetry and hagiography. Like YËnus Emre, the poet ʿÅshiq Påshå (d. 1333) wrote poetry in Turkish, composing the GharÈbnåma in 1330. ʿÅshiq Påshå’s son Elvån ChalabÈ (fl. 14th c.) wrote a versified Turkish hagiography of his great-­grandfather, Båbå Ilyås, who was one of the instigators of the BåbåʾÈ rebellion.32 While it is clear that RËmÈ’s devotees were not the only Sufis producing and reading literary works, they are the only group whose illuminated manuscripts remain. This state of affairs could, in part, be due to the mechanics of survival. The Mevlevi shrine’s holdings have remained relatively intact since the late medieval period, and it may be that illuminated manuscripts produced by other Sufi groups have not survived or remain unidentified. The Mevlevis’ connection to the arts has been noted in scholarship,33 as have their supposed ‘aristocratic’ associations.34 Literary activities appear to have been crucial to the group, as shown by several poetical and hagiographical texts written by RËmÈ and his followers. This intellectualism may have endeared them to the political classes, which, in turn, provided the financial support needed to produce expensive illuminated manuscripts. It would, however, be an over-­simplification to limit Mevlevi operations to the upper classes, and it is an area of research that needs further investigation. The role of dervishes in the production and patronage of material culture (other than architecture) in

introduction

Anatolia is, in fact, relatively underdeveloped, particularly in terms of proper historical and cultural contextualisation.35 This relative neglect of Sufi material culture may, in part, be due to ethnocentric conceptions of Sufi thought and practice. Omid Safi, for example, has criticised some European scholars’ applications of Christian principles concerning ‘mysticism’ to understandings of medieval Islamic taßawwuf (often translated as ‘Sufism’).36 In this body of scholarly literature, ‘Sufism’ is portrayed as an ineffable quest for personal contact with God that is diametrically opposed to Islamic orthodoxy. Hence, once a Sufi order became increasingly institutionalised, ‘spiritual insight atrophied’.37 Such views extracted Sufis from their social history by reducing their activities to vaguely ‘mystical’ pursuits. In reality, Sufi activities took on various forms that were often specific to time, place and group. Sufis certainly participated in worldly networks of power and patronage and wrote widely on ‘madrasa’ subjects such as tafsÈr (Qur’an interpretation, or exegesis), ˙adÈth (Prophetic sayings) and fiqh (jurisprudence, or understandings of sharÈʿa).38 The focus on mysticism has obscured deeper considerations of political and social activities and the other affiliations that dervishes could possess. In the context of late medieval RËm, Mevlevis spanned all levels and classes of society, engaged in a variety of professions, were familiar with multiple languages and, in some cases, were not Muslim but Christian (or, at the very least, recent converts from Christianity).39 One should, therefore, view their contribution to material culture within this framework of diverse, worldly associations.40 The issue of ‘great and little traditions’ in understandings of Sufi culture speaks to wider concerns over the preoccupation with the ‘Turkification’ of RËm and the contributions of the Turkish language to medieval culture. There was, of course, a substantial Turkish-­ speaking population in the late medieval period. Both al-ʿUmarÈ and Ibn Ba††Ë†a highlight the Turkish (or possibly Muslim) aspect of the region: al-ʿUmarÈ refers to ‘the Kingdom of the Turks in RËm’ (‘mamlakat al-Atråk bi-l-RËm’), while Ibn Ba††Ë†a uses the phrase, ‘the land of the Turks known as the lands of RËm’ (‘barr al-Turkiyya al-maʿrËf bi-bilåd al-RËm’).41 However, this is not to suggest that RËm was a wholly Turkish land, despite the critical developments taking place in Turkish culture (as discussed above), such as the poetry of YËnus Emre and Qayghusuz Abdål (d. 1415). For this study, it is important to note that the consumption of Turkish literature was not reflected in the body of illuminated manuscripts, which are written in either Arabic or Persian. The question of ethnic identity is complicated and notoriously difficult to define. It is not the direct focus of this study, but it is useful to consider, since this book deals with ethnically and linguistically heterogenous artistic and intellectual communities at several points. Some of the illuminated manuscripts examined in the following

9

10

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

chapters were produced for Turcoman princes, and their ‘Turkish’ identity has been examined by modern Turkish scholars. In particular, conceptions of the ‘frontier’ in medieval RËm and the historiography of the Turcoman principalities have shaped these discussions. With the partial incorporation of central and eastern Anatolia into the Ilkhanid realm from the mid-­ thirteenth century, the region became the western fringe of Mongol territories. Even before that, the western part of Seljuk lands bordered the Byzantine Empire of Nicaea (1204–61). These borderlands, variously called the ‘frontier’, the ‘marches’ or the ‘Ëj’, were characterised by rich pastures, valleys and mountains that enabled the pursuit of a nomadic lifestyle. The proximity to unguarded Byzantine territories also provided easy targets for Turcoman raiders. Paul Wittek’s concept of the ‘frontier’, or ‘Ëj’ as he termed it, has strongly shaped later conceptions of the region as a lawless borderland where Turcoman folk and warrior culture flourished.42 This opposition between the unruly, nomadic marches of the western frontier and the cosmopolitan cities of the Seljuk heartland has permeated throughout scholarly understandings of the political and cultural landscape of medieval Anatolia. The division between rural and urban settings is, of course, not a complete invention of scholarship. Upon seeing building work that needed completing in a disciple’s garden, RËmÈ remarked that the ‘cultivation of the world belongs to RËmÈs, and the devastation of the universe is confined to Turks’.43 Although this statement perhaps reflects contemporary tensions, it needs further explanation, particularly where the meaning of the nisba (affiliation or kinship relationship) ‘al-­RËmÈ’ is concerned. The nisba was used in primary sources from at least the early thirteenth century44 to describe Greek Christians, such as the painter ʿAyn al-­Dawla al-­RËmÈ,45 as well as other non-­Christian and non-­Greek inhabitants of RËm, such as Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ and the astronomer and mathematician MËså Qå∂Èzåda al-­RËmÈ (d. 1432).46 In addition to its Byzantine overtones (from the ‘Lands of RËm’), Cemal Kafadar has suggested that ‘al-­RËmÈ’ seems to have absorbed positive, perhaps urbane, social connotations.47 Although the Mevlevi leader’s statement suggests that urban ‘RËmÈs’ and frontier ‘Turks’ were opposed (at least, in his opinion), other contemporary evidence indicates that this rather black-­and-­ white assessment was more complicated in reality. Kafadar has suggested that the frontier region was, in fact, subject to mobility, fluidity and multiple layers of authority (for example, those of the Mongols, Seljuks and Turcomans). Building on this premise, A. C. S. Peacock has stated that the so-­called ‘frontier’ was in some cases culturally, economically and politically integrated with ­Konya – ­a centre of urban, Persianate culture.48 Although it is undeniable that a geographical ‘buffer zone’ existed, the meaning of ‘Ëj’ in medieval sources was not always clear or consistent, and it, therefore, should not be equated with the ‘frontier’.49 In light of

introduction

this, the perceived differences between rural Turks and urban RËmÈs perhaps reflected attitudes over class and learning, rather than ethnicity or religion. It is important to bear this distinction in mind when considering manuscript material, which was often linked to literary and scholarly circles and evidently not confined to specific ethnic groups. Indeed, several of the illuminated manuscripts discussed in this book were produced for Turcoman princes, and a fuller discussion of their production contexts thus entails a more nuanced understanding of Turcoman culture and the notion of ‘Turkification’, as well as the ‘frontier’ and its connection to the ‘centre’. Until recently, there has been relatively limited engagement with the history of the Turcoman principalities (aside from the Ottomans) in Western scholarship.50 They have, however, been the subject of numerous twentieth-­century Turkish studies.51 Osman Turan praises the Turcoman principalities as a dynamic force for the ‘Turkification’ that emerged as the Seljuk state deteriorated under the increasing tyranny of their ‘pagan’ Mongol overlords.52 In this scheme, the principalities, supposedly untainted by Persian culture, are presented as a Turkish force of resistance to the Mongol interlopers.53 The study of both the Turcoman polities and the Mongols in Anatolia have not necessarily been served well by this framework of ‘Turkification’. The Mongols were a crucial part of the history of late medieval Anatolia and not merely a temporary inconvenience to the development of Turkish culture in the region. Some early scholars, such as Zeki Velidi Togan (1890–1970) and Òsmail Hakkı Uzunçar∞ılı (1888–1977), demonstrated that the Ottomans were in fact economically and culturally connected to the Mongols, but this discourse was not advanced by scholars until more recently.54 There has been an increasing acknowledgement of the Mongol impact on Anatolia in scholarship, which has helped to move discussions away from the restrictive considerations of modern geographical borders and dynastic boundaries. Similarly, studies from the last decade or so that discuss the Turcoman principalities have reconsidered their place in late medieval Anatolian history.55 Many twentieth-­century works view the Turcomans as direct successors to the Seljuk legacy and forerunners of the most successful principality, the Ottomans. The numerous Turcoman principalities have, therefore, often been evaluated as ‘small interchangeable dynasties’ isolated from broader developments in the region and oriented around eventual Ottoman ascendancy.56 In the realm of art history scholarship, Oktay Aslanapa, for example, employed the architecture of various Turcoman principalities to demonstrate an unbroken line from Seljuk to Ottoman buildings, when, in fact, ‘Turcoman’ architecture is quite diverse when considering its materials, techniques and plan types.57 The grouping of visual material under one ‘Turcoman’ or ‘Beylik’ category is thus relatively meaningless for properly understanding material culture

11

12

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

and highlights the inappropriateness of retaining a dynastic framework in this case. Approaching the Islamic arts of the book: codicology and historiography The importance of thinking about manuscripts as ‘whole’, three-­ dimensional objects in multiple contexts of production, ownership and circulation has been mentioned above. Partly informing this perspective is a need to redress previous approaches to the Islamic arts of the book that often examined manuscripts divorced from their codicological contexts (particularly in the case of paintings). It is also guided by the increasing centrality of codicological methods in recent scholarship on Islamic manuscripts and the arts of the book. Put simply, codicology is the study of the material aspects of books.58 At the heart of codicological analysis is the detailed physical examination of the manuscript, which can include its writing support, text block, scripts and ink, decoration, binding and inscriptions, such as ownership records, colophons and marginalia.59 What a detailed physical examination of a group of manuscripts uncovers should ideally shape the rest of the study. This physical analysis then enables a discussion of the manuscripts’ production and reception contexts (and the wider artistic setting), the cultural significance of the text and the comparative style of decorative elements. Consequently, this book goes beyond an exercise in codicological investigation by attempting to integrate traditional art historical inquiries that focus on motifs and techniques, a cultural-­historical focus on artists, patrons and production contexts, together with an appreciation of inscriptions and the physical properties of book production. In order to provide a solid foundation for the arguments put forward in this book, its core material is, where possible, dated with securely identified production centres. When this has not been possible, other elements, such as ownership records, particular motifs or names of craftsmen, provide credible grounds by which to identify and discuss their production contexts with reasonable certainty. I have excluded many illuminated manuscripts from this study due to their lack of colophons or unclear origins.60 Some of these have been discussed in detail elsewhere and attributed to Konya or RËm.61 An undated copy of AnÈs al-QulËb, for example, was almost certainly produced in late medieval Konya based on its illumination.62 The analysis of its decorative features is therefore an important supplement to this book, but is not included here for reasons of scope and space. There are several recent publications concerning the Islamic arts of the book that have demonstrated the benefits of adopting codicological methods.63 Works such as these highlight the complexity and multi-­layered nature of manuscripts and help to redress issues con-

introduction

cerning how early scholars approached Islamic manuscripts. Western hierarchies of visual culture placed the ‘fine’ arts of painting, sculpture and architecture above the ‘minor’ or ‘decorative’ arts, such as pottery, metalwork or wood carving. Although the Islamic tradition had no art form comparable to European painting, figural illustration bore the closest resemblance to it, and thus became one of the primary targets of European collectors and dealers.64 Indeed, the early study of the Islamic arts of the book owes more to amateur collectors and morally questionable dealers than it does to scholars.65 Although some European inquiries into Islamic history and epigraphy were based on close examinations of coins and inscriptions,66 this empiricist vein soon gave way to activities that were motivated by market trends and the interests of connoisseurs. The enthusiastic collecting of Persian figural painting resulted in a demotion of Islamic calligraphy, towards which collectors were relatively indifferent (due in part to the language barrier).67 Although there are several important publications on calligraphy, as regards scholarship, the emphasis on painting remains prominent.68 Furthermore, as market forces shaped the trajectory of early scholarship, dealers responded (or created new trajectories) by carving up albums and m ­ anuscripts – s­ometimes while they were still in museum or library ­collections – a­ nd split folios in order to produce two leaves out of one and thus maximise profits.69 The removal of illustrations from their physical contexts helped to normalise the analysis of such material in isolation. This separation of the constituent arts of the book (painting, calligraphy, bookbinding and illumination) persists in scholarship and has, in some cases, hindered a better understanding of Islamic manuscript production. Early inquiries into the Islamic arts of the book were often shaped by Eurocentric value judgements and characterised by a lack of scholarly method.70 The British historian Thomas Walker Arnold (1864–1930), for example, compared the chronology of Persian painting (which, according to him, emerged in the fifteenth century) to that of Renaissance art, and likened the patronage of Timurids to that of the Medicis.71 Similarly, the Swedish diplomat Fredrik Robert Martin (1868–1933) compared the illustrations of one of his recently acquired manuscripts to the work of Dürer, Hellenistic painting and Japanese temple art, amongst other things.72 Nonetheless, these early investigations produced a significant body of literature that opened up the field for further enquiry.73 While very few illustrated manuscripts attributed to medieval RËm exist, survey texts of Islamic art prioritise them over non-­illustrated, illuminated manuscripts.74 This literature can give the impression that the arts of the book in this period were lacklustre in comparison to what neighbouring regions were producing. In contrast to numerous illuminated manuscripts, there are only three securely identified illustrated manuscripts from the period.75 The manuscripts are an unilluminated anthology of seven or eight texts (partially consisting

13

14

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

of Daqåʾiq al-Óaqåʾiq by NåßirÈ, completed in Aksaray and Kayseri between Rama∂ån 670–Shawwål 671/1272–3) and two recently discovered almanacs (taqwÈm) completed in 771 (1369–70), probably in Konya, and at the end of Mu˙arram 773 (August 1371) in Sivas.76 The Sivas almanac was authored and copied by Zayn al-­Munajjim ibn Sulaymån al-­QËnawÈ, who may also have authored (but not copied, as is clear from the handwriting) the Konya almanac. The unilluminated anthology is discussed only briefly in Chapter 1, in part because its illustrations are numerous and iconographically diverse, its folios are out of order and some sections of the manuscript are seemingly of a later date. It, therefore, requires a significant amount of further study that is not currently possible. The two almanacs are examined in a recent publication by A. C. S. Peacock, but, similarly, their material and visual qualities require further investigation (though the Konya almanac is briefly mentioned in Chapter 4).77 Due to the paucity of securely identified illustrations from this period, it is currently difficult to visually contextualise these three manuscripts to the same level as the rest of the material explored in this book. In this study, analyses of illumination provide the strongest basis for validating arguments concerning visual relationships within and between manuscript centres. These are, nevertheless, very important manuscripts that will ideally be examined in more detail in future studies. Primary sources The most important primary sources for this study are the manuscripts themselves. The rich historical and visual details of the manuscripts enable the reconstruction of aspects of contemporary artistic practice where deficiencies in the textual sources remain. In this period, there are no surviving treatises or records concerning recipes, techniques or workshops. Beyond the manuscripts, numerous contemporary textual sources have survived, including endowment deeds (waqfiyyas), inscriptions, historical chronicles, hagiographies, almanacs, geographical and travel accounts, encyclopaedic studies and writings on trade and fiscal matters. There are several chronicles that were written in thirteenth- and fourteenth-­century RËm. The most well-­known is the Persian work, al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya fÈ-l-UmËr al-ʿAlåʾiyya, written around 1282 by Óusayn ibn Mu˙ammad al-­JaʿfarÈ al-­RughadÈ al-­MunshÈ, better known as Ibn al-­BÈbÈ al-­Munajjima (d. after 1285, hereafter Ibn BÈbÈ). The ­work – ­the full version of which exists as part of a single remaining ­manuscript – ­was commissioned by the Ilkhanid governor of Baghdad, ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ (d. 1283), and dedicated to the Seljuk sultan Ghiyåth al-­DÈn Kaykhusraw III (r. 1265–84).78 Al-Awåmir concerns the history of the RËm Seljuks from 1188 to around 1281, with a particular focus on the rule of ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I (r. 1219–37).

introduction

Another important Persian chronicle is Musåmarat al-Akhbår va Musåyarat al-Akhyår by KarÈm al-­DÈn Ma˙mËd ibn Mu˙ammad al-­AqsaråyÈ (d. before 1333), written in RËm in 1323.79 Al-­AqsaråyÈ was an official in the service of the Ilkhanid ruler Ghåzån Khån (r. 1295–1304), who held several positions in the fiscal administration of RËm.80 Musåmarat al-Akhbår, written for TÈmËrtåsh ibn ChËbån (d. 1328), the Mongol governor of RËm, covers the period between the middle of the thirteenth century until 1323, and as such is a vital source on Ilkhanid rule in the region. The work exists in two fourteenth-­ century manuscripts.81 A further major local chronicle is the anonymous, Persian-­language TårÈkh-i Ål-i SaljËq dar Ånå†ËlÈ, completed some time after 1363. Possibly written by more than one person, the TårÈkh covers Seljuk rule and events in Konya between 1277 and 1299 and includes some supplements concerning events until 1341.82 One of the authors may have been a guildsman of Konya.83 The work exists in a unique manuscript and is published in a facsimile edition.84 Finally, a crucial source pertaining to the later part of the period under discussion is Bazm u Razm by ʿAzÈz ibn ArdashÈr al-­AstaråbådÈ (d. after 1397).85 The Persian text focuses on the life of the usurper of the Eretnid throne, Burhån al-­DÈn A˙mad (d. 1398), who ruled Sivas from 1381 until his death. It spans approximately 1380 to 1398 and discusses many key political figures of eastern RËm. In addition to these chronicles, there are several important works concerning the early history of the Mevlevi dervishes, who feature prominently throughout this book. The earliest sources are letters written in Persian by Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ from the mid-­thirteenth century onwards.86 They are mostly addressed to well-­known political figures, including the Seljuk sultans and the parvåna MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån (d. 1277), as well as scholars such as Siråj al-­DÈn al-­ UrmawÈ (d. 1283).87 Their contents mainly comprise requests made by RËmÈ and provide insight into his and his followers’ concerns. The earliest biographical source on the Mevlevis is Sul†ån Walad’s Ibtidånåma, written in 1291.88 This work of Persian verse contains details concerning RËmÈ, the author’s father. Two other essential sources were written in Persian by members of the Mevlevi inner circle, FarÈdËn ibn A˙mad Sipahsålår (d. late 13th c.–early 14th c.) and Shams al-­ DÈn A˙mad AflåkÈ. Sipahsålår’s account, Risåla-yi Sipahsålår, concerns first-­ hand observations of RËmÈ, his family and his followers.89 Its contents suggest that the text was probably completed in the first half of the fourteenth century, perhaps in 1338, possibly by another individual.90 Manåqib al-ʿÅrifÈn, AflåkÈ’s account of RËmÈ and several early Mevlevi leaders is the better-­ known of the two chronicles, in part, no doubt, because it has been translated into English, unlike Sipahsålår’s source.91 The work was written in Konya between 1318 and 1353–4. Although AflåkÈ’s text is far broader in its historical detail, it is sometimes less reliable

15

16

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

than Sipahsålår’s treatise as it mostly consists of second-­hand oral accounts and is hagiographical in its focus, attributing numerous miracles to RËmÈ. It thus needs to be read with a critical eye. Two Arabic sources that are particularly useful for the period are the Ri˙la of Ibn Ba††Ë†­a – ­the Moroccan traveller who visited RËm (amongst many other places) in the early 1 ­ 330s – a­ nd Masålik alAbßår fÈ Mamålik al-Amßår by Shihåb al-­DÈn A˙mad ibn Fa∂lallåh al-ʿUmarÈ, a Mamluk bureaucrat. The Ri˙la – one of the most well-­ known sources on the medieval Islamic w ­ orld – ­provides a great deal of information on various political and cultural figures of RËm such as beys, dervishes and akhÈs, in addition to descriptions of cities, landscapes and customs.92 Completed in 1357 by Ibn Juzayy from Ibn Ba††Ë†a’s dictation, the work copies sections of Ibn Jubayr’s late twelfth-­century Ri˙la in order to compensate for the loss of notes or memory. The account suffers from some inconsistencies and errors, having been written over twenty years after the author’s travels. Masålik al-Abßår was probably written after the author’s dismissal as head of the Mamluk chancery in Damascus in 1342. The encyclopaedic work covers many subjects, including history, geography, literature, religion, politics and law. It also contains a description of the political situation in RËm in the first half of the fourteenth century, based on the testimony of a Genoese slave who converted to Islam and an itinerant RËmÈ shaykh.93 This section is a valuable source on the relative military strength of the Turcoman principalities and the extent of their territories. Finally, there are many other sources relevant to the period, including the Qaråmånnåma, written by A˙mad ShikårÈ (fl. 16th c.),94 Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd min al-Mabdåʾ ilå-l-Maʿåd by Najm al-­DÈn RåzÈ (d. 1256),95 Risåla-yi Falakiyya by ʿAbdallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Kiyå al-­MåzandarånÈ (d. after 1363),96 Nuzhat al-QulËb by Óamdallåh al-­MustawfÈ al-­QazwÈnÈ (d. after 1340),97 Armenian manuscript colophons,98 Italian trade manuals99 and European travelogues.100 Outline of chapters Chapter 1 focuses on the earliest illuminated manuscripts produced in RËm after the region became the de facto western frontier of the Ilkhanid empire in the second half of the thirteenth century. In terms of themes and structure, this chapter sets the scene for subsequent discussions. To begin with, I focus on two manuscripts, neither of which have been published in depth or discussed in relation to their socio-­cultural contexts. These are a monumental MasnavÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (hereafter MasnavÈ) of Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ and a very small Qur’an, both produced in Konya in 1278. After a thorough examination of the visual properties of these manuscripts and their relationship to contemporary manuscripts from other milieux, the chapter considers the illuminated copy of al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya by Ibn BÈbÈ and the

introduction

part that Ilkhanid officials played in manuscript patronage. Finally, it explores the wider artistic and intellectual scene in late medieval Konya and considers the role of converts, Christians and dervishes in manuscript production. The second chapter concerns manuscripts produced in Konya and Sivas between 1311 and 1332. This period roughly coincides with the rise of the Turcoman principalities on RËm’s political scene and the final decades of Ilkhanid rule, which ended in 1335 with the death of AbË SaʿÈd without a male successor. The seven core manuscripts that comprise the focus of this chapter were produced for Turcoman patrons and Mevlevi dervishes and include a small 1311 copy of al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya fÈ-l-Qawåʿid al-Burhåniyya wal-Kashfiyya, a large two-­volume Qur’an produced in 714/1314–15, a 1314 copy of Sul†ån Walad’s Intihånåma, a 1323 MasnavÈ of Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ and a MasnavÈ of Sul†ån Walad produced before 1332. An illuminated MasnavÈ (containing Book Three) of Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ that was copied in Sivas in 1318 and was largely unknown to scholarship is also examined. This chapter expands the analysis concerning Mevlevi involvement in illuminated manuscript production that was introduced in the previous chapter and further explores Konya’s artistic landscapes and the possibility of a local ‘school’ of illumination. It also discusses scholarly approaches to the Turcoman ­principalities – ­a thread that will be taken up in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 3 discusses two modest manuscripts that were produced for Hamidid beys in the mid-­fourteenth century. These manuscripts, both copies of Najm al-­DÈn RåzÈ’s Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, were produced in Òstanos (Korkuteli) in 1349 and 1351. This chapter, which shifts focus from Konya to western, coastal RËm, explores the ‘mirrors for princes’ genre in more depth, the cosmopolitan and mercantile nature of the immediate area and the possible impact of bubonic plague on artistic production. The fourth and final chapter focuses on the patronage of one individual, who emerges from surviving material as the most prolific manuscript patron of late medieval RËm. The three manuscripts discussed in this chapter are connected to one Sharaf al-­DÈn SåtÈ ibn Óasan, an amÈr and a Mevlevi devotee. They include a copy of the MasnavÈ of Sul†ån Walad from 1366, a two-­volume DÈvån-i KabÈr from 1368 and a 1372 copy of the MasnavÈ, both by Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ. The focus on an individual patron, who was otherwise not well-­known from historical sources, highlights the importance and benefits of considering the sub-­dynastic level of artistic production. Even though there is no production centre identified in the manuscripts, the patron had a strong connection to Erzincan, and the quality and extensiveness of the manuscripts’ illumination suggests that there may have been a community of artists present there by the late fourteenth century.

17

18

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Notes 1. Cahen 2012a. 2. ‘Temporary’ because TÈmËr returned many of BåyazÈd’s territorial acquisitions to their former owners after the latter’s imprisonment following the Battle of Ankara in 1402. It is arguable that there was a longer period of political instability encompassing the years 1071– 1526, from the Battle of Manzikert to the suppression of the last of a series of anti-­Ottoman revolts in Anatolia (Kafadar 2007: 8). The timespan discussed in the present book, however, was a particularly intense period of volatility and uncertainty. 3. Flood and Necipo©lu 2017. 4. For a critical analysis, see Pancaro©lu 2007; Necipo©lu 2007: 174. 5. Hirschler 2012; Behrens-­Abouseif 2018. 6. There are notable exceptions to this. See, for example, Fetvacı 2013. For an example of a treatise that mentions the intimacy of manuscripts, see Rosenthal 1948. 7. See, for example, Roxburgh 2005a. 8. Blessing 2014: 3. See also Kafadar 2007; Necipo©lu and Bozdo©an 2007. 9. Durak 2010: 295. 10. El-­Cheikh and Bosworth 2012. 11. David Collection, Copenhagen, C 531. Available at (last accessed 25 February 2019). 12. Al-­QazwÈnÈ 1919: 95, 98. 13. Al-ʿUmarÈ 1929; Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854; 1962. 14. Önge 2007. 15. William of Rubruck 1900: 277; Vryonis 1971: 235; Fleet 2009; Zavagno and De Luigi 2019. 16. Blessing 2014: 35. The ‘Sunni Revival’ is a term used in modern scholarship to describe a movement that culminated with the Great Seljuks of Iran who supported a resurgence in moderate Sunni jurisprudence while challenging ShÈʿÈ polities, such as the Buyids and the Fatimids, and actively persecuting radical ShÈʿÈ figures in governing and scholarly circles. On the Sunni Revival and criticisms regarding this term as a concept, see Makdisi 1973; Tabbaa 2001; Peacock 2010: 99–127. 17. Kafadar 2007: 10 18. RåzÈ 1982: 43–4. 19. Wolper 2003. 20. Safi 2000. 21. It is unclear why Bahåʾ al-­DÈn decided to leave Central Asia (Lewis 2008: 46–63). 22. Ibid: 274. 23. Notable supporters included ʿIzz al-­DÈn KaykåwËs II (r. 1246–57) and the parvåna MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån (d. 1277). For more on RËmÈ’s followers and contemporaries, see AflåkÈ 1961; 2002; RËmÈ 1992; Peacock 2012; Küçükhüseyin 2013. 24. The akhÈs were hierarchical fraternities particular to RËm. They were often organised into guild-­like structures and ‘provided a stable social unit whose members were engaged in armed conflict (protection), diplomatic efforts, and who participated in creating a social environment in urban centers’ (Goshgarian 2007: 18). They feature prominently in Ibn Ba††Ë†a’s account of RËm (Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 260–1, 273, 278, 281,

introduction

287–8, 293, 295, 308, 318; 1962: 421–2, 426, 429–30, 433–4, 437–8, 444, 450). 25. Appendix: cat. 9. MMK, 1177, fols 192b, 317b. On ‘madrasa-yi khudåvandigår’, see also notes 132 (Chapter 1) and 102 (Chapter 2). 26. ‘jamåʿatÈ az fuqahåʾ-ya mutaʿaßßib va zåhidån-i mutarassim pÈsh-i parvåna ghulË kardand ki samåʿ al-battah ˙aråm-ast’ (AflåkÈ 1961: II, 578; 2002: 396). Transliteration by James White. The Mevlevis’ distinctive samåʿ usually involves repeated turning in a circle, hence the modern popular designation of ‘whirling dervish’. The samåʿ is a form of dhikr (devotional act often involving repeated prayers). 27. In one anecdote, for example, Siråj al-­DÈn’s grave begins to spew black smoke, which is interpreted by Óusåm al-­DÈn ChalabÈ as the scholar’s ‘denial’ (‘inkår’) of RËmÈ and the friends of God. Siråj al-­DÈn then appears in Óusåm al-­DÈn’s dream declaring that his spirit only entered Paradise ‘through the favour of Mawlånå’ (‘bi-ʿinåyat-i Mavlånå’) (AflåkÈ 1961: II, 763–5; 2002: 533). 28. Köprülü 2006: 7–8. Köprülü’s understanding of the Turkish connection to Central Asia and shamanism was guided by the work of Mehmed Ziya Gökalp (1876–1924): Gökalp 1923; 1926; Köprülü 1929. For discussion, see Amitai-­Preiss 1999; Köprülü 2006: xvi. 29. Köprülü 2006. Devin DeWeese has correctly noted that one can hardly blame Köprülü for the uncritical repetition of his views (Köprülü 2006: xi). See also Dressler 2010; Kafadar 1995: 76. 30. Karamustafa 1993: 197. The languages being Persian or Turkish, respectively. 31. Ibid. See also Karakaya-­Stump 2013; Dressler 2013: 260–8. 32. Tulum 2000. 33. Uzluk 1957; Lifchez 1992. 34. Trimingham 1998: 74. 35. Studies on Sufi architecture in medieval Anatolia include Wolper 2003; Blessing 2014; Durocher 2018. Some works that acknowledge the broad connection between Sufis and Ottoman era calligraphy include DeJong 1989; Schimmel 1990; 1992; Derman 2005; Schick 2008. 36. Safi 2000. Shahzad Bashir has noted that ‘Sufism’ is technically a Western term that suggests a unified movement and is thus not the equivalent of ‘taßawwuf’ (Bashir 2011: 9–11). As such, I prefer to use the latter term in this book. 37. Trimingham 1998: 70. William James added a problematic ethnic dimension to the division between Sufi thought and Islamic orthodoxy by ascribing the emergence of taßawwuf to the ‘pantheism’ of the Persian mind, in opposition to the ‘hot and rigid monotheism’ of the Arab mind (James 1902: 402). 38. Safi 2000; Ridgeon 2014. 39. Küçükhüseyin 2013. 40. On this generally, see Küçük 2007. 41. Al-ʿUmarÈ 1929: 1; Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 255; 1962: 415. 42. Wittek 1934: 3–4; Zachariadou 2012. 43. ‘ʿImårat-i ʿålam makhßËß-ast bi-RËmÈyån va kharåbÈ-yi jahån maqßËr-ast bi-Turkån’ (AflåkÈ 1961: II, 721; 2002: 502). John O’Kane, the translator of AflåkÈ’s hagiography into English, consistently interprets ‘RËmÈ’ to mean ‘Greek’ (AflåkÈ 2002), but the application of the nisba to several non-­Greek figures conflicts with this interpretation.

19

20

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

There is at least one example of a contemporary writer using another word (‘YËnånÈ’) to describe Greek people (Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1962: 415). 44. Kafadar 2007: 11. 45. AflåkÈ 1961: I, 425, 552–3; 2002: 292–3, 382–3. 46. An illuminated copy of RËmÈ’s DÈvån-i KabÈr, almost certainly produced in Muzaffarid Shiraz, names the author as ‘Jalål al-­Milla wa-­ l-DÈn al-­RËmÈ’ (BL, Or. 2866). It was completed by A˙mad ibn WalÈ al-­ShÈråzÈ on 1 Jumådå II 774 (27 November 1372) (Rieu 1895: 163). Two early fourteenth-­century sources also apparently use ‘Mawlånå RËmÈ’ to refer to Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ (Lewis 2008: 10). 47. Kafadar 2007. 48. Both Seljuk and Mongol elites funded buildings in the region, while manuscript evidence shows that scholars and Sufis shared in the intellectual culture of Anatolia’s towns (Peacock 2014). 49. Ibid: 274; Korobeinikov 2014: 218–82. 50. Wittek 1934; Lemerle 1957; Cahen 1968: 3–13; Hopwood 1993; Yıldız 2006; 2016; Paul 2011; 2013. See also individual entries in EI2 and EI3. 51. Tevhid 1910; Edhem 1926; Köprülü 1928; Uzunçar∞ılı 1937; Dilçimen 1940; Akın 1968; Varlık 1974; Turan 1977; Yücel 1980; 1989; Yinanç 1989; Göde 1994; Öden 1999; Koca 2002; Kofo©lu 2006. See also individual entries in the TDVIA. 52. Turan 1977: 250–1. 53. Yıldız 2006: 37. Yıldız has, notably, questioned the idealisation of the Qaramanids (1250–1487) as champions of the Turkish language (2006: 42–7; 2012a). 54. Togan 1941; 1991; Uzunçar∞ılı 1947. Köprülü and other nationalist scholars chose to overlook such theories in establishing a Turkish basis for the official state view of national historiography (Tezcan 2013: 24). For recent studies that discuss the Mongols in Anatolia, see Tezcan 2013; Lindner 1999; Melville 2006; 2009; Yıldız 2006; 2012b; Blessing 2014; Peacock 2019. 55. Yıldız 2006; 2016; Paul 2011; 2013. 56. Cahen 1968: 361. For instance, Uzunçar∞ılı discusses each principality in separate chapters, starting with the larger ‘†avåʾif-i mulËk’ (‘party kings’), before moving onto smaller dynasties (1937: 2). 57. Aslanapa 1971. See Yürekli 2017: 734. 58. On Islamic codicology, see Déroche 2005; Gacek 2009. 59. Loveday 2001: 29–58; Gacek 2009: Appendix V. If circumstances allow, the chemical analysis of writing supports, ink and pigments can also be highly beneficial. 60. Several such manuscripts appear in Demircan Aksoy 2011; 2014, but it is not certain that they were all produced in RËm. There are many additional manuscripts that may have been produced in RËm: see Aumer 1866: 14, cat. 35; Déroche 1978: 89–90, no. 452; Piemontese 1980; James 1992a: 200–11, cats 49–52; 1999: 173–7, cats 59–60; Benouniche 1995; Mahir and Yıldız 2013; Farhad and Rettig 2016: 182–5, cat. 20; Baysal 2017: cat. 4 (with thanks to Simon Rettig for the final reference). See also SK, Esad Efendi 2693, which is mentioned briefly in Waley 2015: 69. In some cases, more work needs to be done to strengthen or confirm these attributions. 61. Jackson 2017a; 2019; forthcoming-­a; forthcoming-­b. 62. SK, Ayasofya 2984. In addition to Jackson 2017a, see Peacock 2004a;

introduction

2004b; 2015a; Emami 2011 (with thanks to Arham Moradi for this reference); Danielyan 2016. 63. See, for example, George 2010; Wright 2012; Scheper 2015; Ben Azzouna 2018. 64. Hillenbrand 2010. On the early study of the Islamic arts of the book, also see Vernoit 1989; 2000; Roxburgh 2000a; 2000b; Soucek 2001; George 2010: 13–20. 65. Roxburgh 1998. 66. Kehr 1724; Niebuhr 1772. 67. The European preoccupation with figural art contrasts with the high status of calligraphy in Islamic texts. The Ottoman historian Mu߆afå ʿÅlÈ (d. 1600), for example, writes that ‘[the Pen’s] precedence and preferableness is made manifest’ in the Qur’an and that ‘penmen are the most virtuous of people’ (Mu߆afå ʿÅlÈ 2011: 152–3). Translations by Esra Akın-­Kıvanç. 68. Notable publications on calligraphy include Huart 1908; Schimmel 1990; Safwat 1996; Blair 2006; George 2010. 69. An infamous instance of this occurring is the art dealer George Demotte’s (1877–1923) dismantling of the Great Mongol Shåhnåma (Grabar and Blair 1980; Carboni and Komaroff 2002; Hillenbrand 2004). 70. Necipo©lu 2012. 71. Soucek 2001: 119. 72. Hillenbrand 2010: 210; Roxburgh 1998. 73. For example, Martin 1912; Arnold and Grohmann 1929; Blochet 1929. 74. Ettinghausen et al. 2001: 257–63; Blair and Bloom 1994: 146–8. 75. Another illustrated and unilluminated m ­ anuscript – ­a copy of Varqa va Gulshåh (TSMK, H. 481) – has been attributed to RËm, circa 1250 (Melikian-­Chirvani 1970; Rogers et al. 1986). It is also the earliest known illustrated manuscript copied in Persian. The dating and provenance are due to the illustrator, ʿAbd al-­Muʾmin ibn Mu˙ammad al-­Naqqåsh al-­KhËyÈ, appearing in the 1253 waqfiyya of the Büyük Karatay Medrese in Konya (Özergin 1970). 76. Respectively, BNF, Persan 174; UBL, Or. 563; NK, 2782. On Daqåʾiq al-Óaqåʾiq, see Blochet 1912: 145–7; Barrucand 1991; Peacock 2020. On the two almanacs, see Peacock, forthcoming. Thank you to A. C. S. Peacock for sending me the draft version of his article and images of the manuscripts. The Leiden manuscript is available at (last accessed 12 March 2019). 77. Peacock, forthcoming. I will discuss these manuscripts further in a future publication. 78. SK, Ayasofya 2985 (for the facsimile edition of this manuscript, see Ibn BÈbÈ 1956). For a useful discussion on later, abridged manuscripts and other published versions of the text, see Yıldız 2006: 433n41. 79. Al-­AqsaråyÈ 1944. 80. Bacqué-­Grammont 2012. 81. SK, Ayasofya 3143 (copied 734/1334); SK, Yenicami 827 (copied 745/1345). 82. Peacock 2004a: 98; Melville 2006: 150–1. 83. Darling 2004: 127. 84. BNF, Schefer 1553. Anonymous 1952 (Turkish translation and Persian facsimile); 1999 (published Persian version). 85. Al-­AstaråbådÈ 1928.

21

22

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

86. RËmÈ 1992. 87. Peacock 2012. 88. Sul†ån Walad 1936. 89. Sipahsålår 2007. 90. Lewis 2008: 244–5. 91. AflåkÈ 1961; 2002. 92. Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854; 1962. 93. Al-ʿUmarÈ 1929. 94. ShikårÈ apparently based his sixteenth-­ century work on a lost fourteenth-­century Persian shåhnåma composed by YarjånÈ at the command of the Qaramanids (ShikårÈ 1946; 2005). Written in Anatolian Turkish in the form of a folk epic, questions remain over the chronicle’s reliability, partially because the author and the conditions under which the text was written have not been adequately identified (Yıldız 2010). The text mainly concerns the reign of ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ibn KhalÈl (r. 1361–97/8). 95. RåzÈ 1933–4; 1982. 96. Al-­MåzandarånÈ 1952; Togan 1991. 97. Al-­QazwÈnÈ 1919; Togan 1991. 98. Sanjian 1969. 99. Pegolotti 1936; Piloti 1950. 100. Polo 1871; Schiltberger 1879; William of Rubruck 1900.

CHAPTER ONE

Illuminated Manuscripts in Late Thirteenth-century Konya

Following the emphatic Mongol triumph at the Battle of Köseda© in 1243, the RËm Seljuks, weakened and ineffectual, were forced to cede power and pay an annual tribute to the victors.1 Even before this devastating loss, the c. 1240 BåbåʾÈ revolt in central and eastern RËm, led by the Turcoman preacher Båbå Is˙åq (d. 1240), had seriously undermined Seljuk authority.2 Upon the death of Ghiyåth al-­DÈn Kaykhusraw II (r. 1237–46), the Ilkhanids split the Seljuk throne between the sultan’s three underage sons (ʿIzz al-­DÈn KaykåwËs II, Rukn al-­DÈn Qilich Arslån IV and ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd II). Real political power was now in the hands of local bureaucrats who were ostensibly affiliated to the Seljuks, as well as Turcoman beys and Mongol commanders. Following another Mongol victory over the Seljuks at the Battle of Aksaray (also known as the Battle of Sultanhanı) in 1256, the Mongols installed Rukn al-­DÈn Qilich Arslån IV (d. 1265) as the sole puppet ruler.3 In the meantime, local political heavyweights, such as MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån and the nåʾib al-sal†ana (vicegerent of the sultan) AmÈn al-­DÈn MÈkåʾÈl (d. 1277), were those responsible for running day-­to-­day affairs in Konya. Some of these individuals were also able to amass significant wealth, land and power. By 1261, the Seljuk vizier Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ (d. 1288) controlled Ladik (now known as Denizli), Honaz, Afyonkarahisar, Kütahya, Ak∞ehir, Sandıklı and Gorgorum (near Bey∞ehir).4 Over 1276 and 1277, however, the region witnessed three major, interrelated events that changed the structure of power in Konya. These events were a consequence of both a resentment towards Mongol authority and the imperial ambitions of the Mamluk sultan Rukn al-­DÈn Baybars (r. 1260–77). Despite outward loyalty to Abaqa (r. 1265–82), the parvåna entered into secret correspondence with Baybars from the early 1260s, in response to threats to the former’s privileged political position.5 When the Mongols discovered this betrayal, the parvåna and a group

24

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

of amÈrs, headed by the governor (beylerbeyi) of Ni©de Sharaf al-­DÈn MasʿËd ibn al-­Kha†Èr, wrote to Baybars urging him to send forces to RËm to confront the Mongols.6 When the Ilkhanids eventually uncovered this plot, they executed Sharaf al-­DÈn (mid-­1276), while the parvåna somehow managed to escape punishment.7 This pro-­ Mamluk conspiracy eventually resulted in the Battle of Abulustayn (Elbistan) in April 1277, in which Mamluk forces decisively vanquished the Mongol army.8 Having then occupied Kayseri, had coins struck and his name read during the khu†ba (Friday service), Baybars headed back towards Damascus several days later, only to unexpectedly die a few months later in July.9 Taking advantage of Mongol weakness following this traumatic defeat, the Turcoman Qaramanids managed to seize Konya, which had been left relatively undefended, in May 1277.10 Qaramanid forces killed AmÈn al-­DÈn MÈkåʾÈl, designated Shams al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn Qaråmån as vizier, and installed JimrÈ, a pretender to the Seljuk throne, as the puppet ruler. By this point, the parvåna’s luck had run out, and he was executed by a furious Abaqa in mid-­1277.11 The Mongol ruler sent his brother Qunghur†åy (d. 1284) and Shams al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad JuwaynÈ (d. 1284), the ßå˙ib-dÈvån (finance minister), to restore order in RËm. Following this move, major political and economic decisions concerning RËm lay with Ilkhanid central authority. After Qunghur†åy’s troops executed Shams al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn Qaråmån in October 1277, JimrÈ was captured and killed in June 1278.12 Although Qunghur†åy had temporarily subdued the Qaramanids, they remained hostile to Mongol rule. Upon their 1277 occupation of Konya, the Turcoman polity apparently also declared that Turkish would become the language of government. However, as A. C. S. Peacock has recently highlighted, this alleged event and its significance should be treated with extreme caution.13 Despite RËm’s administrative incorporation into Ilkhanid territories, the region remained volatile, due to continued uprisings and internal weaknesses in the Mongol state. Following another Mamluk victory over the Ilkhanids at the Battle of Homs (October 1281), Qaramanid and Ashrafid raids in and around Konya and Bey∞ehir recommenced. They continued until Qunghur†åy laid waste to Qaramanid territories in mid-­1282 and massacred their inhabitants.14 Then the death of Abaqa in spring 1282 instigated a Mongol succession crisis as well as infighting and rebellion by Mongol commanders.15 Further unrest followed. Seljuk rule was once again divided, between Ghiyåth al-­DÈn Kaykhusraw III (r. 1265–84) and Ghiyåth al-­DÈn MasʿËd II (r. c. 1282–c. 1308, with interruption). Qunghur†åy rebelled against A˙mad TagËdar (r. 1282–4) and was killed in 1284. Under ArghËn (r. 1284–91), the minor sons of (the recently deceased) Kaykhusraw III were crowned in Konya in May 1285, supported by the Qaramanid GËnårÈ Bey (d. 1300) and the Ashrafid Sayf al-­DÈn Sulaymån (d. 1302).16 With ArghËn’s backing, the two youths were

late thirteenth-century konya

subsequently killed by MasʿËd II.17 MasʿËd’s ascension did nothing to stifle unrest in RËm, with hostilities from the Garmiyanids, Qaramanids and Ashrafids towards the Mongols continuing until a tentative peace was brokered in July 1288.18 Despite the persistent volatility of the political sphere, cultural and economic life in RËm persevered, and Konya remained an attractive city for scholars and dervishes.19 The presence of several Christian communities and Muslim scholars from various backgrounds (for example, ÓanafÈs, ShåfiʿÈs, Mevlevis and Qalandars) sustained a diverse and vibrant cultural scene that may also have bolstered RËm’s appeal. As in earlier periods, this scene was populated by peripatetic intellectuals from across the Islamic world, such as Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ (d. 1273, born in Balkh), Siråj al-­DÈn al-­UrmawÈ (d. 1283, born in Urmia, north-­western Iran), Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿIråqÈ (d. 1289, born in Kumjan, north-­western Iran) and Qu†b al-­DÈn ShÈråzÈ (d. 1311, born in Shiraz). Building activity in the Seljuk period had, in part, laid the foundations for these cultural and intellectual pursuits with the royal and elite construction of numerous caravanserais, mosques and smaller numbers of madrasas and mausoleums.20 Even after the support provided by the Seljuks faded, Konya witnessed extensive building work from the 1240s to the 1270s. Patricia Blessing has discussed how, in the absence of imperial patronage, powerful bureaucrats such as Jalål al-­DÈn Qarå†åy, MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån and Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ endowed madrasas, shrines, dervish lodges and charitable, multi-­ purpose complexes in Konya in this period.21 These sorts of building activities were particularly significant in this period as they provided power bases for their patrons, as well as (sometimes shared) facilities for local ʿulamåʾ and Sufis, who, in turn, acted as crucial intermediaries between patrons and their public. At the centre of this chapter are two manuscripts: a small Qur’an and a monumental MasnavÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (hereafter, MasnavÈ) by Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ, both produced in 677 (1278) in Konya. Additionally, I also discuss the earliest (and only full) copy of al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya by Ibn BÈbÈ, which was almost certainly produced around 1282 in Konya. The manuscripts from 1278 were owned by bureaucrats in the retinue of the Seljuk vizier Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ, while the Ibn BÈbÈ manuscript was commissioned by ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ (d. 1283), the Ilkhanid governor of Baghdad. This chapter sets the scene for subsequent discussions by establishing key aspects of the wider cultural and artistic context, such as the important role played by the Mevlevis in manuscript production and patronage and the status of Konya as a centre for the arts of the book.22 Chapter 1 also introduces important themes that are discussed and developed throughout the ­book – ­for example, questions of identity in this ethnically and religiously mixed environment, the mobility of artists, the transference of motifs and the nature of the ‘frontier’ in RËm.

25

26

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

The Qur’an and Masnavı¯ of 1278 The first manuscript of 1278 is a pocket Qur’an that was completed at the end of RabÈʿ II 677 (mid-­September 1278) by Óasan ibn ChËbån ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­QËnawÈ (see fig. A.1).23 It was copied in the madrasa of Saʿd al-­DÈn Köpek (d. 1238), who was Master of the Hunt and Public Works (‘amÈr-i shikår va miʿmår’) under the Seljuk ruler, ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I (r. 1219–37).24 The second manuscript of ­1278 – ­a monumental copy of Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ’s MasnavÈ – was copied in Rajab 677 (November–December 1278) by Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­QËnawÈ al-­WaladÈ.25 It is difficult to overstate the cultural and religious importance of the MasnavÈ, a work of Persian narrative poetry comprising six Books (daftars) of rhyming couplets. RËmÈ probably started composing the text between 1258 and 1261 in honour of Óusåm al-­DÈn ChalabÈ and completed it in the late 1260s or 1270s.26 There is a waqf record dated 678 (1279–80) on folio 325b of the manuscript, which details how, five years after the death of RËmÈ, the text was compiled from the author’s drafts with corrections executed by his follower Óusåm al-­DÈn ChalabÈ (d. 1284) (see fig. A.3). The inscription also details how the ­manuscript – ­the earliest clean copy of the ­text – ­was produced specifically for RËmÈ’s shrine in Konya.27 Both the Qur’an and the MasnavÈ were illuminated by Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­HindÈ.28 The large size of the MasnavÈ’s pages (some of which are tinted light pink) corresponds to one-­quarter ‘BaghdådÈ’ size, and the manuscript is perhaps the earliest known example of these standardised paper dimensions.29 It is difficult to tell where the paper originated based exclusively on its physical properties, but ‘BaghdådÈ’ paper (‘kåghid-i baghdådÈ’) appears to have been used in Konya in RËmÈ’s lifetime.30 The manuscript also features a very early example of coloured paper, which became popular from the early fourteenth century due to the import of decorated Chinese papers.31 Its text block is arranged into four narrow columns (fig. 1.1). Elaine Wright has shown that this text block type did not become widespread in Islamic manuscripts until at least the mid-­fourteenth ­century – ­a development that coincided with a proliferation in the production of romantic epics, such as the Khamsa of NiΩåmÈ (d. 1209).32 The four-­column text block was in use from at least the early thirteenth century,33 and several fourteenth-­century manuscripts of Mevlevi texts feature it.34 Although it is unclear whether the four-­column format was more widespread than surviving evidence suggests, the aforementioned Mevlevi manuscripts indicate that this text block format was preferred for these types of texts in medieval RËm. Both manuscripts are copied in naskh, a rounded script that was used to copy a wide range of texts (figs 1.1–1.2).35 The prose prefaces that precede the MasnavÈ’s chapters are written in gold tawqÈʿ that sometimes tends towards naskh (fig. 1.3), while the headpieces are

Figure 1.1  Text page, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 10a.

Figure 1.2  Text page, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fol. 90b.

28

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.3  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 57a.

inscribed in white thuluth (see fig. 1.20).36 Often used as a display script in manuscripts, tawqÈʿ usually possesses descenders curling upward and several ligatures between letters.37 In the case of the MasnavÈ, most of the descenders curl upwards, apart from some of the final, downward mÈms. Overall, the manuscript’s tawqÈʿ is reasonably steady, if a little inconsistent at times. The main naskh script of the MasnavÈ appears to anticipate nastaʿlÈq, which would

29

late thirteenth-century konya

Figure 1.4  Frontispiece, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fol. 1a.

Figure 1.5  Illuminated text, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fol. 2b.

not be used in its full form in Anatolia until the mid-­ fifteenth century.38 As in nastaʿlÈq, the alifs are small in comparison to other letters, the bowls of the nËns, yåʾs, qåfs and sÈns are quite deep and round, and the ends of lines of text are often superscribed.39 Although the hand is not particularly exceptional, it is clear, legible and fairly consistent. The main script of the Qur’an is similarly legible, though the overall appearance is more cramped and rigid than that of the MasnavÈ – perhaps understandably given the manuscript’s small size. In any case, individual letterforms are not as consistent as seen in the MasnavÈ, with final mÈms pointing both down and sideways and kåfs varying greatly in shape and size (see fig. 1.2). However, like the MasnavÈ, the manuscript features small, straight alifs, and nËns, yåʾs, qåfs and sÈns with deep, round bowls. Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­HindÈ extensively illuminated both manuscripts (figs 1.2–1.20). Like most of the illuminated manuscripts of medieval RËm, gold is used extensively and applied before other pigments, which are then painted on top. The Qur’an’s palette is mostly restricted to gold and blue, while the MasnavÈ also uses red and mint green. Although the illumination in both manuscripts is extensive and elaborate, the execution is a little messy and imprecise in places. The verses of the Qur’an are indicated throughout with aya markers and marginal medallions. The Qur’an also closes with two freestanding circular shamsas, which is somewhat unusual (see fig. 1.7).40

30

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.6  Finispiece, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fol. 330b.

Figure 1.7  Finispiece medallion, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fol. 331b.

A large, freestanding pointed oval medallion, full-­page illuminations (also called carpet pages), illuminated text pages containing the prose prefaces and a slim headpiece precede each of the MasnavÈ’s six Books (see figs 1.3, 1.8–1.20).41 The marginal medallions that accompany the full-­page illuminations and illuminated text pages may have been included to reference

late thirteenth-century konya

Figure 1.8  Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 1b.

31

32

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.9  Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 53a.

late thirteenth-century konya

Figure 1.10  Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 98a.

33

34

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.11  Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 159a.

late thirteenth-century konya

Figure 1.12  Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 208a.

35

36

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.13  Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 266a.

late thirteenth-century konya

Figure 1.14 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 6a.

37

38

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.15 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 161a.

late thirteenth-century konya

Figure 1.16 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 208b.

39

40

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.17 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 212a.

late thirteenth-century konya

Figure 1.18 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 268a.

41

42

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.19  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 9a.

late thirteenth-century konya

Figure 1.20 Headpieces, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fols 102b, 212b, 270b.

contemporary Qur’an illumination and perhaps emphasise the cultural importance of the text itself.42 Generally, the decoration of the two manuscripts eschews patterns based on geometry. It is instead mainly composed of divided panels filled with strapwork and knotwork, rounded shapes such as circles, pointed ovals and four-­pointed stars and extensive use of half-, split and full palmettes. There are several distinctive motifs that are shared between the two manuscripts, which is not surprising seeing as the same artist decorated them. These include slim borders consisting of alternating knotwork circles and pointed ovals (see figs 1.6 and 1.14), circles formed from four rotating split palmettes (see figs 1.4 and 1.8–1.10) and multilobed cartouches (sometimes flanked by knotwork shapes) (see figs 1.5 and 1.20). Although both manuscripts are lavishly decorated, the monumentality of the MasnavÈ and the variety, sophistication and density of its illumination produces an undeniably exuberant effect ­overall – ­no doubt intended to emphasise its status as a precious

43

44

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.21  Illuminated text, Qur’an, Persia or the Jazira, c. 1000–50, KC, QUR284, fol. 201a.

object produced for RËmÈ’s shrine, while also helping to visually divide the text into its six Books. Several elements in the Qur’an and MasnavÈ find similar precedents in Islamic manuscripts from medieval Persia and Central Asia copied in ‘New Style’ Kufic, perhaps for the Great Seljuks, Ghaznavids and Ghurids.43 The large upper and lower panels of the Qur’an’s illuminated text pages bear a strong resemblance to the page layout of small Qur’ans copied in naskh attributed to eleventh-­ century greater Persia (fig. 1.21).44 Additionally, circular marginal roundels filled with curvilinear decoration, hexagonal medallions bordered by ‘petals’, panels of knotwork and split palmettes arranged into circles also appear in both 1278 manuscripts and medieval Qur’ans from the eastern Islamic world (figs 1.22–1.23; see marginal medallions in figs 1.2 and 1.16 for comparison).45 The use of small pointed ovals (which I discuss more below) is also fairly prominent in manuscripts from this earlier period.46 Additionally, the geometrically irregular designs that are present in some of the full-­page illuminations of the MasnavÈ bear some resemblance to eleventh-­century Qur’an illuminations such as those of the Ibn al-­Bawwåb Qur’an.47 The curvilinear scrollwork present in

Figure 1.22  Text page, Qur’an, Persia or the Jazira, eleventh century, TSMK, R. 14, fol. 27b.

Figure 1.23  Text page, Qur’an, Khurasan, 1177–8, TSMK, E. H. 42, fol. 95b.

46

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.24  Ònce Minareli Medrese (portal), Konya, c. 1265.

much of the MasnavÈ’s illumination is also quite similar to motifs seen in a Qur’an of 466/1073 produced in perhaps Ghazni or Tus (north-­eastern Iran).48 Since there are almost no securely identified manuscripts of early medieval RËm remaining, this renders the means of transmission uncertain. However, these links suggest that some motifs may have entered RËm via artists travelling with the eleventh- and twelfth-­century Seljuk migration from Persia. Precise and convincing links to the surface decoration of architecture, metalwork and woodwork are not apparent, but detailed carvings of wood, stone (including marble), stonepaste and stucco from the central and eastern medieval Islamic lands may have provided some decorative context for the dense style of illumination seen in the MasnavÈ in particular.49 Indeed, highly elaborate woodcarving and architectural surface decoration were common in late medieval RËm (see figs 1.24, 1.31), but clear instances of visual overlaps between the mediums of carving and illumination are not evident.50 Additionally, ornate metalwork from Egypt, Syria, Mosul and Khurasan feature many of the same sorts of motifs as seen in the manuscripts, such as knotwork and strapwork, curvilinear vegetal scrollwork, while contemporary metalwork from RËm is similarly intricate.51 Again, there are no explicit connections between these manuscripts and the surface decoration of metalwork, but this, of course, does not rule out the possibility of dialogue between illuminators and other artisans. The variety of motifs present in both manuscripts demonstrates the rich visual vocabulary that was being employed by the Konya-­

47

late thirteenth-century konya

based artist. In their specific forms, many of the 1278 manuscripts’ ­motifs – ­such as the pointed oval frontispiece or alternating circleand-pointed-oval ­ borders – a­lso appear in numerous manuscripts from fourteenth-­century Konya, as I discuss in Chapter 2. These particular motifs are distinctive to illumination from Konya and do not appear in manuscripts ascribed to other locations. Convincingly identifying manuscripts purely based on their illumination can be challenging, due to the frequent movement of artists and the prevalence of particular motifs and patterns in manuscripts from across the Islamic world. A design from the 1278 MasnavÈ (see fig. 1.15) aptly demonstrates this point. This unusual geometrically irregular pattern reappears in several Persian and Mamluk manuscripts over the following century. It is found in two Ilkhanid Qur’ans, one from 694/1295 and another from 723/1323.52 The (slightly modified) design then appears in a Qur’an illuminated by IbråhÈm al-ÅmidÈ in Cairo around 1370–5 (fig. 1.25).53 IbråhÈm al-ÅmidÈ, who was the most prolific illuminator in Cairo in the 1360s and 1370s, introduced several novel elements into Mamluk illumination, such as the use of turquoise pigment and unusual, geometrically irregular shapes.54 It could be that al-ÅmidÈ, who was probably from Amid (Diyarbakır), visited or trained in Konya and copied the pattern from the 1278

Figure 1.25  Frontispiece, Qur’an juzʾ (vol. 4 of 30), Cairo, c. 1370–5, CBL, Is.1464, fol. 2a.

48

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

MasnavÈ. However, given the pattern’s appearance in two Ilkhanid manuscripts alongside other elements of al-­ AmÈdÈ’s repertoire, it seems more likely that he may have come across the motif in Persia.55 In any case, these connections show the engagement between the arts of the book of Konya and illumination produced throughout the rest of the region. Indeed, Konya artists were not merely passively receiving motifs and techniques from beyond RËm, but instead actively adapting these and producing distinctive designs. These motifs, as they appear in the 1278 Qur’an and MasnavÈ, are crucial in identifying further manuscripts as belonging to late medieval Konya or RËm, since the manuscripts are definitively located in a particular context (that is, Konya in 1278). Indeed, there are several currently unidentified (or misidentified) manuscripts that may well be from the area based on their decoration.56 This group, at least partially, suggests that there may be many more manuscripts for scholars to attribute to Konya in the future. For now, there is only space to provide one particularly compelling example here. This example is an undated Qur’an volume (juzʾ) held in the Freer and Sackler Galleries.57 It was previously thought by scholars to be a Mamluk manuscript, but was almost certainly illuminated by Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­HindÈ in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century.58 The medium-­sized manuscript, which is the second of four (rather than the usual thirty) volumes, contains a much later inscription.59 The manuscript’s gold and blue colour palette, the format of its illuminated text pages and the motifs found within the full-­page illuminations and illuminated text are remarkably similar to those seen in the 1278 Qur’an and MasnavÈ (but particularly the former) (figs 1.26–1.27). Multilobed, inscribed cartouches flanked by knotwork shapes, alternating circle-and-pointed-oval knotwork borders, rotating split palmettes and pointed oval and circular medallions with blue (and green) petals all appear in both the Sackler volume and the 1278 Qur’an (see figs 1.4–1.7). Unlike the 1278 Qur’an, however, the juzʾ is copied in a large mu˙aqqaq script, rather than in naskh. It is one of only two manuscripts produced in late medieval Konya to have been copied in mu˙aqqaq, which is found in many contemporary Ilkhanid and some Mamluk Qur’an codices.60 The juzʾ’s script is comparatively neat and evenly spaced, although its letterforms are not always consistent. For example, the final håʾs, final låms and diacritical marks (particularly the ∂ammas) vary in size and shape. Additionally, the occasionally diluted or scratchy ink suggests that the unnamed scribe was not an expert ink maker. The script is also noticeably flatter than Ilkhanid or Mamluk mu˙aqqaq, which usually possesses more h ­ eight – f­ or instance, the alifs of Ilkhanid Qur’ans are typically three or four times the height of other letters and often lean slightly to the left.61 The alifs in the Sackler volume are around twice as tall as neighbouring letters

Figure 1.26  Frontispiece, Qur’an juzʾ (vol. 2 of 4), Konya, late thirteenth or early fourteenth century, FAS, S1986.25, fol. 1b.

Figure 1.27  Illuminated text, Qur’an juzʾ (vol. 2 of 4), Konya, late thirteenth or early fourteenth century, FAS, S1986.25, fol. 2b.

50

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

and stand perpendicular to the baseline. There are a few details of the Sackler mu˙aqqaq, however, that correspond to Ilkhanid and Mamluk examples: it features the ‘teardrop’ tarwÈs (head-­serif) and the låm-alif mu˙aqqaqa mawqËfa (with a looped, rather than triangular or closed, base), both of which appear in medieval Qur’ans from Baghdad, Mosul and Cairo.62 A motif that does not appear in the Sackler juzʾ but certainly deserves further attention is that of the pointed ­oval – s­ pecifically, its appearance as a large, freestanding (that is, unframed), illuminated frontispiece. Large, intricately decorated pointed ovals appear at the beginning of each of the MasnavÈ’s six Books (see figs 1.8–1.13). They also appear in three manuscripts produced in Konya between 1311–32 (see figs 2.1, 2.26 and 2.33–2.35) and many more undated, unattributed manuscripts that were almost certainly produced in RËm.63 While small pointed ovals appear in many earlier medieval Islamic manuscripts, and in some medieval textiles, 64 the occurrence of large, broad, pointed ovals that fill most of the page is relatively rare. Where pointed ovals do appear in fourteenth- and fifteenth-­century Islamic illumination from beyond Konya, they are either relatively small or narrow in shape, embedded in elaborate frames or formed from S-­shaped curves (as seen in ogee arches).65 It is certainly possible that the prominence of pointed ovals in the MasnavÈ, a visually stunning and culturally important manuscript, inspired their appearance in later manuscripts from Konya. As a probable display object in the shrine, the MasnavÈ likely provided a significant source of artistic inspiration and popularised certain decorative modes. The question remains, however, regarding where the form of the large, freestanding pointed oval originated. A pointed oval composed of calligraphic bands appears in a pocket Qur’an written in New Style Kufic.66 As in the 1278 MasnavÈ, the oval is broad and large relative to page size. Given the visual connections between late thirteenth-­century illumination from RËm and Qur’ans written in New Style Kufic noted above, it is possible that the shape was another element inherited from the medieval arts of the books of the Islamic east. It could be that the shape was more popular than the surviving Islamic manuscript record suggests. Beyond this, there are no other convincing precedents in the Islamic tradition. There are, however, contemporary parallels in Christian manuscripts produced in the region. Pointed ovals illustrated with Christ in Majesty at their centre appear in Gospel frontispieces of the Byzantine ‘Nicaean School’ that are dated to around 1150–1250.67 Additionally, several large pointed ovals with inscribed borders and centres appear in a Syriac Bible produced in 1212–13 in Jilu (present day south-­eastern Turkey) (fig. 1.28).68 The pointed oval, which is usually termed the ‘mandorla’ (‘almond’ in Italian) or ‘vesica piscis’ (‘fish bladder’ in Latin) in the Christian context, is a common iconographical feature of Christian art that appears in Byzantine, Syriac, Romanesque and Gothic contexts.

51

late thirteenth-century konya

Figure 1.28  Inscribed pointed oval, Bible (New Testament), Mår ʿAzÈza (Jilu), 1212–13, The Morgan Library & Museum, New York, M.235, fol. 10a.

The shape is found in ivories, mosaics, frescoes and illustrated manuscripts from across Europe and the Middle East and may have developed from ancient and classical symbols of fertility and glory.69 Rostislava Todorova has discussed how the mandorla, which often features Christ or other holy figures at its centre, represented the glory of God or the union of Heaven and Earth and signified a ‘sacred space’ in medieval Christian iconography.70 She further notes that the shape became particularly prominent in Byzantine art from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.71 Indeed, early fourteenth-­century mandorlas appear in mosaics and frescoes in the Chora Church (Kariye Müzesi) in Istanbul, located in the naos (main body of the church) and parecclesion (side chapel), both with Christ at their centres.72 Concerning its use in Syriac illustration, Valentina Cantone suggests that the image of a mandorla surrounding the infant Jesus serves to distinguish the body of the Virgin Mary from the divine Logos that took form in her womb.73 In a very general sense, there is possibly a connection between the mandorla in its use as a halo or aureole in Christian iconography and the adoption of the halo in depicting Islamic sacred figures. From the thirteenth century, images of the Prophet Mu˙ammad in illustrated manuscripts consistently depict him as possessing a halo (often of the flaming variety) around his head, although these admittedly do not resemble the MasnavÈ’s pointed ovals.74 The flaming

52

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

nimbus of the Prophet was eventually adopted as a visual allegory for his ‘preexistent luminescence’ and appears in Islamic illustration as surrounding golden blazes.75 Theoretically, the pointed oval frontispieces of the MasnavÈ could have initially emerged in manuscript illumination as metaphors for the sanctitude of text or author (or both), but this is a necessarily speculative point. Ultimately, it is difficult to say with any certainty why the pointed oval frontispiece assumed such a prominent position in the 1278 MasnavÈ’s programme of illumination. Perhaps the specific form and use of the shape was introduced by artists who had converted from Christianity. There is, as yet, no evidence to suggest that Muslim artists had direct access to Christian manuscripts, and there do not appear to be significant visual connections between Islamic and Christian illumination (whether it is Byzantine, Syriac or Armenian) in this context. However, the presence of Christians and converts from Christianity was hardly unusual in RËm, as I discuss in detail below (and in Chapter 4). This contact between the communities may have provided a means of transmission. It is also possible that the shape was already a well-­established part of the visual vocabularies of both Islamic and Christian art in early medieval Anatolia, even though this is not otherwise strongly reflected in surviving material. The pointed oval shape is, fundamentally, a rather simple one that appears to have been adopted by many different visual traditions over a long period. Without more definite evidence, pinpointing a precise origin for the pointed ovals remains impossible for now. However, the shape is clearly associated with late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-­century illumination from Konya. Patrons and artists in Ilkhanid-administered Konya While both manuscripts of 1278 were illuminated by Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­HindÈ, they were copied by two different scribes who were both from Konya: the Qur’an by Óasan ibn ChËbån ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­QËnawÈ and the MasnavÈ by Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­QËnawÈ al-­WaladÈ. Although its production location is not identified in inscriptions, visual and circumstantial evidence indicates that the MasnavÈ was almost certainly produced in Konya. Firstly, it was illuminated by Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh, who decorated the 1278 Qur’an that was produced in the madrasa of Saʿd al-­DÈn Köpek only one month earlier. Secondly, its patron was closely associated with the Seljuk elite in Konya, as was the donor of the Qur’an. The waqf record on folio 325b of the MasnavÈ states that it was endowed to RËmÈ’s shrine in Konya by Jamål al-­DÈn Mubårak ibn ʿAbdallåh. The inscription notes that Jamål al-­DÈn was a freed slave (‘ʿatÈq’) of Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ ibn Óusayn (d. 1288), a powerful Seljuk vizier and prolific patron of architecture, as indicated by his epithets, Íå˙ib ʿA†å (friend of giving) and AbË-l-­Khayråt (master of

late thirteenth-century konya

charitable deeds). Jamål al-­DÈn is also mentioned as the ‘khådim’ (servant or eunuch)76 of Fakhr al-­DÈn on a book stand (ra˙la) that the former donated to the Mevlevi shrine. This individual is probably the same ‘Mubårak ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­Khådim’ who was one of the witnesses of NËr al-­DÈn ibn Jåjå’s 1272 waqfiyya.77 The section in which he is mentioned names other converts to Islam (distinguished by the ‘ibn ʿAbdallåh’ patronymic) who held important positions, such as ‘silå˙È’ (sword-­bearer), ‘dhawwåq’ (taster) and ‘†abbåkh’ (cook). There are several high-­level Seljuk officials and Mongol commanders who witnessed the document, so it is entirely possible that the patron of the MasnavÈ was actually a relatively powerful and well-­connected member of the Seljuk elite especially given that he is described in the waqf note as ‘master of the servants’ and ‘head of ­commanders and chamberlains’ (‘sayyidu al-khuddåmi maliku al-umaråʾi wa-l-˙ujjåbi’).78 The patron is not discussed in the Mevlevi sources. AflåkÈ briefly mentions the ‘sarvar-i khuddåm-i mashhad’ (head servant/eunuch of the shrine), suggesting that the shrine has its own attached servitors, but there is no evidence that Mubårak ibn ʿAbdallåh assisted the shrine in an official capacity.79 The Qur’an was commissioned by one Sayf al-­DÈn Sunqur ibn ʿAbdallåh al-Íå˙ibÈ (that is, another associate, and quite possibly a former slave, of Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ).80 Similarly to Jamål al-DÈn Mubårak, he is identified on the Qur’an’s dedication pages (see fig. A.2) as ‘malik al-khawåßß wa-l-˙ujjåb’ (head of the courtly elites and the chamberlains)81 and a ‘kadkhudå’ (senior courtier).82 There is a mention of one Sayf al-­DÈn Sunqur in a 1281 waqfiyya pertaining to an ʿimåra (foundation) built by Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ in Konya.83 TårÈkh-i Ål-i SaljËq dar Ånå†ËlÈ, completed after 1363, also mentions one Sayf [al-­DÈn] Sunqur as the imperial chåshnÈgÈr (official taster) around the year 1295.84 These manuscripts give us some sense of the type of courtiers that attended to the powerful Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ, who is better known for his building, rather than manuscript, activities.85 By comparison, we have at least one surviving manuscript known to have been produced for the vizier, and its ­appearance – ­while similar to other Konya ­illumination – ­is far more modest than the illumination present in the 1278 manuscripts (figs 1.29–1.30).86 The Qur’an and MasnavÈ highlight their patrons’ education, sophistication and piety, while their lavish decoration proclaims their wealth and status, accrued presumably through their connection to the affluent vizier. It is likely that many of Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ’s other servants benefited from their attachment to him. For instance, another one of his attendants (again, possibly a former slave) was able to fund the construction of a fountain in Bolvadin (Alaca Çe∞mesi) in 1278.87 The aforementioned walnut book stand, donated to the shrine by the patron of the MasnavÈ who is described in the book stand’s

53

54

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.29  Inscribed pointed oval, DÈvån, Konya (probably), late thirteenth century (before 1288), SK, Ayasofya 3879, fol. 1a.

Figure 1.30 Headpiece, DÈvån, Konya (probably), late thirteenth century (before 1288), SK, Ayasofya 3879, fol. 1b.

55

late thirteenth-century konya

Figure 1.31  Book stand, Konya, 1279–80, MMK, 332.

56

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.32  Book stand leaf, Konya, 1279–80, MMK, 332.

inscription as ‘khådim al-Íå˙ibÈ’, is dated 678 (1279–80).88 It measures 945mm in height and 425mm in width. The outsides of the two leaves are ornately carved, featuring scrolling full and split palmettes and inscriptions, while the inside panels are covered in lacquered and gilded decoration (figs 1.31–1.32). This decoration consists of a central double-­ headed eagle surrounded by seven mirrored pairs of lions on a ground of curvilinear floral motifs. The concomitance in date and patron, as well as the similarity in measurements, strongly suggests that the stand was specifically intended for use with the 1278 MasnavÈ. The canonical nature of the manuscript meant that it would very likely have been used during recitals in the shrine. This function, along with its considerable size, may have necessitated an equally impressive book stand. Although several carved book stands were produced in this period, this is the only extant example with figural decoration.89 Lions and double-­headed eagles were relatively common emblems of political or royal authority across Europe and the Islamic world that were present across a range of media, such as architecture, textiles and coinage.90 In the context of the Seljuks, the double-­headed eagle is associated with ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I in particular.91 One pair of the lions, on the outermost sides of the panel, raise one paw in the direction of the eagle, unlike the other six seated pairs. Scott Redford has suggested that this could signify a show of deference to the central eagle, who may represent RËmÈ’s earthly and divine authority.92 The specific combination of the double-­ headed eagle

late thirteenth-century konya

with lions appears less frequently than the two motifs on their own. However, both animals feature in the decoration of an undated gilded bronze openwork lamp that was produced by one Óasan ibn ʿAlÈ al-­ MawlawÈ, presumably for use in the Mevlevi shrine where it is currently housed.93 In this context, it is possible that the nature of such figural decorations was intended to express the veneration of RËmÈ and other Mevlevi leaders, such as the regally named Sul†ån Walad. It is significant that the names of all three artists and both patrons involved in the production of the manuscripts include the designation ‘ibn ʿAbdallåh’ – a generic paternal name used for converts.94 They were probably all first-­generation Muslims, apart from Óasan ibn ChËbån ibn ʿAbdallåh, who may have been a second-­generation Muslim. The nisba of the illuminator – ‘al-­HindÈ’ – is somewhat unusual, though not unprecedented for the time.95 Both scribes’ nisbas (al-­QËnawÈ) connect them to Konya, and, as converts, they may also have been of Greek (or Mongol) origin.96 Significantly, the addition of ‘al-­WaladÈ’ to Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAbdallåh’s name suggests that he was a disciple or attendant of Rumi’s son Sul†ån Walad, who was at the shrine when the MasnavÈ was produced and was its leader from 1284 to 1312. The combination of ‘ibn ʿAbdallåh’ with ‘al-­WaladÈ’ could also mean that he was a (former) slave. These manuscripts show that scribes in Konya were, on the whole, of local origin. This is further reflected in unilluminated manuscripts from RËm.97 The presence of Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­HindÈ, however, suggests that there may have also been a small community of migrant artists in Konya.98 On their own, the visual and physical properties of the 1278 manuscripts do not give any indication of the political turmoil that had recently erupted in Konya. It is only by looking at their inscriptions and other sources that we are able to link the material to the contemporary political ­scene – ­a scene in which the Seljuk vizier Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ held a substantial amount of power. Of course, Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ was far from the only regional power player. After the upheaval of the events of 1276–7, the Ilkhanids attempted to take a more direct approach, sending Shams al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad JuwaynÈ (d. 1284) to the region to stifle these disturbances and formally incorporate RËm into the Ilkhanid fiscal administration. Shams al-­DÈn had a prior connection to RËm, having constructed a madrasa in Sivas in 1271–2 that is today known as the Çifte Minareli Medrese. Shams al-­DÈn and his elder brother, ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ (d. 1283), the governor of Baghdad, were two of the most powerful political figures during the rule of Abaqa. ʿA†å-Malik was also the author of TårÈkh-i Jahån-gushåy (c. 1260) and was, like his brother, a prolific patron of architecture.99 ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ was also responsible for commissioning an illuminated manuscript almost certainly produced in Konya in around 1282. This is the only surviving illuminated manuscript from RËm commissioned by an Ilkhanid patron. This manuscript is a copy of Ibn BÈbÈ’s history of the RËm Seljuks, al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya.100

57

58

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Although scholars have discussed the contents of this important manuscript, its physical characteristics, which confirm its production in RËm, have not been examined before. The chronicle is the earliest and, indeed, only source to discuss the pre-­Mongol political scene of medieval RËm in detail, beginning with the death of Qilich Arslån II in 1192 and ending after the arrival of MasʿËd II into RËm in 1280–1. The text, which is mostly dynastic in its focus, strives to emphasise the glories of Seljuk rule and argues for keeping the Seljuk state intact, while blaming recent troubles on corrupt and greedy bureaucrats and amÈrs.101 It mentions the Mongols very little, though it does stress the need for the Seljuk ruler to stay in their good graces.102 The contents of Ibn BÈbÈ’s work were undoubtedly shaped by the dramatic events that unfolded in RËm during 1276–7, in which Mongol authority and the existence of the Seljuk Sultanate came under serious threat. The text also served to underline the status of the JuwaynÈ brothers, who had recently been the subject of suspicions and denunciations at the Ilkhanid court.103 Looking at the broader context of the JuwaynÈs’ cultural activities (such as the authorship of TårÈkh-i Jahån-gushåy and the establishment of several madrasas), the commissioning of al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya seems to have been part of an effort to ‘Islamicise’ the Mongols and ‘emphasise the importance of Islamic institutions’, whilst also promoting their own positions as Islamic bureaucrat-­scholars par excellence.104 The text was probably modelled on ʿA†å-Malik’s TårÈkh-i Jahån-gushåy, which was ‘likewise written in a rhetorically complex and difficult Persian’.105 In addition to their status as established members of the bureaucratic elite of their respective abodes, both patron and author were closely connected through their families. Ibn BÈbÈ’s father, Majd al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad Tarjumån (the translator), received his training as a munshÈ (secretary) in the retinue of Shams al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad JuwaynÈ, ßå˙ib-dÈvån under the Khwårazmshåhs and grandfather of the JuwaynÈ brothers.106 As Sara Nur Yıldız states: [W]e see the renewal of patronage relations between the grandchildren of Khwårazmian scribal officials, who, due to the particular fate of their fathers’ generation as a temporarily displaced secretarial class following the Mongol invasion of Iran and the destruction of the Khwårazmshåh’s empire, are incorporated into other Persophonic court environments: in the changed political landscape of Mongol domination, they are once again bound by patronage ties as representatives of respective Ilkhanid and Seljukid political interests.107 After the Mongol defeat of the Khwårazmshåhs, Ibn BÈbÈ’s parents fled to Damascus. Subsequently, ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I, who was particularly interested in employing Ibn BÈbÈ’s mother as his astrologer (munajjim[a]), invited the pair to join his court.108 Having grown

late thirteenth-century konya

up in the Seljuk court in Konya, Ibn BÈbÈ eventually attained the position of malik-dÈvån al-†ughråʾ (head of the chancery), possibly after his father died in 1272.109 The manuscript is almost certainly the original copy commissioned by ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ, since the text speaks highly of both JuwaynÈs, while a later, abridged copy omits mention of the brothers following their fall from favour.110 The patron’s death in March 1283 gives the terminus ante quem for the manuscript’s production. Based on the content of the original text, which concludes with the arrival of MasʿËd II into RËm in 1280–1,111 Yıldız has argued that the text was likely finished in the summer of 1282, while MasʿËd was still in Tabriz following the death of Abaqa earlier that year.112 The circumstances of the manuscript’s patronage by ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ give some insight into the changing power dynamics of late medieval RËm. Alongside Shams al-­DÈn JuwaynÈ’s role in restoring order in RËm after the events of 1276–7 and the establishment of the Çifte Minareli Medrese, the manuscript’s production in Konya highlights how in some ways the region became absorbed into the Ilkhanid political sphere. The manuscript, at the intersection of Seljuk and Ilkhanid cultural spheres, reflects how complex and transregional changes in the political landscape could shape the nature of illuminated manuscript patronage in this environment. The manuscript was copied by IbråhÈm ibn IsmåʿÈl ibn AbÈ Bakr al-­QayßarÈ (of Kayseri) (see fig. A.4). The dark brown naskh script is legible, though relatively messy with rather inconsistent letterforms. Broadly speaking, it resembles the handwriting of other manuscripts produced in Konya, albeit more haphazard in appearance. The manuscript contains two pages with illumination: a frontispiece with a dedication to Kaykhusraw III (r. 1265–84) and a headpiece (figs 1.33–1.34). The small amount of illumination bears similarities to that of the 1278 manuscripts. These likenesses are most evident in the headpiece, which features a multilobed cartouche flanked by knotwork, similar to those in the 1278 Qur’an and MasnavÈ (see fig. 1.5). Given this resemblance, in addition to the circumstances of the text’s composition, it was almost certainly produced in Konya. The format of the frontispiece with its freestanding circular medallion and accompanying head and tailpieces is not common in manuscripts from RËm, though there are circular medallions in the 1278 Qur’an and the 1314 Intihånåma (discussed in Chapter 2). The circular medallion with separate head and tailpieces is a design strongly associated with fourteenth-­ century Injuid illumination from Shiraz.113 It is unclear where this format originated, though it probably ultimately derived from manuscripts such as the 595/1198–9 Kitåb al-Diryåq, which was probably produced in the Jazira.114 The Kitåb al-Diryåq manuscript features circular medallions set into, or surrounded by, rectangular frames. This design appears even earlier, as shown by a Qur’an dated 505/1111–12 that was produced in Bost (known today

59

60

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 1.33 Frontispiece, al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya, Konya, c. 1282, SK, Ayasofya 2985, fol. 1a.

late thirteenth-century konya

Figure 1.34 Headpiece, al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya, Konya, c. 1282, SK, Ayasofya 2985, fol. 1b.

as Lashkargah in present-­day Afghanistan).115 This same Qur’an also features two overlapping circles accompanied by a separate tailpiece on folio 1a. Somewhat similarly, a separate headpiece sits atop a circular medallion in the illuminated frontispiece of a copy of Shawårid al-Amthål from twelfth-­century Syria.116 The physical features of the manuscript link it to Konya, but are otherwise unremarkable (the slightly unusual frontispiece not-

61

62

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

withstanding), particularly in comparison to the lavishness of the 1278 Qur’an and MasnavÈ. Considering that the manuscript was ­commissioned by an extremely powerful Ilkhanid bureaucrat and dedicated to a Seljuk ruler, Kaykhusraw III, its modest appearance might initially seem a little strange. The dedication to Kaykhusraw III is, in itself, somewhat unexpected. The text hardly mentions the ruler, save for his flight from Konya following the 1277 Qaramanid occupation.117 Given its possible completion in the summer of 1282, it may be that the text was composed in part to commemorate MasʿËd II’s elevation to sultan, with the dedication to Kaykhusraw III as a matter of protocol (although the question of Kaykhusraw as part of the manuscript’s intended audience is dealt with below).118 The need to produce the manuscript in time for MasʿËd II’s enthronement could perhaps explain the somewhat hurried quality of the script and the relatively small amount of illumination. Given the text’s enormous historical and political importance, a more visually impressive object might have been expected. This manuscript was evidently not a monumental presentation copy, like the 1278 MasnavÈ, or the prized possession of an elite bureaucrat, as with the 1278 Qur’an. Konya’s artistic and intellectual landscape: migrants, Mevlevis and Christians The 1278 Qur’an and MasnavÈ and the c. 1282 copy of al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya show that Konya was an active centre for the production of illuminated manuscripts throughout the late 1270s and early 1280s, despite the recent troubles of 1276–7. This level of production seems to have only intensified into the early fourteenth century (see Chapter 2). Numerous other illuminated manuscripts were likely produced in similar circumstances, and these surviving examples may be the remains of what was a thriving art form. Indeed, there could be further manuscripts, such as the undated Sackler Qur’an juzʾ, that are currently misidentified and, in fact, belong to this context.119 While the quality of these manuscripts’ calligraphy and illumination may not quite reach the polished heights of some contemporary monumental Ilkhanid manuscripts, they demonstrate that production and tastes were relatively developed and may well have built upon earlier models from medieval Persia and Central Asia. The patronage circumstances of these manuscripts also reflect the complicated political dynamics of late medieval RËm. Al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya was commissioned by an Ilkhanid official based far from Konya in Baghdad, while the patrons of the 1278 Qur’an and MasnavÈ were directly connected to the powerful Seljuk vizier Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ. By this point in time, the RËm Seljuks were no longer active as patrons of art, while manuscript patronage of the Ilkhanids was concentrated in the cities of Baghdad, Mosul, Hamadan and Tabriz. Labelling these manuscripts as ‘Seljuk’ (or ‘Ilkhanid’) is

late thirteenth-century konya

therefore problematic, as it obscures the complexity of the contemporary political scene in which there was no clear imperial hierarchy, but where instead viziers, governors, bureaucrats and commanders competed for dominance. While Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ was nominally a Seljuk vizier, he acted independently, acquiring territories around Afyonkarahisar, Kütahya and Ak∞ehir, which his descendants partially retained into the mid-­fourteenth century. It is therefore not wholly correct to designate the 1278 Qur’an and MasnavÈ’s patrons as ‘Seljuk’, since they were serving a virtually independent master. ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ’s patronage of al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya calls the use of dynastic labels in this context into even more doubt, as the patron was from Baghdad, while the manuscript’s production was located squarely in Konya. The manuscript is neither ‘Ilkhanid’ nor ‘Seljuk’, despite connections to both spheres. It is these sorts of nuances that can be lost if scholars do not consider dynastic labels with a more critical eye. Another reason that dynastic labels might be inappropriate in this context is the lack of evidence for a ‘Seljuk’ or ‘Ilkhanid’ atelier in medieval Konya. The colophon of the 1278 Qur’an clearly states its production location as the madrasa of Saʿd al-­DÈn Köpek. Unlike later manuscripts that were produced in identifiable workshops, such as the kitåbkhåna of the Timurid prince Båysunghur (d. 1433) in fifteenth-­ century Herat or the sixteenth-­ century Ottoman naqqåshkhåna of Istanbul, we cannot view the 1278 Qur’an as the product of an established courtly atelier. Madrasas, in addition to Sufi establishments such as shrines, zåwiyas or khånqåhs, provided settings for the copying and reading of books by scholars, dervishes and their students, particularly if they included libraries. The evidence for libraries in medieval Konya is not as extensive in comparison to contemporary Cairo or Damascus, but there is some insight to be gained from the scarce information that has survived.120 The waqfiyya for the Òplikçi Medrese, which was built in Konya in 1201–2 by the Seljuk official Shams al-­ DÈn ÅltËn Aba (d. after 1201–2), stipulates a fund of 100 silver dinars per year for the purchase of books.121 Books were to be lent to readers in exchange for a deposit to be repaid when the book was returned to the librarian (‘khåzin al-kutub’), which suggests that the madrasa functioned similarly to a public library.122 In another case, Íadr al-­DÈn al-­QËnawÈ’s (d. 1274) will stated that part of his book collection should be endowed, while his own writings should be made available to the scholarly public for study.123 While it is not clear where in Konya the 1278 MasnavÈ was produced, Mevlevi texts were produced in madrasas from an early date. A copy of Sul†ån Walad’s Ibtidånåma was copied in Mu˙arram 694 (November–December 1294) in the ‘madrasa-yi khudåvandigår’ (madrasa of the lord) by Mu˙ammad ibn Is˙åq ibn IbråhÈm al-­ LårandÈ (of Larende) al-­WaladÈ.124 ‘Khudåvandigår’ was commonly

63

64

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

but not exclusively used as an epithet for RËmÈ from the thirteenth century.125 This madrasa, which was apparently located in the same place as the sepulchral shrine, was almost certainly inherited by RËmÈ from his father, Bahåʾ al-­DÈn Walad (d. 1231).126 AflåkÈ mentions a ‘madrasa-yi khudåvandigår’ twice in his hagiography, noting that it was built by Badr al-­DÈn-­i Gawhar-­Tåsh-­i Dizdår (fortress or castle commander), tutor (‘lålå’) of ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I and master of the palace (‘uståd-i saråy’).127 The fact that RËmÈ and Bahåʾ al-­DÈn Walad preached in their own madrasa gives some insight into the relatively open religious landscape in medieval RËm and how the line between the scholarly and Sufi communities was not always clear-­cut as in the older, more established centres of Islamic learning such as Cairo or Baghdad. As Patricia Blessing has discussed, madrasas in RËm ‘seem to have been relatively flexible sites of religious instruction and interaction, where ulema [sic] and Sufis could interact and debate’.128 Although the Muslim population in Konya was probably not the minority that it once was, the region was still a frontier of the Islamic world, where multiple interpretations and practices of both Islam and Christianity existed. It is difficult to be precise about numbers, but evidence suggests that, even by the early fourteenth century, Christians still constituted a substantial part of RËm’s population. Al-­ AqsaråyÈ noted that the jizya (poll tax) paid by Christians constituted the most substantial portion of total tax revenue from the former Seljuk lands.129 The proportion of Christians probably varied from town-­to-­ town, since some places, such as Erzincan, were known in particular for their large Christian populations. Following the Seljuks’ defeat at the hands of the Mongols, the emergent ruling class, which consisted of Mongol governors, Turcoman commanders and Seljuk bureaucrats, sought support from these diverse religious groups in order to shore up their power bases and find favour with the local community. Despite the relative tolerance of the time, these dynamics, in which religious groups competed for followers, influence and resources, resulted in occasional tensions. A late thirteenth-­century text written in Kastamonu, for example, directs hostility at mendicant dervishes (Qalandars) and criticises RËm’s jurists for their laxity in tackling such unorthodoxy.130 There are several examples in AflåkÈ’s hagiography of scholars denouncing Mevlevi rituals, though AflåkÈ, of course, always depicts the Mevlevis as triumphant in such disputes.131 Generally, this unease is not clearly reflected in the illuminated manuscripts under discussion here. However, there is an instance in the 1278 MasnavÈ that appears to suggest Mevlevi acknowledgment of the potential controversy of one section of the text. The manuscript is nearly complete, as one would expect of a clean copy. However, the prose preface of Book Five has been omitted in its entirety. These prefaces precede each of

late thirteenth-century konya

the other five Books and are framed with thick, decorated borders. In lieu of these illuminated text pages, there are fully illuminated pages where the Book Five preface should appear. This omission is very unlikely to have been a mistake, since the writing, illumination and construction of the book would have constituted a major undertaking that would have been carefully supervised, especially given the manuscript’s enormous cultural importance. Inscriptions in early copies of the text, in fact, show particular care for avoiding the dissemination of errors.132 Such a mistake would have been relatively easy to rectify by pasting or sewing in additional pages. The illumination could have been added later on top of the script, but, if so, this would have taken place very soon afterwards, as the style and colour palette exactly match the rest of the manuscript’s decoration. The Book Five preface appears in full from at least 720/1320–1.133 The missing preface concerns the relationship between the sharÈʿa (Islamic law or the exoteric path) and the †arÈqa (a Sufi school or the esoteric path) and how to reach ˙aqÈqa, the ultimate Truth. It states that one can only attain ˙aqÈqa through both the sharÈʿa and the †arÈqa. To further explain, RËmÈ employs an analogy concerning alchemy: ‘[T]he sharÈʿa is akin to learning the science of alchemy from either a teacher or a book; the †arÈqa is using those remedies and rubbing copper on the philosopher’s stone; the ˙aqÈqa is the copper becoming gold’.134 There is no apparent reason why the Book Five preface has been omitted, and there is, as yet, no satisfactory explanation. It could be that some local jurists objected to the comparison of sharÈʿa to alchemy.135 Numerous medieval scholars, such as YaʿqËb ibn Is˙åq al-­KindÈ (d. c. 873), Ibn SÈnå (d. 1037), Shams al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad al-­DimashqÈ (d. 1327) and Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328), expressed objections to alchemy.136 However, it is unclear what impact these sorts of attitudes may have had on the nascent Mevlevi community. AflåkÈ uses alchemical analogies several times in his hagiography, but, in an anecdote concerning dervishes practising alchemy, the Mevlevi leader Ulu ʿÅrif ChalabÈ (d. 1320) reacts with hostility, calling them ‘donkeys’ (‘khar’).137 Perhaps the Mevlevi distinction between analogy and practice was not shared by some less sympathetic contemporaries, and the preface was omitted in order to avoid causing possible offence. This prospect also raises the question of who (other than the Mevlevis) might have been reading the manuscript and finding the passage unacceptable; again, an adequate answer is not yet forthcoming. The issue of readership is, in this context, necessarily speculative, as the lack of marginal annotations or other evidence makes reading practices challenging to trace with certainty.138 The size of the 1278 Qur’an suggests that it was not an endowment, but rather a private commission to be read exclusively by the patron. Its diminutive form and portability could indicate that it had apotropaic properties, as was the case for numerous miniature books in later periods.139

65

66

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Considering the significant amounts of illumination in the 1278 Qur’an and MasnavÈ, and the fact that both patrons were in the retinue of Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ, one also wonders whether an element of rivalry or competition played a role in the commissioning of their manuscripts.140 Given its lack of annotations and the very small number of surviving copies, the audience of al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya would have likely been limited, probably to the Seljuk court. Although it is difficult to ascertain who the precise intended readership was, the text’s dedication to Kaykhusraw III and its emphasis on the Seljuk state’s need to acknowledge the authority of the JuwaynÈs suggests that the manuscript could have been directed at the young, power-­sharing sultans, Kaykhusraw III and MasʿËd II.141 This audience could, in part, explain the didactic nature of some of the text and the particular emphasis on the ‘golden age’ of ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I as a model of good governance.142 The MasnavÈ’s monumental size, elaborate illumination and production only five years after RËmÈ’s death is a testimony to his shrine’s cultural importance. Its dedicated book stand suggests that the manuscript was probably recited in the same location. RËmÈ’s oeuvre will undoubtedly have played a central role in Mevlevi communal ritual and teaching, as is suggested by Ibn Ba††Ë†a, who noted that the inhabitants of RËm ‘exalt that book [the MasnavÈ], consider its words, teach it and recite it in their zåwiyas on Friday nights’.143 Accordingly, having a keen knowledge of the work and skill in recitation would have been necessary prerequisites for reading the text aloud.144 One Siråj al-­DÈn MathnawÈKhwån (literally, ‘one who reads/recites the MasnavÈ’) is mentioned several times by AflåkÈ and appears to have been part of RËmÈ’s inner circle.145 Another MasnavÈ reader, Tåj al-­DÈn, was appointed a vicegerent (‘khalÈfa’) in Ladik by Ulu ʿÅrif ChalabÈ.146 More generally, the MasnavÈ’s audience would likely have been diverse, as Mevlevi disciples were drawn from all walks of life. In the early modern Ottoman period, the Mevlevis had the reputation of being associated, in particular, with elites. This standing was true to an extent in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries as well.147 RËmÈ himself formed close relationships with most of the Seljuk ruling class, including the sultans KaykåwËs II (r. 1246–57) and Qilich Arslån IV (r. 1248–65/6), the statesmen Jalål al-­DÈn Qarå†åy and MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån, and the noblewoman GurjÈ KhåtËn (d. 1286), the wife of, first, Kaykhusraw II (r. 1237–46) and then MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån.148 Beyond the Seljuk elite, RËmÈ’s devotees were to be found amongst prominent Mongol officials, such as ʿArab NËyan (d. 1319), governor of Sivas, and several Turcoman commanders – ­ ­ for example, the Aydinid ruler Mubåriz al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (r. 1308–34).149 While the Mevlevi sources would, of course, want to associate RËmÈ and his followers with local power brokers to heighten his prestige, it is also the case that, in this period of political instability and relative religious tolerance, dervishes

late thirteenth-century konya

wielded a significant degree of influence over the local population, which included Christians and newly arrived Turcoman immigrants.150 Sufis living in urban centres could, therefore, be effective representatives for elites seeking power and authority. The Mevlevis also benefited from these relationships, as demonstrated by several letters written by RËmÈ to important figures of Konya, such as Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ, MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån and Siråj al-­DÈn al-­UrmawÈ, in which RËmÈ sometimes asks for funds, employment or clemency on behalf of some of his less fortunate disciples.151 These letters also show that many Mevlevi devotees were found beyond the ruling classes. Although the patronage of illuminated manuscripts was generally confined to urban locales and supported by bureaucratic or scholarly elites, restricting our view of Mevlevi activity to the urban aristocracy would be an oversimplification of the nature of the group in this period. These letters and the Mevlevi hagiographies taken together demonstrate that RËmÈ’s devotees spanned the socio-­ economic spectrum and, indeed, one anecdote shows RËmÈ becoming very angry at a Seljuk bureaucrat for disparaging the Mevlevi leader’s less privileged disciples.152 His devotees included carpenters, gold-­ beaters, perfumers, painters, butchers, cooks, tanners, hat-­ makers, merchants, musicians, at least one executioner and a former prostitute.153 We can add scribes to that list, since the calligrapher of the MasnavÈ, Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­QËnawÈ al-­WaladÈ, was a disciple (and perhaps former slave) of Sul†ån Walad.154 Other individuals connected to the artistic sphere appear to have been relatively prominent members of the early Sufi group. For example, Íalå˙ al-­DÈn FarÈdËn ibn YåghÈbasån al-­ZarkËb (the gold-­beater) al-­QËnawÈ – the father-­in-­law of Sul†ån ­Walad – ­is mentioned numerous times in Sipahsålår’s account and has an entire chapter dedicated to him by AflåkÈ.155 Painters such as Badr al-­DÈn Yawåsh-­i Naqqåsh al-­MawlawÈ, ʿAyn al-­Dawla al-­RËmÈ and KålËyån-­i Naqqåsh, as well as the architect Badr al-­DÈn-­i TabrÈzÈ, are also referred to several times (often in glowing terms) by the Mevlevi sources.156 In keeping with the mixed religious landscape during this period, RËmÈ’s devotees also included Christians or recent converts from Christianity. GurjÈ KhåtËn (literally, Georgian Lady), who was born Tamar, the daughter of Queen Rusudån of Georgia (r. 1223–45), probably converted to Islam after her first marriage to Kaykhusraw II, but maintained ties with the Christian community.157 AflåkÈ relates how GurjÈ KhåtËn commissioned a devotional portrait (‘ßËrat-gårÈ’) of RËmÈ from the (formerly) Christian ʿAyn al-­Dawla al-­RËmÈ, ‘a painter, who was the second Mani in portrait painting and the drawing of images’.158 According to the same source, RËmÈ criticises the painter for his ‘infatuation’ (‘havas’) with icons of Mary and ­Jesus – ­or, ‘images without a soul’ (‘naqsh-i bÈ-jån’) – after which the painter immediately repents and converts to Islam.159 Although

67

68

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Muslims (including converts) and Christians mixed frequently, these anecdotes perhaps highlight the tensions that remained in this diverse religious landscape. Although RËmÈ was quite willing to adopt several poses for ʿAyn al-­Dawla al-­RËmÈ’s portrait, he took issue with the painter’s inappropriate devotion to Byzantine icons of Mary and Jesus. While we might interpret this as inconsistency towards the depiction of figural art, it could instead constitute a subtle criticism of Christian attitudes towards sacred imagery.160 GurjÈ KhåtËn’s admiration rested with RËmÈ himself, while ʿAyn al-­Dawla’s lay, improperly, with the images and not their subjects. Indeed, while both RËmÈ and Ulu ʿÅrif ChalabÈ openly associated with Christian monks, AflåkÈ portrays Christians as inferior to Muslims on several occasions.161 Nevertheless, other sources reinforce the possible association between Christian and Mevlevi communities. For instance, based on reports from Byzantine chroniclers, Rustam Shukurov has suggested that Mevlevis may have performed religious rituals such as the samåʿ at the imperial palace of John VI Kantakouzenos (r. 1347–54) in Constantinople.162 There were several artists in the medieval Mevlevi milieu who were converts to Islam. Christian communities were found in Konya and several other towns in the late medieval period. These communities usually consisted of Greek Christians, but could also include Armenians and Tuscan, Genoese, Venetian and Frankish traders.163 Prominent Seljuk statesmen such as Jalål al-­DÈn Qarå†åy and AmÈn al-­DÈn MÈkåʾÈl were of Christian slave origin,164 and the wives of some Seljuk and Turcoman princes were of Byzantine Greek heritage.165 The presence of Christians in artistic life was hardly unusual, even beyond Mevlevi circles. For example, Ibn al-ʿArabÈ writes of meeting a master Byzantine painter in 1203 in Konya.166 Additionally, the signature of an architect, KalËk ibn ʿAbdallåh, possibly an Armenian convert to Islam (given his first name), is inscribed on the west side of the mosque portal (built in 1258) of Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ’s complex and the portal arch of the Ònce Minareli Medrese (built in c. 1265 by the same patron), both of which are located in Konya.167 The signature of another craftsman, KålËyån, appears in an inscription on the Gök Medrese in Sivas that was built in 1271, again by Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ.168 It is unclear whether this individual can be identified with the ‘KålËyån-­i Naqqåsh’ mentioned in Manåqib al-ʿÅrifÈn.169 The name ‘KålËyån’ also appears on several buildings that were constructed in the early fourteenth century.170 Christians were almost certainly involved in the production of Arabic and Persian manuscripts in RËm. This involvement has already been suggested above concerning the prominence of large pointed oval frontispieces in Konya manuscripts. Beyond Konya, an illuminated Arabic copy of Ibn SÈnå’s Kitåb al-Shifåʾ was produced for a Christian physician and copied by a Christian scribe. This manuscript was begun in Maragha in 671 (1272–3) and completed in Harput

late thirteenth-century konya

Figure 1.35  Illuminated bifolio, Kitåb al-Shifåʾ, Maragha and Harput, 1275–6, SK, Ayasofya 2442, fols 1b–2a.

(now known as Elazı© in present-­day eastern Turkey) in 674 (1275– 6).171 According to the manuscript’s Arabic colophon, it was copied by AmÈn al-­DÈn MåniyËl (Immanuel, perhaps)172 for Bukhtanaßar ibn AmÈn al-­Dawla ShamʿËn al-­Muta†abbib (Nebuchadnezzar, son of the guardian of the state, Simeon, the physician) of Rumkale.173 The manuscript contains an illuminated headpiece and a partially obscured illuminated panel that is a dedication to the patron (fig. 1.35). These look considerably different from each other, and it is probable that the headpiece was completed in Maragha, while the damaged dedication was executed in Harput. Nebuchadnezzar was the son of Simeon of Rumkale (d. 1289), who was a respected physician-­ priest of the Syriac Orthodox Church that served HËlagË (r. 1256–65) in Maragha.174 Simeon and Nebuchadnezzar were members of a prominent ecclesiastical family that included the Patriarch Philoxenus Nemrod (d. 1292).175 Simeon was also a close contemporary of the famous Barhebraeus (d. 1286), Maphrian of the East of the Syriac Orthodox Church.176 The identity of the patron connects the production of the book to the Syriac ecclesiastical-­ medical communities of Rumkale and Maragha, where the works of many Islamic scholars, such as Ibn SÈnå, were popular. Maragha, notable in particular for being the location of a

69

70

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

prestigious observatory built by HËlagË in 1259,177 was an active intellectual centre where literary exchange between Muslim and Christian authors was not unusual.178 There is also evidence to suggest a limited amount of exchange between Christian and Muslim painters in the field of illustration. Some images in a copy of Daqåʾiq al-Óaqåʾiq, an unilluminated Persian work on astrology and magic, contain iconographical features that share an affinity with Christian imagery.179 This work was written by the geomancer and court astrologer Nåßir al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn IbråhÈm ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­Rammål (the geomancer) al-­MuʿaΩΩim (the magician) al-­ SåʿatÈ al-­HaykalÈ,180 also known as NåßirÈ, and was dedicated to Kaykhusraw III.181 Two inscriptions note that the manuscript was copied in Aksaray on 10 Rama∂ån 670 (10 April 1272) and Kayseri in mid-­Shawwål 671 (early May 1273).182 The representation of the angel ShamhËrash, for example, shares some similarities with depictions of Byzantine ‘equestrian dragon-­slaying saints’ and thirteenth-­century Byzantine wall paintings in Cappadocia (fig. 1.36).183 Elements of dress, such as the women’s headgear on folio 17a and the rider’s boots on folio 18a are ‘Crusader’ in style.184 Marianne Barrucand also notes the use of pouncing in the manuscript, which was a well-­established technique in Byzantine ateliers

Figure 1.36  The angel ShamhËrash, Daqåʾiq al-Óaqåʾiq, Aksaray and Kayseri, 1273, BNF, Persan 174, fol. 83a.

late thirteenth-century konya

by the late thirteenth century.185 There is no evidence of pouncing in any other Islamic manuscripts discussed here. Conclusion This chapter has discussed manuscript production in Konya in the 1270s and 1280s through two key manuscripts, the 1278 Qur’an and 1278 MasnavÈ, as well as a circa 1282 copy of al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya. Manuscript production in this period was varied in terms of size and decoration, although scripts in several instances seem to demonstrate a reasonable degree of similarity to each other (apart from the mu˙aqqaq script of the undated Qur’an juzʾ). In the MasnavÈ, we have an important early example of quarter-‘BaghdådÈ’-sized paper. Illumination was also sophisticated, using mainly blue and gold (but also red and green in the 1278 MasnavÈ). However, the general standard of execution was not as meticulous as examples seen in contemporary imperial Ilkhanid manuscripts, for example. While there are some connections to illumination produced in tenth- to thirteenth-­ century medieval Persia, the means of transmission remain unclear, although we can assume that travelling artists must have played some role in this respect. The large pointed oval frontispiece is one motif that may have come from Persia or been inspired by its usage in contemporary Christian art. In addition to the distinctive pointed oval, there are specific motifs and patterns (such as cartouches flanked by strapwork or alternating circle-­and-­pointed-­oval borders) that seem to have been particularly favoured by the illuminator of the 1278 Qur’an and MasnavÈ. These relatively unusual motifs are immensely helpful in identifying further manuscripts that were probably produced in RËm, such as the undated Sackler Qur’an juzʾ. The motifs also appear in several additional manuscripts from the fourteenth century and, together, suggest the formation of a local ‘school’ of illumination, as I discuss in the next chapter. In this period, manuscripts were copied in madrasas and shrines. Such material sometimes formed endowments (waqfs) and could play a part in religious rituals, while other examples were made for personal use. The illuminator of the 1278 manuscripts may have been from South Asia according to his nisba of ‘al-­HindÈ’, while the scribes of the 1278 manuscripts and al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya were from Konya and Kayseri respectively, indicating that both local and migrant artists participated in illuminated manuscript production. The scribe of the MasnavÈ, Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­QËnawÈ al-­WaladÈ, was also a disciple (and, possibly, former slave) of Sul†ån Walad. The manuscripts from 1278 were both commissioned by members of the retinue of the Seljuk vizier Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ, while al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya was commissioned by the Ilkhanid governor of Baghdad, ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ. From this early stage, it is clear that the Mevlevis had an essential role in the production and patronage

71

72

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

of illuminated copies of Mevlevi texts. As further chapters elucidate, evidence for this continues throughout the fourteenth century. Although the Seljuk sultans were not active patrons of illuminated manuscripts, it appears that patronage remained confined to elite political circles, not least because of the considerable expenses associated with manuscript production.186 The specific affiliations of the patrons also reflect the change in power dynamics in Konya. The resources available to courtiers of Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ emphasise his eminent status in the late thirteenth century, while the involvement of ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ in the production of Ibn BÈbÈ’s text highlights the impact (however piecemeal) of Ilkhanid authority in RËm. Finally, there is also some evidence to demonstrate the involvement of Christian scribes and patrons in the creation of illuminated manuscripts beyond Konya, on the eastern fringes of RËm. Against a backdrop of diminishing Seljuk power and relatively distant Ilkhanid rule, the endurance of regional trade routes and the rise of ambitious bureaucrats and religious figures to fill the power vacuum ensured that Konya remained a regional hub of economic, political, cultural and, indeed, artistic activity in the late medieval period. The visual aspects of these manuscripts do not reflect the contemporary turmoil within the political sphere. This material, instead, presents a picture of an affluent and intellectually engaged elite class at the sub-­dynastic level. This context for manuscript production was only encouraged by Konya’s existing ethnic and religious diversity and the migration of itinerant artists and intellectuals, both of which fostered an atmosphere of learning. The cultural and visual exchange that occurred as a result of such cosmopolitanism indicates that modern geographical, dynastic and ethnic classifications, such as ‘Turkish’, ‘Seljuk’ or ‘Persianate’, are not readily applicable to manuscripts like the 1278 MasnavÈ. Such material defies easy categorisation. In evaluations of artistic material, it is important to pay close attention towards these subtle details, particularly in cultural and religious landscapes that were profoundly mixed. Additionally, scholars must, in certain situations such as these, try to move beyond dynastic or geographic frameworks that are not always particularly illuminating. Notes

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Melville 2009: 54. Ocak 2015. Ibn BÈbÈ 1956: fols 628–9. Ibid: fol. 657; al-­AqsaråyÈ 1944: 74. Amitai-­Preiss 1995: 151–2. Ibid: 163–4. Ibid: 167. Ibid: 159–68.

late thirteenth-century konya

9. Ibid: 174–5 10. Melville 2009: 70–1. 11. Contemporary sources mention both June and September 1277 (Amitai-­Preiss 1995: 177). 12. Melville 2009: 71. 13. Ibid: 70. See also Peacock 2019: 147–87 (particularly 147–8) and Yıldız 2006: 42–7; 2012a, who argue that some Turkish nationalist scholarship has overstated the importance of the language declaration. 14. Anonymous 1952: 42, 64. 15. RËm, as a periphery of the Ilkhanid state, was seen by senior Mongol rebels as ‘an excellent base from which to bid for independence’ (Melville 2009: 73). Throughout the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, several Mongol amÈrs, such as BåltË, Sulåmish and TÈmËrtåsh, rebelled against central authority. 16. Anonymous 1952: 44–5, 66. 17. Ibid: 47, 69. 18. Melville 2009: 76. 19. The madrasa system, however, may still have been relatively underdeveloped, as many local scholars travelled abroad to complete their education. RËmÈ, for example, studied in Aleppo and Damascus before returning to Konya (Lewis 2008: 109–12). 20. As Howard Crane has noted, royal Seljuk architecture mostly consisted of military constructions, palaces and caravanserais, while the military-­bureaucratic elite were (comparatively) responsible for the establishment of mosques, madrasas and tombs (Crane 1993). 21. Blessing 2014: 21–67. The buildings financed by Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ are particularly noteworthy for the richness and inventiveness of their surface decoration. His endowments include the Sahipata Han in Sultanda©ı (1249–50), the Ta∞ Medrese in Ak∞ehir (1250), the Sahip Ata Külliyesi in Konya (1258–83), the Ònce Minareli Medrese in Konya (c. 1265), the Sahibiye Medrese in Kayseri (1267) and the Gök Medrese in Sivas (1271). 22. Zeren Tanındı and Filiz Ça©man have discussed the role of the early Mevlevis in illuminated manuscript production, but their research needs further contextualisation taking into account a more comprehensive cultural history of the period (Tanındı 1990a; 2000; 2001; 2007; 2012; Ça©man and Tanındı 2005). 23. Appendix: cat. 1. 24. CBL, Is.1466, fols 329b–330a. The madrasa is no longer extant. Ibn BÈbÈ 1956: fol. 353. Tanındı 2001: 141–50; Wright 2009: 72; Canby et al. 2016: cat. 185. The manuscript makes no mention of Köpek’s controversial ‘reign of terror’ during the reign of Ghiyåth al-­DÈn Kaykhusraw II (r. 1237–46). On this affair, see Yıldız 2013. 25. Appendix: cat. 2. MMK, 51, fol. 325b. The manuscript has been published in facsimile without its full-­page illuminations (Mevlânâ Müzesi 1992). Tanındı 1990a; 2001; Ettinghausen et al. 2001 (where the date, scribe’s name, number of folios and corresponding image are incorrect); Gölpınarlı 2003: 45–55; Blair 2006: 366–9; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 72–87; Gacek 2011a. This scribe also completed an unilluminated copy of Ibn Barrajån’s (d. 1141) Sha˙r al-Asmåʾ al-Óusnå in 667/1268 (YAK, 5084). The manuscript was stolen in 2000, and its current whereabouts are unknown. Thank you to Òdris Akman for this information and photographs of the manuscript.

73

74

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

26. Lewis 2008: 304. For published versions, see RËmÈ 1925–40; 1981–4; 1981–95; 1994; 1998–9; 2004–17; 2006. 27. There is an earlier dated copy of Book Six, but the text is disordered and incomplete. It dates to 4 Íafar 674 (30 July 1275). DAK, 6264 (RËmÈ 1925–40: III, xiv). Çetin (1961: 101, cat. 1) mentions a manuscript of Books Three and Four dated to 20 Shaʿbån 670, but Gölpınarlı (1971: 89–90) points out that the date is actually 760 (1359). 28. The nisba ‘al-­HindÈ’ is omitted from the colophon of the Qur’an (fols 329b–330a), but not the MasnavÈ (fol. 325b). Jackson 2019; ­forthcoming-­a. 29. Bloom 2001: 53; Blair 2006: 367. 30. AflåkÈ 1961: I, 556; 2002: 385; Blair 2006: 367. Sheila Blair suggests that, because of its particular size, the paper was probably made in Tabriz. See Chapter 3 for more on the study of Anatolian paper. Another type of paper (‘kåghid-i makhzanÈ’), perhaps from the Mevlevi or Seljuk treasury, is also mentioned by AflåkÈ (1961: I, 425; 2002: 293). 31. Blair 2000: 25. 32. Under the Ilkhanids, works of literature were more often copied in a six-­column format (Wright 2012: 126). See also ibid: 352n7, where Wright notes that the four-­column text block format was used in early fourteenth-­century Konya. 33. Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence, Magl.Cl.III.24. This m ­ anuscript – t­ he earliest dated copy of FirdawsÈ’s Shåhnåma – was produced in 1217 and may have been produced in RËm, since it contains Turkish glosses (Piemontese 1980; Blair 2006: 400n4). 34. Appendix: cats 9–10, 13–15. See also, for example, SK, Ayasofya 2984 (Jackson 2017a); MK, Afyon Gedik Ahmet Pa∞a Òl Halk Kütüphanesi 17769 (Jackson 2019). 35. Déroche 2005: 207–19; Gacek 2009: 162–5. 36. Despite extensive searching, I have not come across clear overlaps in style between manuscript and architectural inscriptions in RËm. This, of course, does not preclude the possibility that scribes worked on architectural inscriptions, as was common in many other contexts. 37. Gacek 2011a. 38. Gacek 2011b. 39. Blair 2006: 369; Gacek 2009: 166. 40. The only other securely identified example of a double-shamsa finispiece that I have come across is from a Mamluk Qur’an produced in Cairo, c. 1306–10. James 1999: fig. 28 (cat. 4, not cat. 1 as labelled). A double-shamsa finispiece also occurs in a manuscript that I discuss in Chapter 4. 41. The terms ʿunwån (literally, heading or title) and sar-law˙ (literally, head-­board) are sometimes used in primary and secondary sources to refer to headpieces and full-­page illuminations, respectively. However, their usage and meanings are not consistent, so I will avoid employing them here (Gacek 2009: 120). 42. Tanındı 1990a: 20. 43. Déroche 1992: 132–7. 44. James ascribes this manuscript to Persia or the Jazira, c. 1000–50, on the basis of its close resemblance to the Ibn al-­Bawwåb Qur’an produced in 391/1000–1 (CBL, Is.1431). James 1992a: 24–7, cat. 1; Wright 2009: 124–33. 45. In addition to the illustrated images, see Ettinghausen et al. 2001: fig.

late thirteenth-century konya

430; Adamova and Bayani 2015: cat. 1; Farhad and Rettig 2016: 162–5, 174–5, cats 13, 16. For illuminated manuscripts in this period generally, see Karame 2016. 46. James 1992a: 44–8, cat. 7. 47. Wright 2009: 124–33. 48. MaʿånÈ 1975: 58–9. See also Karame 2016: ch. 4, pls 22–4. 49. See, for example, MMA, 33.118 and Benaki Museum, Athens, 9243. Respectively, see Canby et al. 2016: fig. 119 and (last accessed 25 February 2019). Architecturally, the Divri©i Mosque and Hospital is well-­known for its highly ornate surface decoration. 50. On medieval Anatolian woodwork and architectural decoration, see Riefstahl 1933; Aga-­Oglu 1938; Öney 1978; 1989; Demiriz 1979; Özbek 2002; Ölçer 2005; Bozer 2007. 51. For example, MMA, 56.144. Available at (last accessed 25 February 2019). On Anatolian metalwork, see Rice 1955; Allan 1978; Melikian-­Chirvani 1985; Öney 1989; Ölçer 2005; Canby et al. 2016. 52. For the former, see Ben Azzouna 2018: pl. 14B. For the latter, see WAM, W.559, available at (last accessed 22 February 2019). See Ben Azzouna 2018: pl. 21 for another possible precedent for these geometrically irregular motifs. 53. James 1999: fig. 144. 54. Ibid: 212–13. 55. Ibid: 152, 202–4. 56. See notes 60–1 in the Introduction. 57. FAS, S1986.25. 58. Lowry et al. 1988: 16–17, no. 4. Thank you to Simon Rettig for this reference. 59. This inscription on fol. 175b notes the manuscript’s endowment to the TaylËniyya/TÈlËniyya Madrasa (built 1398–9) in Jerusalem by Mu˙ammad SaʿÈd ʿAlÈ (al-­Kha†Èb 2013: 55n3). The inscription is on paper watermarked with an encircled ladder topped by a six-­pointed star. This paper provides a terminus post quem of the fifteenth or sixteenth century (Briquet 1907: II, 345). 60. The other manuscript written in mu˙aqqaq script that was produced in Konya is a Qur’an copied for a Qaramanid patron. This manuscript will be discussed in detail in Chapter 2. For several other manuscripts probably from RËm copied in mu˙aqqaq, see Jackson 2017a; forthcoming-­a. 61. Farhad and Rettig 2016: 202–5, cat. 24. 62. Ibid: 196–200, cat. 23. For specialist letterform terms, see Gacek 2009: Appendix II. 63. Nebes 1997: 131; Jackson 2017a; 2019. See also SK, Ayasofya 4824, fol. 20a, which is an undated (but likely a late thirteenth-­century) copy of a majmuʿ by ʿAyn al-­Qu∂åt HamadånÈ (d. 1131), dedicated to MuΩaffar al-­DÈn (possibly MuΩaffar al-­DÈn Yavlak Arslån of Kastamonu, r. before 1290–2). On this manuscript, see Ünver 1970: 18. See also figs 1.29–1.30. 64. MMA, 46.156.17. Available at (last accessed 25 February 2019). 65. James 1982: fig. 37.1; Tanındı 1991: fig. 1; Richard 1997: cats 28, 37;

75

76

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Chaigne 2012: fig. 2. See also a late thirteenth-­century example in Ben Azzouna 2018: pl. 23. 66. Sotheby’s, Lot 14, Sale LN6647, Oriental Manuscripts and Miniatures, 16 October 1996. The accompanying catalogue attributes it to the eleventh century. Its current location is unknown. 67. Carr 1982: 3–20, figs 7–8. 68. The manuscript was copied and illuminated by BukhtÈshËʿ in the Monastery of Mår ʿAzÈza; Jackson 2019. 69. Grabar 1968; Mango 1993–4; Hagstrom 1998. 70. Todorova 2013; 2016, for example. 71. Todorova 2013: 292. 72. The church was initially constructed in 1077–81, but the mandorlas were added during Theodore Metochites’ decoration of the interior in 1315–21; Ousterhout 1987. 73. Cantone 2011. See also Grabar 1955. 74. Gruber 2009; Blair 2016. 75. Gruber 2009: 230. 76. Although literally meaning ‘servant’ or ‘attendant’, this word also acquired the meaning of ‘eunuch’ (Wensinck 2012). Considering that Jamål al-­DÈn was a freed slave, it is entirely possible that he was also a eunuch. It was not unknown for eunuchs to be involved in illuminated manuscript production, as in the case of the eunuch AbË Bakr, also known as Íandal (sandalwood), who illuminated the 704–5/1304–6 Qur’an of the Mamluk ruler Rukn al-­DÈn Baybars al-­JåshnigÈr (r. 1309– 10). BL, Add. MS. 22406–12 (James 1999: cat. 1). 77. Temir 1959: 80. The waqfiyya concerns the Caca Bey Medrese in Kır∞ehir (Pfeiffer 2015). NËr al-­DÈn ibn Jåjå was the governor of Kır∞ehir. 78. Yıldız 2006: 462–3; Appendix: cat. 2. See n. 81 below. 79. AflåkÈ 1961: I, 427; 2002: 294. 80. Many thanks to Jan Hagedorn for his thoughts regarding the possible slave identities of several artists and patrons mentioned in this book. 81. Cahen notes that the head of the chamberlains was primarily an army general (1968: 223). 82. The title kadkhudå was used in RËm from the thirteenth century (Turan 1958: 13). In the Ilkhanid realm, the term was used to designate a village’s representative concerning governmental affairs (Orhonlu et al. 2012). Another ‘kadkhudå’ of Konya is mentioned by AflåkÈ (1961: II, 839; 2002: 586). 83. Bayram and Karabacak 1981: 39. 84. Anonymous 1952: 92. According to Ibn BÈbÈ, the chåshnÈgÈr or jåshnigÈr was of the same rank as the amÈr-majlis (master of ceremonies) – one of the highest dignitaries in the RËm Seljuk court (Ibn BÈbÈ 1956: fol. 164). Cahen notes that this ‘honorific’ role was usually held in conjunction with another high office (1968: 223). If this is the Qur’an’s patron, perhaps he was promoted over the years. 85. Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ’s retinue probably included scribes (thank you to Scott Redford for this suggestion). The calligrapher of a 680/1281 copy of Book One of RËmÈ’s MasnavÈ (SK, Nafiz Pa∞a 670) is mentioned in the same 1281 waqfiyya where Sayf al-­DÈn Sunqur’s name is found. The scribe’s name is IsmåʿÈl ibn Sulaymån al-ÓåfiΩ al-­QayßarÈ (Bayram and Karabacak 1981: 41) 86. SK, Ayasofya 3879. This is an undated copy of the Arabic DÈvån of Ibn

late thirteenth-century konya

al-­Fåri∂ (d. 1234). It includes a simple framed pointed oval frontispiece dedication, twenty headpieces and a framed colophon (fol. 73b) that names the scribe as IsmåʿÈl ibn YËsuf al-Óajj (sic: al-Óåjj) (possibly the same scribe as the 1314–15 Qur’an discussed in Chapter 2). Based on its appearance, the manuscript was very likely produced in Konya before the patron died in 1288. On this manuscript, see Ünver 1970: 10; Peacock 2019: pl. 10. Plate 9 of the latter is also apparently a manuscript dedicated to Fakhr al-­DÈn, but the illumination is much more characteristic of contemporary Persia (my thanks to Elaine Wright for her thoughts on this). 87. This attendant was Yatarmish(?) ibn ʿAbdallåh al-Íå˙ibÈ (RCEA 12, no. 4770). The patronage of art and architecture by (former) slaves was not particularly unusual in Islamic history, particularly when we consider the vast achievements of the Mamluk dynasty of Egypt and Syria (1250–1517) and the power that Ottoman palace eunuchs could accrue. See, for example, Tanındı 2004. 88. MMK, 332. Riefstahl 1933; Ölçer 2005. Thank you to Zarifa Alikperova for sharing her copy of fig. 1.31 with me. 89. Riefstahl 1933. There are surviving partial wood carvings with figural decoration that may have been attached to book stands. See Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo, no. 3391, available at (last accessed 28 February 2019). As far as I know, this example is the only surviving Islamic book stand featuring figural motifs. AflåkÈ suggests that the Mas-navÈ possessed a dedicated book stand that resided in the shrine (1961: II, 923; 2002: 646). This may be a reference to the specific stand discussed here. Thanks to Zarifa Alikperova for this citation. 90. Öney 1969: 208; Peker 1999; Yalman 2012. 91. Redford 2005: 291. See also Yalman 2011: 63–76; 2012: 182, n. 86; Ça©aptay 2018 for some recent discussions on the double-­headed eagle. 92. Redford 2013a. I am grateful to Scott Redford for sharing the text of his conference paper with me. 93. MMK, 400. Ölçer 2005: Cat. 70. Double-­headed eagles and lions also appear together on other metalwork and medieval woven silks. See, respectively, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 547-­1899, which is discussed in Melikian-­Chirvani 1982: 361–3 and Kuehn 2011: fig. 156, for example. 94. Schimmel 1989: 8. 95. The ShåfiʿÈ jurist, AbË ʿAbdallåh ÍåfÈ al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad al-­HindÈ al-­UrmawÈ (d. 1315), who was born near Delhi, spent a total of seventeen years in RËm (Çelebi 1998: 66–7). It appears that the nisba of ‘al-­UrmawÈ’ derives from his teacher, Siråj al-­DÈn al-UrmawÈ (d. 1283), another migrant ShåfiʿÈ scholar living in Konya. There was also one Sharaf al-­DÈn-­i HindÈ, a khwåja who was a contemporary of RËmÈ’s known for bringing back ‘strange and wondrous merchandise’ (‘matåʿhå-yi gharÈb va ʿajÈb’) from India to Konya (AflåkÈ 1961: I, 91; 2002: 67). The nisba of ‘al-­HindÈ’ might signify that the illuminator was of Hindustani heritage, rather than a migrant from the region (thank you to Saqib Baburi for this suggestion). 96. It is unclear where precisely the name ‘ChËbån’ originates, but the most well-­known contemporary owners of the name were the Mongol Chubanid dynasty (1335–57), who established a successor state to the Ilkhanids.

77

78

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

97. Unilluminated manuscripts with a definitively RËmÈ origin were produced by scribes from Konya, Larende (Karaman), Sivas and Kayseri. All are mentioned in this chapter. 98. Two ­manuscripts – o ­ ne with a minimal amount of i­ llumination – w ­ ere produced by a scribe from Bukhara. BNF, Supplément persan 1442 (Blochet 1934: 13–14; Benouniche 1995: 66); Persan 121 (Richard 1989: 138–9; 1997: cat. 5). See also n. 95 (Chapter 2) and n. 52 (Chapter 3). 99. ʿA†å-Malik, for example, funded the two largest madrasas in B ­ aghdad – ­the Mustanßiriyya (1269) and the NiΩåmiyya (1277) – while his brother built the Çifte Minareli Medrese in Sivas (1271–2). 100. Appendix: cat. 3. SK, Ayasofya 2985. Ünver 1970; Algaç 2000: 61–2; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 88. On the text, see Ibn BÈbÈ 1956; Yıldız 2006; Melville 2006: 137–44. 101. Yıldız 2006: 442. 102. Ibn BÈbÈ 1956: fol. 742; Yıldız 2006: 474. 103. Yıldız 2006: 503. 104. Ibid: 520. 105. Ibid: 447. 106. Ibn BÈbÈ 1956: fol. 10; Yıldız 2006: 448. 107. Yıldız 2006: 448. 108. Ibn BÈbÈ 1956: fols 442–6. 109. Duda 2012. 110. This later Persian abridgement, the Mukhtaßar-i SaljËqnåma, was copied in 1284–5 (BNF, Supplément persan 1536). Yıldız 2006: 474. 111. Ibn BÈbÈ 1956: fol. 735. 112. Yıldız 2006: 476. 113. The Injuids being one of the Ilkhanids’ successor states. They ruled over Shiraz and Isfahan from 1325 to 1357. See Wright 2012. 114. BNF, Arabe 2964. Available at (last accessed 28 February 2019). See also Wright 2012: 10. 115. BNF, Arabe 6041. Available at (last accessed 28 February 2019). 116. Karame 2016: ch. 7, pl. 13 117. Yıldız 2006: 478. 118. Ibid: 481. In medieval architectural inscriptions, a dedication to the local ruler by the actual patron is common. This manuscript may be a case of something similar happening in a different medium. 119. Jackson 2017a; 2019; forthcoming-­a. 120. Hirschler 2012: 138–9. 121. Turan 1947. For comparison, the mutawallÈ (caretaker) earned 400 dinars per year, the mudarris (teacher) 800 dinars and the muʾadhdhin (leader of the call to prayer) 100 dinars. 122. Ibid: 202. 123. YAK, 4883. See Chittick 1978. Many of Íadr al-­DÈn’s books and writings remain housed in the Yusuf A©a Kütüphanesi in Konya. 124. SK, Hacı Mahmud Efendi 2206. 125. See, for example, several inscriptions in cats 9 and 14 in the Appendix. 126. Önder 1998: 154, 319, 381. 127. AflåkÈ 1961: I, 43–4, 303, II, 701; 2002: 33–4, 209, 486. Badr al-­DÈn apparently became the amÈr-i silå˙ (master of arms) in 1262. Cahen 1988: 183, 252. 128. Blessing 2014: 30. See ibid: 30–8 for an excellent discussion of the

late thirteenth-century konya

interplay between religion and architecture in late thirteenth-­century RËm. 129. Al-­AqsaråyÈ 1944: 153. Cited by Küçükhüseyin 2013: 246. 130. De Nicola 2016. 131. AflåkÈ 1961: I, 89, 295–6, II, 578–9; 2002: 66, 204–5, 396. 132. Lewis 2008: 307. This is stated in the waqf note of the 1278 MasnavÈ (Appendix: cat. 2). A copy of Book Three of RËmÈ’s MasnavÈ from 717/1317 completed in Cairo contains a later Persian inscription that outlines how NiΩåm al-­DÈn al-­ArzinjånÈ al-­MawlawÈ checked the manuscript against the ‘true copy’ (‘nuskha-yi ßa˙È˙’, which is almost certainly the 1278 MasnavÈ) in the ‘madrasa-yi khudåvandigår Mavlånå’ in Konya in 723/1323 (SK, Nafiz Pa∞a 658, fol. 2a). NiΩåm al-­DÈn was AflåkÈ’s teacher (‘uståz’). AflåkÈ 1961: II, 898; 2002: 628. 133. Mahir and Yıldız 2013: fig. 7. A few fourteenth-­century manuscripts of the MasnavÈ omit the fifth preface. Dated examples include a 738/1337 copy (SZB, Minutoli 21, see Pertsch 1888: 784–5), a 744/1344 copy (BSM, Cod. pers. 35, see Aumer 1866: 14, cat. 35) and a 774/1373 copy (SK, Halet Efendi 171, see Tanındı 2000: 521n6, Demircan Aksoy 2011: 209–29; Jackson, forthcoming-­b). The 1373 copy is illustrated in fig. 4.39, where the preface has been added by a later owner. There is also an undated copy currently in the Sam Fogg collection missing the fifth preface. Sincere thanks to Andrew Butler-­Wheelhouse for allowing me to examine this manuscript. None of these manuscripts mention a production location. Additionally, there are five unilluminated copies of the text that date from 687/1288, 695/1295–6, 711/1311–12, 714/1314 and 718/1319. These may contain the Book Five preface, but I have not yet been able to verify this. The 1288 and 1314 manuscripts, respectively, are MMK, 1193 and MMK, 1457. See Gölpınarlı 2003: 255–6, 272–4. The 1295–6 and 1319 manuscripts are, respectively, BL, Or. 7693 and BL, Or. 5602. See Meredith-­Owens 1968: 66, 68. The 1311–12 manuscript is unpublished (SK, Hüsrev Pa∞a 184). 134. ‘sharÈʿat hamchËn ʿilm-i kÈmiyåʾ åmËkhtan-ast yå az ustådÈ yå az kitåb va †arÈqat istiʿmål kardan-i ån dårË-hå va mis-rå dar kÈmiyåʾ målÈdan va ˙aqÈqat zar shudan-i mis’. MMK, 1177, fols 193b–194a. 135. Thanks to A. C. S. Peacock for this suggestion, and also to Jawid Mojaddedi and Ahmet Karamustafa for their thoughts. 136. Ullmann 2012; Forster 2016. 137. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 893; 2002: 625. 138. Hirschler 2012. 139. See, for example, Coffey 2009. Of course, not all small books acted as amulets. 140. Thank you to Saqib Baburi for this suggestion. 141. Yıldız 2006: 593–4. 142. Ibid: 592. 143. ‘yuʿaΩΩimËna dhålika al-kitåb wa-yaʿtaribËna kalåmhu, wa-yu ʿallimËnahu wa-yaqraʾËnahu bi-zawåyåhum fÈ layålÈ al-jumaʿåt’. Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 283–4; 1962: 431 (note that Gibb’s translation is slightly incorrect). 144. Lewis 2008: 432. It is unclear what precisely the samåʿ consisted of in this period. Binba∞ 2005: 58–61; Gölpınarlı 1963: 78–94. 145. AflåkÈ 1961: I, 162–3, 222, 272, II, 583, 597, 738–9, 745, 752, 761, 773, 790, 829, 832, 880; 2002: 113–14, 154, 189, 400, 409, 514, 516, 520, 525, 530–1, 539, 551, 579, 581, 615.

79

80

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

146. 147. 148. 149. 150.

AflåkÈ 1961: II, 935; 2002: 654. Masters 2009: 377; Peacock 2012. Lewis 2008: 277–83. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 855, 947; 2002: 597, 663–4. This was made clear in the earlier part of the century, with the BåbåʾÈ revolt (c. 1240), in which dervishes, Christians and Turcomans rebelled against the Seljuk state and its ʿulamåʾ. 151. RËmÈ 1992: 9, 10, 12, 15–16, 37, 40, 51, 113–15. 152. AflåkÈ 1961: I, 151; 2002: 105–6. 153. AflåkÈ 1961: I, 150, 231, 333, 373, 375, 384, 426, 437, 476, 552–3, II, 605, 709–10, 894–5, 933; 2002: 105, 161, 231, 258, 259–60, 265, 294, 301, 329, 382–3, 415, 431, 494–5, 625–6, 653. See also Küçükhüseyin 2013. 154. There were almost certainly more scribes amongst RËmÈ’s early devotees. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 701; 2002: 486. 155. Sipahsålår 2007: 40, 105, 128, 134–6, 138, 140, 142; AflåkÈ 1961: II, 704–36; 2002: 490–513. 156. Sipahsålår 2007: 39–40, 93–4; AflåkÈ 1961: I, 74, 141–2, 190, 193–4, 244, 387, 389, 425, 552–3; 2002: 55, 99–100, 132, 134–5, 170, 267–8, 292–3, 382–3. 157. Peacock 2006: 141; De Nicola 2014: 149. GurjÈ KhåtËn makes many appearances in AflåkÈ’s hagiography and apparently helped to fund the initial construction of RËmÈ’s tomb with her second husband, MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån (1961: II, 792; 2002: 552–3). 158. ‘naqqåshÈ bËd ki dar ßËrat-garÈ va taßvÈr-i mußavvaråt MånÈ-yi sånÈ bËd’ (AflåkÈ 1961: I, 425; 2002: 292–3). AflåkÈ describes the conversion of ʿAyn al-­Dawla al-­RËmÈ from Christianity to Islam in another anecdote, but it is unclear whether this event took place before or after he produced the portrait of RËmÈ for GurjÈ KhåtËn (AflåkÈ 1961: I, 552–3; 2002: 382–3). See also Eastmond 2007. 159. AflåkÈ 1961: I, 552–3; 2002: 382–3. 160. See, for example, Galavaris 1981. 161. AflåkÈ 1961: I, 80–1, 294, 551–2, II, 904–5; 2002: 60, 203–4, 381–2, 632; Küçükhüseyin 2013: 249. 162. Shukurov 2016: 375–6. 163. Cahen 1968: 164–7, 204–15; Vryonis 1971: 143–244; Fleet 2009; Pfeiffer 2015: 313. Although the Jewish population would have been much smaller, there was a Jewish quarter in Konya (AflåkÈ 1961: II, 621; 2002: 427). 164. Vryonis 1971: 243. 165. Ibid: 466. On Seljuk and Byzantine intermarriage, see Bryer 1981; Tekinalp 2009; Yıldız 2011; Shukurov 2012. On women in medieval RËm, see Taheri 2013; De Nicola 2014; Redford 2015. 166. Uyar 2015: 217. 167. Durukan 1999: 279. For the possible Armenian roots of the name ‘KalËk’, see Redford 2013b: 329n31. 168. ‘KålËyån’ appears in fourteenth-­ century Persian sources in association with John II Komnenos (r. 1118–43), who was known as ‘Kaloioannes’ or ‘Good John’ (Anonymous 1952: 42; see Yürekli 2012: 105–6). 169. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 552; 2002: 382. 170. The Kö∞k Medrese in Kayseri (built 1339), the Emir Sahap Türbesi in Kayseri (built 1327–8) and the Ulu Camii of Bünyan (built 1333). Yürekli 2012: 106–7. Yürekli speculates that the same artist may also

late thirteenth-century konya

have been responsible for the early fourteenth-­century portals in the shrine of ÓåjjÈ Bekta∞ in Hacıbekta∞, central Turkey. 171. SK, Ayasofya 2442, fol. 1a. On this manuscript, see also Borbone 2017 and Celli 2017–18. 172. In another inscription on fol. 1a that is in a different hand, AmÈn al-­DÈn is described as a commentator (shåri˙) of Ibn SÈnå’s al-Ishåråt wa-lTanbÈhåt and Siråj al-­DÈn al-­UrmawÈ’s Bayån al-Óaqq. ‘Immanuel’ and its variants are not common in the Syriac-­speaking context, and it is possible that he was a member of the Melkite or Greek Orthodox churches. Sincere thanks to Hidemi Takahashi for this information and the references in notes 174–5 below. Celli notes that it is possible that AmÈn al-­DÈn was Bukhtanaßar’s brother (2017–18: 308–9). 173. Known as ‘Qalʿat al-­RËm’ in Arabic and ‘Hromkla’ in Armenian, this fortress is 48km north-­east of Gaziantep and was home to the Armenian catholicos (bishop) and other Christian communities until 1292 (Honigmann and Bosworth 2012). Some of Rumkale’s physician-­ priests were very highly regarded at the Ilkhanid court. I am very grateful to David G. K. Taylor for translating the Syriac portion of the colophon, which reads: ‘He wrote, [namely] Nebuchadnezzar son of Simeon, and to God be pr[aise]’. See also Ünver 1948: 644. 174. Takahashi 2001: 49. The family connection is confirmed in a Syriac inscription on folio 24b of a miscellany of Sinaitic fragments (Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City, Syr. 647). The inscription reads: ‘This book belongs to me, the wretched Nebuchadnezzar, son of the priest Simeon, son of the priest Joshua, of Rumkale’ (Géhin 2015: 56). Translation from Syriac into French by Paul Géhin. 175. Nebuchadnezzar and his cousin Philoxenus Nemrod had unusual names for the period, which may have been a conscious attempt to link the family to ancient Mesopotamian kings (Fathi 2016: 151n108). 176. Two of Barhebraeus’ Syriac works were dedicated to Simeon (Takahashi 2001: 68–70). These works are Suloqo hawnonoyo (Ascension of the Spirit), a work on astronomy and mathematical geography written in 1279, and K. d-remze wa-mʿironwoto, a translation of Ibn SÈnå’s al-Ishåråt wa-l-TanbÈhåt completed some time before 1278. 177. Saliba 1987. 178. The output of Barhebraeus is a well-­known example of this cross-­ cultural exchange. Originally from Malatya, Barhebraeus wrote in both Syriac and Arabic and visited Maragha several times. The cultural scene there was crucial in guiding his considerable corpus of work. Ibn SÈnå’s Kitåb al-Shifåʾ, in particular, was important for Barhebraeus’ work, Óewat ˙ekmto (Cream of Wisdom), written in 1285–6 (Takahashi 2014). 179. BNF, Persan 174. Barrucand 1991: 117; see n. 76 (Introduction). 180. In this case, haykalÈ probably refers to the author’s proficiency with amulets. 181. Barrucand 1991: 114. 182. BNF, Persan 174, fols 51a, 133a. 183. Pancaro©lu 2004: 161; Uyar 2015: 222. 184. Barrucand 1991: 118. 185. Ibid. 186. See the discussion concerning the cost of manuscript production in Chapter 4 (particularly p. 211 and n. 77).

81

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

CHAPTER TWO

Early Fourteenth-century Manuscripts from Konya and Sivas

The turbulence that blighted the political scene in Konya in the 1270s and 1280s showed no signs of abating in the early decades of the following century. The Seljuk strongmen who had dominated local politics in the late thirteenth century, such as Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ and MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån, were long dead, along with the Seljuks’ last shreds of political relevance. After the turmoil caused by the events of 1276–7 (discussed in the previous chapter), the Ilkhanid empire attempted to keep a much tighter rein on RËm by appointing Mongol governors to suppress local unrest that was caused mainly by the Turcoman Qaramanids. Several of these emerging Turcoman principalities had migrated into the region, alongside the Seljuks, Danishmandids and Mangujakids (amongst others), during the eleventh and twelfth centuries.1 Filling the power vacuum left by Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ and others, the Turcomans established bases across RËm, though not all were hostile to Mongol rule. For example, at a gathering in QarånbËk that occurred around 1314, several Turcoman beys pledged allegiance to the new Mongol governor of RËm, ChËbån Suldus (d. 1327).2 The Qaramanids were notably absent. Konya, as the former Seljuk capital and symbolic centre of political legitimacy in the region, was often involved in such unrest. Following their first attempt to annex Konya in 1277–8, the Qaramanids tried several more times to capture the town over the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. In July 1291, the new Ilkhanid ruler GaykhåtË (r. 1291–5) arrived in Kayseri at the request of the Seljuk sultan, MasʿËd II (r. c. 1282–c. 1308, with interruption), following reports that a Turcoman named KhalÈl Bahådur had sacked Konya.3 A former governor of RËm himself, GaykhåtË laid waste to Qaramanid, Ashrafid, Garmiyanid and Mantashid lands, though Konya itself was spared.4 Seemingly undeterred, the Turcomans resumed their raids in 1293, with the Ashrafids briefly occupying Gevele (a mountain fortress 11km west of Konya), and the Qaramanids capturing Alanya

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

and reading the khu†ba there in the name of the Mamluk ruler al-­ Ashraf KhalÈl (r. 1290–3).5 The next Ilkhan, Ghåzån (r. 1295–1304), was the first Muslim Mongol ruler, following his conversion to Islam in 1295. Seeking to consolidate Mongol control of RËm, Ghåzån implemented a large-­scale fiscal reform project that entailed the reorientation of trade routes towards the Black Sea and the establishment of Ilkhanid mints in their RËm territories.6 Despite these efforts, threats against Ilkhanid central authority persisted. In this period, the governorship of RËm was no longer a prestigious position, but rather amounted to de facto exile, and the region thus become a staging ground for Mongol dissent.7 By the end of Ghåzån’s reign, several RËm-­based Mongol commanders had been executed, including Taghachar (d. c. 1296), Ilday (d. 1296), BåltË (d. 1297) and Sulåmish (d. 1299). The new ruler, ◊ljaytË (r. 1304–16), appointed his uncle ÏranjÈn (d. after 1319) as governor of RËm, ordering him to quell unrest around Òznik at the request of Byzantium.8 ÏranjÈn’s apparent mismanagement, however, eventually encouraged further uprisings in Konya. In early 1314, the Qaramanids re-­annexed the town, killing the local leader, AkhÈ Mu߆afå.9 The new Mongol governor, ChËbån Suldus, was sent to RËm to retake Konya (which he did in early 1315) and deal with ÏranjÈn.10 Mongol possession of Konya was, however, fleeting. The Qaramanids once again seized it in 1316, only for the new Mongol governor, TÈmËrtåsh ibn ChËbån Suldus (d. 1328), to recapture it in 1323. TÈmËrtåsh imprisoned the Qaramanid and Hamidid princes, MËså ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (d. 1345) and Falak al-­DÈn Dundår (d. 1324),11 and killed the Ashrafid leader Sulaymån ibn Mubåriz al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (r. after 1320–6), effectively extinguishing the Ashrafid dynasty.12 TÈmËrtåsh himself met a violent end in 1328 when, after proclaiming himself the MahdÈ (loosely, the Messiah), he was executed for rebelling against the Ilkhanid state.13 A line of short-­lived Mongol governors followed him until 1335, when Ilkhanid rule collapsed following the death of the ruler AbË SaʿÈd without a clear heir (r. 1316–35). Although it is not apparent from the sources, it seems that Konya largely remained under Qaramanid control until it was captured by the Ottomans in 1475, apart from a brief period of dominance under the Ilkhanid Uyghur general Eretna (d. 1352), who is discussed in Chapter 4.14 As was the case in the late thirteenth century, the intellectual scene in RËm continued to flourish in the fourteenth century, despite near-­constant political upheaval. The foundations for this thriving milieu had been established in previous centuries with the construction of numerous madrasas, mosques, shrines and Sufi lodges across the region, in addition to the migration of scholars from other parts of the Islamic world, particularly after the devastation caused by the mid-­thirteenth-­century Mongol invasions in Persia. The development of such institutions fostered an active and dynamic cultural

83

84

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

milieu that encouraged the production of home-­grown literary and religious figures, such as YËnus Emre (d. c. 1320), Dåwud-­i QayßarÈ (d. 1350) and ÓåjjÈ Bayråm WalÈ (d. 1429–30). The Mevlevis were a relatively well-­established and widespread group by the fourteenth century. Beyond the sepulchral shrine in Konya, Mevlevi lodges had been founded in several places in RËm, with at least one in Persia. AflåkÈ mentions the zåwiya of Shaykh Suhråb-­i MawlawÈ in Soltaniyeh that he visited in 1318.15 Thirteenth- and fourteenth-­ century Mevlevi institutions were also located in Meram,16 Kır∞ehir,17 Afyonkarahisar,18 Ladik,19 Larende,20 Ermenek,21 Bor (near Ni©de),22 Manisa,23 Amasya24 and Kütahya.25 Some of these were founded by Turcoman beys. Besides these establishments, there is manuscript evidence to show that there were Mevlevis in Damascus, Cairo, Shiraz and Crimea.26 As was the case in the previous century, there were many Mevlevi supporters to be counted amongst the local political elite, such ­ as Shujåʿ al-­DÈn Ïnånch Bey (r. 1305–35), ruler of Ladik, and ʿArab NËyan (d. 1319), Mongol governor of Sivas.27 The 1297 endowment deed for the Kır∞ehir zåwiya mentions specifically Mevlevi clothing and Mevlevi terminology, which suggests that the group had begun to define aspects of their identity.28 While the Mevlevi samåʿ ritual had undoubtedly been performed from at least the early fourteenth century, it was apparently not formalised until the leadership of PÈr ʿÅdil ChalabÈ (d. 1460).29 Five extensively illuminated manuscripts, all produced in Konya, survive from the first half of the fourteenth century. In addition to these five are a manuscript from 625/1228 with early fourteenth-­ century illumination and a manuscript from Sivas with a decorated blue and gold preface. Three of these seven manuscripts were owned by Turcoman Qaramanid and Ashrafid beys. The others, all produced by Mevlevis, are copies of texts by Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ and Sul†ån Walad. This chapter expands upon many of the themes introduced in Chapter 1. According to surviving evidence, the early fourteenth century was the most prolific period in terms of illuminated manuscript production in RËm. The group of manuscripts discussed here reinforces the important role that the Mevlevis played in these endeavours and the significance of Konya as a centre for the arts of the book. However, with changes in who wielded political power, so too did the nature of manuscript patronage shift somewhat, from the Seljuk and Ilkhanid bureaucrats of the late thirteenth century to the Turcoman beys and Mevlevi disciples of the fourteenth century. Turcoman beys as patrons and readers The earliest illuminated manuscript that survives from fourteenth-­ century RËm is al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya fÈ-l-Qawåʿid al-Burhåniyya wa-l-Kashfiyya (The Most Honourable Chapters of the Demonstrative

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

and Revelatory Principles, hereafter, ‘al-FußËl’).30 It was produced in mid-­DhË-l-­Qaʿda 710 (April 1311) in Konya and copied by its author, Mu˙ammad al-­TustarÈ (of Shushtar, in south-­western Iran, d. 1329–30). Little is known about the author, but evidence suggests that he seems to have been active in RËm, Persia and Egypt in the early fourteenth century. His full name was Badr al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn Asʿad al-­TamÈmÈ al-­YamanÈ al-­TustarÈ al-ÓanafÈ, and he appears to have written several other works concerning fiqh, philosophy and taßawwuf in the early fourteenth century.31 According to a surviving holograph, the author was in Tabriz several years before the production of al-FußËl.32 The manuscript was dedicated to Mubåriz al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn Sayf al-­DÈn Sulaymån ibn Ashraf, ruler of the Ashrafid principality from 1302 to sometime after 1320. The use of the adjective ‘Ashrafiyya’ in the text’s title substantiates this connection. The Ashrafids were based in Bey∞ehir and Gorgorum, near Konya, from the mid-­ thirteenth to early fourteenth centuries. Although the principality was ultimately short-­lived, following TÈmËrtåsh’s execution of Mubåriz al-­DÈn’s son Sulaymån in 1326, it was more than a minor player in RËm. In Masålik al-Abßår, al-ʿUmarÈ writes that, before Sulaymån’s execution, the Ashrafids possessed almost 70,000 cavalrymen, sixty towns and 150 villages.33 The Bey∞ehir mosque, established in 1296 by Sulaymån’s grandfather (also named Sulaymån), known today as the E∞refo©lu Camii, remains the largest and best-­preserved wooden hypostyle mosque in the world. As is often the case in late medieval RËm, it is not easy to summarise the Ashrafids’ political leanings, which seemed to be relatively changeable. According to Uzunçar∞ılı, the elder Sulaymån appears to have been in conflict with the Seljuks, the Qaramanids and the Mongols at various points.34 For his part, Mubåriz al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad was probably the unnamed Ashrafid bey who vowed loyalty to ChËbån Suldus in QarånbËk around 1314. Al-FußËl is a short Arabic text that deals with a range of topics from medieval Islamic writings on philosophy, cosmology and metaphysics. The opening chapter discusses ‘wåjib al-wujud’ (necessary existence), a central concept in the thought of Ibn SÈnå (d. 1037) that concerns the nature of being. In later writings, such as those by Aw˙ad al-­DÈn al-­RåzÈ (fl. 13th c.), the term is synonymous with ‘Allåh’.35 This appears to be the case in al-FußËl, evidenced by the fact that the author includes the word ‘taʿåla’ (let Him be praised) in the chapter heading. Another concept included in al-FußËl – discussed by Ibn SÈnå and several other scholars, including Bakr al-­ MawßilÈ (fl. early 10th c.), Ibn AbÈ-l-­Ashʿath (d. c. 970) and Ibn HindË (d. 1032) – is the Rational Soul (‘al-nafs al-nå†iqa’).36 Other sections discuss aspects of astronomy, such as the Souls of the Celestial Sphere (‘al-nufËs al-falakiyya’) and the Supernal Bodies (‘al-ajråm al-ʿuluwiyya’). Again, both concepts appear in the works of Ibn SÈnå

85

86

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

as well as other philosophers, such as AbË Sulaymån al-­SijistånÈ (d. c. 1000) and al-­Bay∂awÈ (d. 1286).37 There are also chapters on the nature of the elemental principles and their transformation and combination (‘fÈmå yatakawwana min al-ʿanåßir bi-l-isti˙åliti wa-l-tarkÈbi’). These ideas are also discussed by the alchemist Jåbir ibn Óayyån (d. c. 815) and the philosopher AbË YaʿqËb al-­SijistånÈ (d. c. 971).38 Given the short length of the text and its broad range of contents, it appears almost as an introductory handbook, produced perhaps for a patron who was interested in learning about the key concepts of Islamic philosophy and science in greater detail. There are currently no other known copies of the text, which suggests that it did not circulate beyond the Ashrafid court and therefore may not have had a broader appeal. The small manuscript is copied in watery brown naskh that is broadly similar to the scripts from Konya seen in the previous chapter, though some letterforms are elongated along the baseline with slightly shallower bowls in places (see fig. A.5). The manuscript contains only two pages of illumination: a pointed oval frontispiece and a dedication panel that details the name of the text, its author and the patron (figs 2.1–2.2). Like the 1278 Qur’an, the colour palette of the illumination is dominated by gold and blue. The pointed oval is surrounded by distinctive petals containing graduated colour. In the eastern Islamic world from at least the early twelfth century (and possibly earlier), these petals appear in illuminated manuscripts.39 Apart from these two pages of illumination and chapter headings written in gold, the manuscript contains no other decoration. The other illuminated manuscript produced for a Turcoman patron in this period is a two-­volume monumental Qur’an produced in 714 (1314–15) for the Qaramanid bey KhalÈl ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (d. 1340s).40 The manuscript was copied by IsmåʿÈl ibn YËsuf and illuminated by YaʿqËb ibn GhåzÈ al-­QËnawÈ. KhalÈl’s brother, Badr al-­DÈn IbråhÈm (d. after 1341), was also interested in manuscripts. His name appears in an illuminated reading note from the early fourteenth century that was added to a copy of al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya – an Arabic work copied by its author, A˙mad ibn Saʿd ibn MahdÈ ibn ʿAbd al-Íamad al-­ZanjånÈ al-ʿUthmånÈ (fl. 13th c.).41 The manuscript was produced in DhË-l-­Qaʿda 625 (October 1228) in Alanya, and its dedication – ­a rare example of Seljuk illumination dated before the Mongol ­invasions – ­states that the manuscript was written for ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I (r. 1219–37) (fig. 2.3). As mentioned above, the Qaramanids were particularly intent on absorbing Konya into their lands. Indeed, they attempted to take Konya several times over the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, much to the frustration of the Ilkhanid central authority, who often retaliated with extreme violence at the hands of the reigning governor of RËm. Although they were the longest enduring of all of the Turcoman principalities (apart from the Ottomans, who

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

87

Figure 2.1  Pointed oval, al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya, Konya, 1311, SK, Ayasofya 2445, fol. 1b.

88

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.2 Dedication, al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya, Konya, 1311, SK, Ayasofya 2445, fol. 2a.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

89

Figure 2.3 Dedication, al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya, Alanya, 1228, SK, A∞ir Efendi 316, fol. 1a.

90

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

e­ventually absorbed Qaramanid lands into their empire in 1475), Qaramanid history remains under-­ researched.42 However, their ‘anti-­ Mongol’ stance and Turkish language proclamation of 1277 (mentioned in Chapter 1 and again below) has encouraged twentieth-­ century nationalist Turkish scholars, in particular, to view the Qaramanids as quintessential Turkish frontier warrior princes who were hostile to Persian culture and foreign Mongol interlopers43 – an image that has been extended to all of the Turcoman principalities, whether appropriate or not. While some of this may be true (their antipathy to the Mongols is certainly undisputed), it is far from the whole story, as we shall see over the course of this chapter. Unlike al-FußËl, the Qaramanid Qur’an is very large and is divided into two volumes (the second volume begins with SËrat al-Maryam). The manuscript is copied in seven lines of large, black mu˙aqqaq. The ink appears watery, rough and uneven in some places, suggesting an unpractised approach to ink making or insufficient preparation of the reed pen (fig. 2.4). Like the mu˙aqqaq of the Sackler juzʾ discussed in Chapter 1, letters such as alif and låm are also characterised by a perpendicular orientation and a squat appearance. The script features the ‘teardrop’ tarwÈs (head-­serif) and the låm-alif mu˙aqqaqa mawqËfa (with an open, looped base), which, again, both appear in the Sackler manuscript. The Qur’an’s letterforms and diacritical marks are generally more consistent than those of the Sackler juzʾ, but its overall appearance does not compare to the elegance of contemporary Ilkhanid or Mamluk mu˙aqqaq. There are several folios near the end of Volume Two, as well as folios iib–1a of Volume One, that contain Persian interlinear translations copied in gold naskh.44 Some of these pages are also framed with a simple gold band (fig. 2.5).45 The frames were added after the translations were completed, as is evident from small gaps in the frame designed to fit around the calligraphy. These frames and translations are perhaps contemporary with the text, since a bright blue pigment that is present throughout the Qur’an’s illumination is also used to outline the frames, marginal medallions and sËra headings on these pages. It is unclear why these sections alone have been framed or translated.46 The two volumes are lavishly illuminated. Volume one contains a single frontispiece, a single finispiece and three illuminated text pages (figs 2.6–2.8). The second volume contains a single frontispiece, a half-­page panel inscribed with the illuminator’s name and a full-­ page colophon and dedication (figs 2.9–2.11). Throughout the manuscript, each sËra is marked with a colourful headpiece. Every tenth verse is accompanied by an elaborate marginal roundel containing the word ʿashr (ten), and each verse is indicated by a small, gold marker. The styles of the headpieces and tenth-­verse markers that appear throughout the manuscript vary significantly (figs 2.12–2.13).

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.4  Text page, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-1, fol. 242b.

91

92

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.5  Framed text with Persian translations, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-2, fols 374b–375a.

The single frontispieces of both volumes comprise simple geometrical compositions. The second volume’s frontispiece (see fig. 2.9) consists of a pattern common in Islamic art that is based on an eight-­fold geometrical medallion. The first volume’s frontispiece pattern is less common and includes overlapping twelve-­lobed roundels (see fig. 2.6). It bears some resemblance to an undated (but likely medieval) wooden window panel from the E∞refo©lu Camii in Bey∞ehir (fig. 2.14). The illumination of the Qaramanid Qur’an is eclectic and uses a wide range of colours. Although some motifs and patterns recur multiple times, there is a greater variety present throughout the manuscript compared to the 1278 Qur’an or the 1278 MasnavÈ discussed in the previous chapter. Although both of those manuscripts are extensively decorated like the Qaramanid Qur’an, their overall appearance is more uniform. Since the Qaramanid Qur’an was produced in Konya, it is unsurprising that some of its motifs are found in older manuscripts from the town. For instance, there is a small square on folio 284a that contains four rotating split palmettes. These rotating split palmettes appear several times in Chapter 1 (see figs 1.4 and 1.8). Four-­pointed stars formed from overlapping pointed ovals appear numerous times in the Qur’an as well (see fig. 2.9). A

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.6  Frontispiece, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-1, fol. iia.

93

94

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.7  Illuminated text, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-1, fol. iiia.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.8  Illuminated text, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-1, fol. 411a.

95

96

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.9  Frontispiece, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-2, fol. 1a.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.10  Illuminator’s inscription, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-2, fol. 401b.

97

98

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.11  Colophon/dedication, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-2, fol. 402a.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.12  Headpieces, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-1, fols iiib, 100b, 142b.

similar shape appears on folio 6b of the 1278 MasnavÈ. There is also a small amount of overlap between the illumination of the Qur’an and al-FußËl, which is not surprising considering their closeness in production date. Colourful petals, found on the border of al-FußËl’s pointed oval frontispiece, are also present throughout the 1314–15 Qur’an on marginal verse markers and sËra headings (see figs 2.1 and 2.13). Additionally, the interlacing palmettes at the centre of the pointed oval of al-FußËl appear in the frontispieces and finispiece of the Qur’an (see figs 2.1 and 2.6). Other parts of the Qur’an’s decoration are present in contemporary illumination from Ilkhanid and Mamluk manuscripts. For example, one of the Qur’an’s illuminated text pages features blue full and split palmettes on red cross-­ hatched ground (see fig. 2.8). This design appears in early fourteenth-­century Qur’ans from both Baghdad and Cairo.47 Additionally, the large eight-­lobed colophon and dedication of the Qaramanid manuscript is similar to polylobed inscribed medallions found in Ilkhanid Qur’ans (fig. 2.15, see fig. 2.11).48 The calligraphy and decoration seen in some

99

100

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.13  Verse markers, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-1, (clockwise from top-left) fols 5b, 87a, 169a, 366a.

Ilkhanid and Mamluk Qur’ans of the fourteenth century are of an extremely high standard, and many manuscripts produced for them remain some of the greatest achievements in the arts of the books of the Islamic world. The Mongols and the Mamluks were enthusiastic consumers of illuminated and illustrated books, and high numbers of expertly decorated manuscripts were produced in medieval Baghdad, Tabriz, Maragha and Cairo. This escalation in manuscript production under both regimes must have necessitated the training and employment of a large number of scribes, artists, bookbinders and papermakers. The visual links between Ilkhanid and Mamluk manuscripts with those from Konya suggest that

101

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.14  Wooden window shutter, RËm, late thirteenth or fourteenth century, Ònce Minareli Medrese Ta∞ ve Ah∞ap Eserler Müzesi, Konya.

individuals involved in manuscript production probably travelled to the region, which was, of course, not unexpected for the time. Even though some of the motifs present in the manuscript are particular to Konya, others are not, demonstrating that the town was not isolated from the long-­established artistic networks that traversed Iraq, Iran, Egypt and the Levant. The 1314–15 Qur’an is bound in dark brown leather that is somewhat damaged and faded in places (figs 2.16–2.17).49 The difference in decoration between the upper and lower covers is not unusual for the period. The block-­printed doublures are also made of brown leather (fig. 2.18). The manuscript has clearly been cropped, which indicates that it was re-­bound at some point, perhaps in the later fourteenth century.50 The use of a decagon as a central motif appears on an Ilkhanid Qur’an from Hamadan produced in 1313 (Jumådå I 713),51 while a circular medallion with small ‘petals’ features on the cover of a Qur’an juzʾ from Maragha

102

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.15  Certificate of commissioning, Qur’an, Tabriz (probably), 1315, TSMK, E. H. 248, fol. 54a.

produced over 1338–9 (Shawwål 738–Shawwål 739).52 However, the closest parallels are found on the covers and doublures of a monumental Mamluk Qur’an that was produced in the later fourteenth century.53 Unfortunately, very few bindings securely attributed to RËm survive from this period, so there is little with which to compare the 1314–15 Qur’an’s covers.54 The petals and interlacing palmettes of both the Qaramanid Qur’an and al-FußËl are also present in illuminations added to an early thirteenth-­century Arabic manuscript. This is a unicum copy of al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya that was copied in Alanya (ʿAlåʾiyya) in DhË-l-­Qaʿda 625 (October 1228) by its author, A˙mad ibn Saʿd ibn MahdÈ ibn ʿAbd al-Íamad al-­ZanjånÈ, for ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I.55 This mirror for princes (or, naßÈ˙atnåma) draws mainly on Persian sources. There are, for example, numerous references to Sasanian rulers ArdashÈr (r. ad 180–242) and AnËshirwån (r. 501–79), in addition to early Muslim rulers and the occasional Greek philosopher.56

Figure 2.16  Upper cover, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-2.

Figure 2.17  Lower cover, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-1.

104

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.18  Upper doublure, Qur’an, Konya, 1314–15, MMK, 12-1.

The text covers typical subjects for a naßÈ˙atnåma, such as the practice of justice, the moral basis of ruling and the ideal qualities of viziers and governors. Although the text is largely Persianate in context, the fact that it is composed in Arabic may have been an attempt by the author (who was likely Persian, given his link to Zanjan in north-­western Iran) to demonstrate his competence in Arabic, which would have been vital for an ambitious kåtib.57 The manuscript contains a rare, securely identified example of Seljuk illumination produced before the Mongol invasion in 1243 (see fig. 2.3). The later illumination of the manuscript consists of two medallions on the first and last pages, probably added some time in the early fourteenth century while the Qaramanids were in control of Konya (figs 2.19–2.20). The inscribed medallion notes that the manuscript was read by Badr al-­DÈn IbråhÈm ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (d. after 1341), who was based at various times in Larende (now known as Karaman) and Ermenek. Mevlevi manuscripts of the early fourteenth century Three illuminated copies of works written by Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ and Sul†ån Walad produced in Konya survive from this period, as well as one partial, decorated MasnavÈ from Sivas. The three illuminated manuscripts are a copy of Sul†ån Walad’s Intihånåma, a copy of RËmÈ’s MasnavÈ and a copy of Sul†ån Walad’s MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ.58 The

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

105

Figure 2.19 Later medallion, al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya, Konya (probably), early fourteenth century, SK, A∞ir Efendi 316, fol. iia.

Figure 2.20 Later reading note, al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya, Konya (probably), early fourteenth century, SK, A∞ir Efendi 316, fol. 106b.

106

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ consists of the author’s collected masnavÈs (rhyming couplets) – namely, the Ibtidånåma, the Rabåbnåma and the Intihånåma – composed in Konya in 1291, 1301 and 1309, respectively. The Ibtidånåma (Book of the Beginning) is written in the khafÈf metre and is a hagiographical work mainly concerning miracles performed by RËmÈ and the lives of the early Mevlevis, including Shams al-­DÈn TabrÈzÈ (d. c. 1247), Íalå˙ al-­DÈn al-­ZarkËb (d. 1258) and Óusåm al-­DÈn ChalabÈ (d. 1284).59 The Rabåbnåma, or Book of the Rabåb (a lute-­like instrument), is written in the ramal metre (the same used in RËmÈ’s MasnavÈ) and contains elaborations and explanations of some of the Masnavi’s concepts and the author’s views on taßawwuf.60 The Intihånåma (Book of the End) is also written in the ramal metre and is mostly a summary of the first two books.61 All three texts contain lines written in Greek and Turkish and are some of the earliest surviving dated examples of Turkish poetry. The earliest of the three Mevlevi m ­ anuscripts – ­the Intihånåma – was produced on 21 Shaʿbån 714 (1 December 1314) by ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh. The same scribe copied RËmÈ’s MasnavÈ nine years later on 25 Rama∂ån 723 (28 September 1323). The MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ was completed shortly before 21–30 Shawwål 732 (16–25 July 1332), during which time it was endowed to the Mevlevi shrine by its patron. The MasnavÈ produced in Sivas was completed on 24 RabÈʿ I 718 (26 May 1318).62 For the sake of simplicity, I refer to these manuscripts as the ‘1314 Intihånåma’, the ‘1323 MasnavÈ’, the ‘pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ’ and the ‘Sivas MasnavÈ’. ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh, the scribe of the 1314 Intihånåma and 1323 MasnavÈ, describes himself in both manuscripts as the ʿatÈq (freed slave) of Sul†ån Walad.63 The patronymic of ‘ibn ʿAbdallåh’, which was examined in the previous chapter, confirms his origins as a convert to Islam. A patron is not mentioned in either manuscript, and it is possible that the scribe copied (and perhaps decorated) the manuscripts for himself or as an endowment to the shrine or madrasa of RËmÈ, where the 1323 MasnavÈ was itself copied. The manuscripts were not used for educational purposes as both contain virtually no annotations. As we have seen in the previous chapter, it would not have been unusual for a freed slave to be able to afford the services of an illuminator, especially given the eminence of ʿUthmån’s former master, Sul†ån Walad. The pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ is larger than both of these medium-­sized manuscripts, though it is still slightly smaller than the monumental 1278 MasnavÈ discussed in Chapter 1. The copyist is identified in a waqf note at the end of the manuscript as A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad al-­Kåtib (the scribe) (fig. A.13). The same note names the endower as ʿUthmån ibn AbÈ Bakr al-­WaladÈ (that is, a follower of Sul†ån Walad). Unfortunately, this individual is not mentioned in any contemporary sources, and there is currently no further information regarding him.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.21  Text page (detail), Intihånåma, Konya, 1314, BNF, Supplément persan 1794, fol. 4b.

All three manuscripts were copied in naskh, with prefaces copied in tawqÈʿ. The density of the ink and the quality of the script varies between the three manuscripts. The calligraphy of the 1314 Intihånåma and the 1323 MasnavÈ, which were copied by the same scribe, ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh, is relatively consistent across both manuscripts (figs 2.21–2.23). The ink of the earlier manuscript, however, is brown and quite watery in comparison to the rougher black ink of the later manuscript, which suggests that, in the intervening nine years, the scribe did not markedly improve his manufacture of ink. The tawqÈʿ prefaces in both examples are somewhat chaotic, with large swooping bowls and inconsistent deviations from the text’s baseline. The naskh script of both manuscripts has similarly deep bowls and is messier and more fluid than, for example, the naskh of the 1278 MasnavÈ. In both the 1314 Intihånåma and the 1323 MasnavÈ, a relatively thick nib was used by the scribe, giving a heavy overall impression. By comparison, the calligraphy (both naskh and tawqÈʿ) of the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ is more evenly spaced and has a neater and more consistent appearance than the other two Mevlevi manuscripts. The naskh shares similar letterforms to the other manuscripts discussed here and in the previous chapter: deep bowls, small, perpendicular alifs and diagonally slanting kåfs (fig. 2.24). The ink is also of higher quality. It is consistently solid black

107

108

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.22  Illuminated text, Intihånåma, Konya, 1314, BNF, Supplément persan 1794, fol. 3a.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.23  Text page (detail), MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 3b.

throughout the manuscript and shows none of the scratchiness of the 1314–15 Qur’an or the wateriness of the 1314 Intihånåma. The higher quality script of the MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ is perhaps unsurprising, given that the copyist identified himself as a ‘kåtib’ (scribe), which was otherwise not common in manuscripts from medieval RËm. If he were a professional scribe or chancery employee, then, indeed, he would have been expected to have excellent handwriting and produce good quality ink. These variations in the quality of scripts notwithstanding, the approach to calligraphy in illuminated Mevlevi manuscripts seems to have been quite conservative. There does not appear to have been a significant difference in the type of scripts used, with both smaller, more modest illuminated manuscripts and large, lavish endowments employing similar styles of naskh and tawqÈʿ. Similar illuminated motifs appear in all three manuscripts, although the quality and overall appearance of the illumination varies significantly. Although only the 1323 MasnavÈ mentions Konya (and specifically the shrine and ‘madrasa’ of RËmÈ) as its place of production, the correspondence in decorative styles strongly indicates that the 1314 Intihånåma and the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ were also produced in the town. The 1314 Intihånåma’s illumination features motifs and patterns that are found in contemporary manuscripts made in Konya. The manuscript contains two circular medallions in its double frontispiece and four illuminated text pages nearly entirely composed of thick, neat gold strapwork (fig. 2.25, see

109

110

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.24  Text page, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 109b.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.25  Frontispiece medallion, Intihånåma, Konya, 1314, BNF, Supplément persan 1794, fol. 2a.

111

112

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

also fig. 2.22). The petals and interlaced palmettes of the frontispiece medallions are motifs that appear in all three Konya manuscripts discussed in the previous section (al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya, the 1314–15 Qur’an and al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya). Moreover, the strapwork borders of the Intihånåma bear a strong resemblance to strapwork borders found in the 1314–15 Qaramanid Qur’an and the 1323 MasnavÈ (see figs 2.8, 2.22 and 2.30). The 1323 MasnavÈ, which, like all complete MasnavÈs, consists of six chapters (or ‘Books’), contains one pointed oval frontispiece at the beginning of the first chapter and one smaller sideways pointed oval that appears after the end of the fifth chapter, as well as thirteen illuminated text pages and six headpieces (figs 2.26–2.32). In total, there are twenty-­one pages of illumination, which are, on the whole, rather messy in their execution. Nevertheless, there are many motifs present in the manuscript that affirm its origins in Konya. The pointed oval, which was examined extensively in the previous chapter, appears twice (albeit once sideways), in addition to rotating split palmettes (see figs 2.26, 2.29 and 2.31), which are present in the 1278 Qur’an, 1278 MasnavÈ and the undated Sackler Qur’an juzʾ (see figs 1.4, 1.8 and 1.26). Another notable feature is the Kufic script used in the illuminated headpieces (see fig. 2.32). In the context of manuscripts from Konya, this is a little unusual, since thuluth is often preferred. However, headpieces inscribed with Kufic are quite common in Mamluk and Ilkhanid manuscripts from the first quarter of the fourteenth century.64 Like illumination from late thirteenth-­century Konya, the predominant pigments used in the 1314 Intihånåma and the 1323 MasnavÈ are gold and bright blue, alongside small spots of watery green. The range of colours used in the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, however, is more extensive. Gold is used throughout the manuscript’s decoration, along with, unusually for medieval Islamic illumination, light purple, as well as blue, bronze, red, green and white. The purple pigment in the manuscript is used as much as blue, a much more common pigment. This is a clear shift from the gold-­ and-­blue dominated colour schemes of the 1314 Intihånåma and the 1323 MasnavÈ and the earlier manuscripts discussed in Chapter 1, such as the 1278 Qur’an. Given its relatively high standard of calligraphy, it is not surprising that the illumination of the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ is the most accomplished of the three Mevlevi manuscripts from Konya. The illumination in this manuscript, which contains three chapters, is more diverse and intricate than the other two. Its execution is noticeably more precise and its colour palette more adventurous. Each of its three chapters is preceded by one large pointed oval medallion, two full-­page illuminations and two or four illuminated text pages, totalling nineteen illuminated pages across the m ­ anuscript

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.26  Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 2a.

113

Figure 2.27  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 51a.

Figure 2.28  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 87a.

Figure 2.29  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 146a.

Figure 2.30  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 194a.

116

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.31  Pointed oval, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 249b.

(figs 2.33–2.40). The introduction to each chapter and the waqf note at the end of the third chapter (fol. 315b) are also all written in gold tawqÈʿ (see fig. A.13). Several elements of the MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ’s illumination indicate that it was produced in Konya as a purposeful visual and spiritual ‘companion’ to the monumental 1278 MasnavÈ. The two manuscripts share the same (otherwise quite unusual) programme of illumination. The chapters of each begin with a large pointed oval medallion that is followed by full-­page illuminations and illuminated text pages. The only structural difference is that the later manuscript does not contain slim, illuminated headpieces like the earlier manuscript. In the later manuscript, these are replaced by prefaces copied in gold ink. In addition to the programme, several elements of illumination in the 1278 manuscript appear to have been consciously replicated in the MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ. The opening pointed oval frontispieces in both manuscripts are strikingly similar, though not exactly the same size, indicating that the latter example was not traced or reproduced from the same preparatory drawing (see figs 1.8 and 2.33). Another pointed oval frontispiece in the later manuscript closely resembles part of

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.32 Headpieces, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fols 51b, 146b, 250b.

a full-­page illumination in the earlier manuscript (see figs 1.17 and 2.34), while rotating split palmettes, four-­pointed stars, alternating circle and oval borders, and various types of gold strapwork are found in both manuscripts. It is unlikely that the illuminator of the 1278 MasnavÈ, Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­HindÈ, was directly involved in the decoration of the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, given the long gap between their production. The MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ was probably illuminated by another individual, perhaps a student of Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh. There are enough aesthetic differences between the two manuscripts to suggest that the illuminator attempted to distinguish himself from the accomplished work of Mukhliß. Compared to the broad range of patterns and compositions found in the 1278 MasnavÈ, the range of motifs used in the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ is narrower. Almost all of them consist of rotating split palmettes, floral borders and various types of gold strapwork. There is room, however, for some unexpected elements, such as a roundel composed of two intertwined birds (fig. 2.40). In the 1278 MasnavÈ, the marginal medallions are intricate, detailed and colourful, whereas, in the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, they are comparatively plain,

117

118

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.33  Pointed oval, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 1a.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.34  Pointed oval, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 114a.

119

120

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.35  Pointed oval, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 220a.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.36  Full-page illumination, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 2a.

121

122

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.37  Full-page illumination, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 114b.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

123

Figure 2.38  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 4a.

124

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.39  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 116a.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

Figure 2.40  Marginal medallion, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 220b.

generally speaking. This relatively conservative repertoire gives a softer visual impression overall that is encouraged by the use of light purple and bronze over the bold blues and bright reds of the 1278 MasnavÈ. Konya was undoubtedly the predominant location for the production of illuminated manuscripts in thirteenth- and early fourteenth-­ century RËm. However, one example from the period survives as evidence that the production of decorated manuscripts was not the sole preserve of the former Seljuk capital. This is a copy of Book Three of RËmÈ’s MasnavÈ. It was completed on 24 RabÈʿ I 718 (26 May 1318) in Sivas in ‘al-madrasa al-Shamsiyya’ (fig. A.7). This almost certainly refers to the Çifte Minareli Medrese, which was founded in Sivas in 1271–2 by Shams al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad JuwaynÈ, the Ilkhanid ßå˙ib-dÈvån (finance minister) and brother of ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ mentioned in the previous chapter.65 The manuscript was copied by Mu˙ammad ibn al-­NaqÈb (leader or chief) al-­MawlawÈ nicknamed (‘al-mulaqqab bi-’) Tåj. An individual named Tåj al-­DÈn-­i Mudarris, known as (‘al-maʿrËf bi-’) Ibn-­i NaqÈb, is mentioned three times in AflåkÈ’s hagiography in the chapter concerning Ulu ʿÅrif ChalabÈ’s leadership of the Mevlevis between 1312–20.66 The Mevlevi hagiographer refers to Tåj al-­DÈn as the ‘king of teachers’ (‘malik al-mudarrisÈn’), one of the ‘great men among the companions’ (‘akåbir-i yårån’) and a tutor (‘muʿÈd’) in the Madrasa Atåbakiyya in Konya.67 The correspondence in dates and names

125

126

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

strongly suggests that this individual is the scribe of the 1318 manuscript from Sivas. The medium-­sized manuscript is copied in rather cramped and slightly chaotic naskh that is written in watery brown ink (fig. 2.41). The ­letterforms – ­deep bowls, small, serifless alifs and large kåf­s – ­are inconsistent across the manuscript, but broadly similar to examples of naskh discussed here and in Chapter 1. The untidiness of the script is unsurprising given that Tåj al-­DÈn was a tutor, not a professional scribe. The manuscript is decorated in a relatively simple, albeit unusual, way. The first five pages, which contain the Book Three prose preface, are copied in alternating rows of floral-­ embellished gold and blue tawqÈʿ, with the diacritical marks written in the opposing colour (fig. 2.42). Although the design is theoretically straightforward, the overall effect is rather exuberant. The manuscript’s only headpiece is decorated in the same way, but is copied in gold mu˙aqqaq (see fig. 2.41). The use of alternating blue and gold script in the Sivas MasnavÈ’s preface is uncommon for this period, and it is ultimately unclear whether it was a scribal innovation or adopted from another context. There is a fourteenth- or fifteenth-­century Qur’an juzʾ that features sËra headings in blue thuluth and text in gold mu˙aqqaq, but it is unclear from where or when it originated.68 Alternating blue and gold mu˙aqqaq also appears in a dispersed fifteenth-­century Ottoman Qur’an.69 Rows of black and gold script are slightly less unusual for the period and are found in some Ilkhanid Qur’ans.70 It may be that whoever decorated the manuscript adopted the convention from the Ilkhanid context, but clear evidence for this is not forthcoming. Tåj al-­DÈn actually copied another volume from the MasnavÈ two years later. This manuscript, currently in a private collection, is Book Four.71 In this, he gives his name as Mu˙ammad ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Ma˙mËd al-­RåzÈ (of Ray, in Iran), well-­known as (‘al-mushtahir bi-’) Ibn al-­NaqÈb al-­QËnawÈ al-­MawlawÈ. Tåj al-­DÈn’s connection to Ray is not mentioned by AflåkÈ (or Sipahsålår). Book Four was copied in Tokat in ‘al-madrasa al-MuʿÈniyya’ on Tuesday, 12 Shaʿbån 720 (16 September 1320). ‘Al-madrasa al-MuʿÈniyya’ likely refers to the Gök Medrese in Tokat that was founded during the 1270s, probably by MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån (as AflåkÈ states).72 The manuscript is missing its decorated prose preface, but retains its headpiece (fol. 1b), which is in the same style as the illumination of the Sivas MasnavÈ. The survival of Books Three and Four indicates that Ibn al-­NaqÈb copied the entire manuscript perhaps while travelling throughout RËm. The locations of the other four volumes (if they exist) are ­presently unknown.

Figure 2.41  Headpiece, MasnavÈ (Book Three), Sivas, 1318, SK, Nafiz Pa∞a 650, fol. 3b.

Figure 2.42  Decorated text page, MasnavÈ (Book Three), Sivas, 1318, SK, Nafiz Pa∞a 650, fol. 1a.

128

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Locations of production: madrasas, za¯wiyas and shrines Konya was the leading centre of illuminated manuscript production in late medieval RËm, but it is likely that such material was also produced in other towns. Although it is visually modest, the Sivas MasnavÈ is incontrovertible proof that Konya did not have a monopoly on the arts of the book in the early fourteenth century.73 Furthermore, the manuscript shows that Mevlevi devotees were producing manuscripts outside of ­Konya – ­the site of their primary ­shrine – ­in sites that did not have an explicit association with the Sufi group, such as the Çifte Minareli Medrese in Sivas and the Gök Medrese in Tokat.74 Sivas was of significant economic, political and cultural importance in RËm throughout the late medieval period.75 Frequented by Russian, Kipchak, Persian, Egyptian and Syrian merchants, the town was a notable trading post at the crossroads of north-­south and east-­west routes.76 Óamdallåh al-­MustawfÈ al-­QazwÈnÈ’s (d. after 1340) Nuzhat al-QulËb contains information on Ilkhanid revenue from 1336, which shows that out of the 3.3 million dinars acquired from ‘mamålik-i RËm’ (the kingdom of RËm), around a third was accrued from Konya and Sivas alone.77 This was slightly less than the total annual revenue of Tabriz at 1.39 million.78 Sivas became an important centre of scholarship with the construction of three large madrasas around 1271, one of which was the madrasa built by the Ilkhanid ßå˙ib-dÈvån Shams al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad JuwaynÈ, where the Sivas MasnavÈ was copied.79 In the context of Mongol rule, ­Sivas – g­ eographically closer to the Ilkhanid capital of ­Tabriz – ­became an essential base for the regime. Ibn Ba††Ë†a, who visited Sivas in 1331, described it as the biggest city of the ‘ruler (malik) of Iraq’ (meaning, the Ilkhanid ruler AbË SaʿÈd) in Bilåd al-­RËm.80 Tokat was smaller than Sivas, but also part of the north-­south Black Sea trade routes.81 The aforementioned Gök Medrese was the only large madrasa built in Tokat in the late medieval period, although several mausoleums and zåwiyas were constructed by local figures in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, such as the Halef Sultan Zaviyesi (1291) and the Acep∞ir Türbesi (1317).82 There were Mevlevi communities in both Sivas and Tokat, as AflåkÈ describes. The towns hosted several samåʿ sessions and were inhabited by several Mevlevi adherents, such as the Mongol governor of Sivas, ʿArab NËyan (d. 1319), GurjÈ KhåtËn83 and an unnamed daughter of MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån.84 The Sivas and Tokat MasnavÈs demonstrate that madrasas continued to be typical copying locations for manuscripts. Several inscriptions in the 1323 MasnavÈ show that copying locations could vary even within one manuscript. An inscription at the end of the manuscript’s third Book states that it was finished in the tomb (‘turba’) of RËmÈ, while the colophon notes that the manuscript was completed

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

in the madrasa of RËmÈ (‘madrasat Mawlånå’).85 This is the first confirmed instance of an illuminated manuscript being produced in a specifically Mevlevi l­ ocation – n ­ amely, the sepulchral shrine and the madrasa of RËmÈ in Konya. The fact that a single work demonstrates changes in copying location across its six sections shows that there was not necessarily a set workspace for copying manuscripts and that scribes could be itinerant during a project. This was evident in an illuminated manuscript dated 1272–6 that I discussed in the previous chapter, in which copying was begun in Maragha and finished in Harput for a patron based in Rumkale.86 In addition to madrasas, several other manuscripts were copied in the Mevlevi shrine and other zåwiyas and khånqåhs across RËm. For example, one Mu˙ammad ibn Ma˙mËd al-­MawlawÈ copied an unilluminated copy of RËmÈ’s DÈvån-i KabÈr in RËmÈ’s tomb (‘turba’) in 1359 (Shaʿbån 760),87 while another copy of the same text was completed on 11 Rama∂ån 740 (11 March 1340) by ʿAlÈ ibn MËså al-­SulaymånÈ in the zåwiya of the Sufi scholar Íadr al-­DÈn al-­QËnawÈ (d. 1274) in Konya (fig. 2.43).88 A 1338 (Thursday, 22 Shawwål 738) copy of the TafsÈr of Najm al-­ DÈn RåzÈ was completed in the Mevlevi zåwiya in Ladik (Denizli) by ʿAbd al-­Salåm ibn Turkmån ibn ÊËghånshåh al-­QËnawÈ,89 while Ibn al-­ JawzÈ’s (d. 1200) al-MuntaΩam fÈ TårÈkh al-MulËk wa-l-Umam was copied in 1314 (10 Jumådå II 714) in ‘al-khånqåh al-AmÈniyya’ in Kayseri by IbråhÈm al-­Mutaßawwif al-­ShirwånÈ (the Sufi of Shirvan).90 It was not unusual for Sufis to teach in madrasas, which suggests that the boundaries between the spheres of the ʿulamåʾ and those following the path of taßawwuf were, for practical purposes, relatively permeable in some cases. Tåj al-­DÈn, the Mevlevi scribe of the Sivas MasnavÈ, was a tutor (muʿÈd) in the Madrasa Atåbakiyya in Konya, while RËmÈ himself had his own scholarly institution. AflåkÈ reports several examples of RËmÈ’s positive relations with local members of the ʿulamåʾ, though he, of course, as his disciple and hagiographer, would have attempted to depict the Mevlevi leader as a unifying figure of religious authority. Indeed, tensions existed between the Mevlevis and the ʿulamåʾ, particularly concerning the practice of the samåʿ, to which some jurists applied a prohibition (‘ta˙rÈm’) and considered heresy or an unorthodox innovation (‘bidʿat’).91 Despite the existence of a manuscript from Sivas (and Tokat), it is clear from this and the previous chapter that Konya was the primary production centre for illuminated manuscripts in late medieval RËm. While illuminated manuscripts were produced in other towns, no other location has emerged to rival the output of Konya. Evidence suggests that Konya was the preferred place from which to obtain manuscripts, even if patrons lived outside of the town. Al-FußËl was dedicated to a patron living in Bey∞ehir, which was some 90km southwest of Konya. The aforementioned copy of DÈvån-i KabÈr produced in the zåwiya of Íadr al-­DÈn al-­QËnawÈ was,

129

130

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 2.43 Headpiece, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Konya, 1340, Sam Fogg, fol. 1b.

in fact, commissioned by IbråhÈm ibn Sulaymån (r. 1341–after 1344), ruler of the Jandarids based in Sinop on Anatolia’s Black Sea coast, around 600km north of Konya.92 On the one hand, Konya was a local centre that specialised in the production of such material, much as other towns in RËm were known for manufacturing particular ­goods – f­or example, Bursa was known for its silk, Antalya was the centre of shipbuilding and Aksaray produced the best woollen rugs.93 It may well be that al-FußËl’s author and scribe had little choice in the matter because Konya was the pre-­eminent centre of calligraphy and illumination in late medieval RËm, and Bey∞ehir simply did not possess a similar calibre of artists, papermakers or binders. On the other hand, however, the production of illuminated manuscripts goes beyond the context of commerce and manufacturing. Illuminated manuscript production and patronage were undeniably elite activities that were shaped by the activities and interests of the town’s literary and scholarly circles, active since the Seljuk period. Konya was the centre of Mevlevi life, and the Mevlevis were crucial participants in illuminated manuscript production and patronage. This could partially explain why a bey from Sinop commissioned a Mevlevi text from a town that was several hundred kilometres away when there must have been scribes (and perhaps Mevlevis) living more locally. Konya’s artistic community in the early fourteenth century The four Mevlevi manuscripts described above clearly show that Mevlevi devotees continued to play an important role in the preservation of highly valued texts in decorated codices. Two of the manuscripts (the 1314 Intihånåma and the 1323 MasnavÈ) were copied by the same calligrapher, ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh, a freed slave of Sul†ån Walad. Like many of the artists in late thirteenth-­century Konya, ʿUthmån appears to have been a first-­generation convert to Islam, as indicated by the generic patronym ‘ibn ʿAbdallåh’. The scribe of the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad al-­Kåtib, did not mention any Mevlevi affiliation in this manuscript. However, it is clear from three other manuscripts that he

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

copied that he was, in fact, a Mevlevi. A copy of RËmÈ’s DÈvån-i KabÈr completed in early Rama∂ån 727 (July 1327), for example, contains the scribe’s full name of A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad al-­Kåtib known as (‘al-maʿrËf bi-’) Ibn al-­Nassåj (the weaver) al-­MawlawÈ al-­A˙adÈ.94 This underlines how nisbas should be interpreted with caution, since authors and craftsmen could be inconsistent in their usage. The earliest known usage of ‘al-­ MawlawÈ’ to refer to the Mevlevis occurs in a copy of AbË-l-­MaʿålÈ Naßrallåh’s KalÈla waDimna produced in Rajab 683 (September–October 1284).95 While some early Mevlevis used ‘al-­ WaladÈ’ (as was the case with the scribe of the 1278 MasnavÈ), others may not have used ‘al-­WaladÈ’ or ‘al-­MawlawÈ’ at all. The scripts of all three manuscripts copied by A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad are, relatively speaking, quite consistent, demonstrating that he was, indeed, a skilful scribe, as his epithet of ‘al-­Kåtib’ suggests. It also reinforces the point that calligraphy in the context of Mevlevi manuscript production was relatively uniform, with the same scripts being used for modest manuscripts as well as large, monumental tomes. In addition to the community of Mevlevi artists that resided in Konya, there were, of course, other craftsmen working for other patrons. Neither the scribe (IsmåʿÈl ibn YËsuf) nor the illuminator (YaʿqËb ibn GhåzÈ al-­QËnawÈ) of the 1314–15 Qur’an identify themselves as Mevlevi disciples (though that is not a guarantee that they were not Mevlevis). As seen in the previous chapter, artists who were native to, or settled in, Konya (using the ‘al-­QËnawÈ’ nisba) continued to play a vital role in illuminated manuscript production. In the case of the 1314–15 Qur’an’s illuminator, he seems also to have been of Muslim origin, as indicated by his father’s name, GhåzÈ.96 Tåj al-­DÈn, the Mevlevi scribe of the Sivas and Tokat MasnavÈs, also used the ‘al-­QËnawÈ’ nisba, but had a connection with Ray in Iran, as indicated by the ‘al-­RåzÈ’ nisba in the 1320 manuscript from Tokat.97 He was not the only scribe with possible origins in Persia during this period. The author of al-FußËl, Badr al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad al-­TustarÈ, was from Shushtar in south-­western Iran, and the scribe of the aforementioned 1284 KalÈla wa-Dimna was from Bukhara. Of course, ‘Mevlevi’ and ‘non-­Mevlevi’ scribes and illuminators did not operate as separate groups. There were, of course, overlaps, with Mevlevi scribes copying non-­ Mevlevi works and ostensible non-­Mevlevis (in so far as they did not use any Mevlevi nisbas) producing Mevlevi texts. For example, a copy of Book Three of the MasnavÈ was completed in 1317 (25 RabÈʿI 717) in ‘al-madrasa alÛåhiriyya’ (no longer extant) in Cairo by the somewhat extravagantly named scribe, IbråhÈm ibn ʿIlaysh ibn [...]mad ibn al-­Jumʿa al-­Mustaʿßim al-­BaghdådÈ designated (‘al-madʿËww bi-’) Ibn [...]åb Îiyåʾ al-ÓåfiΩ al-­ShukrÈ al-­MustaʿßimÈ al-ʿAbbåsÈ.98 Although it is possible that the scribe was a Mevlevi, it is unlikely given how many other nisbas he felt it necessary to note down. Mevlevi scribes pro-

131

132

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

duced many texts beyond the Mevlevi oeuvre, such as an illustrated copy of BadÈʿ al-­Zamån ibn al-­Razzåz al-­JazarÈ’s (d. 1206) engineering manual, Kitåb fÈ Maʿrifat al-Óiyal al-Handasiyya, from 1315 (end of Rama∂ån 715),99 a copy of Kitåb al-DharÈʿa ilå Makårim al-SharÈʿa by al-­Råghib al-­IßfahånÈ (d. 1108) that was completed in 1317 (28 Íafar 717)100 and the copy of KalÈla wa-Dimna mentioned above. The continued use of certain forms and motifs throughout the manuscripts produced in Konya suggests that by the early fourteenth century (and possibly earlier), a loose ‘school’ of illumination had developed in the town. Motifs that appear in several manuscripts from the town include large pointed oval frontispieces, rotating split palmettes, the four-­pointed star and the alternating circle-­and-­pointed-­oval border. These motifs do not appear in the illumination of manuscripts from other centres. Although there was probably a group of émigré artists in Konya, which is reflected in the manuscripts’ visual links to the Ilkhanid and Mamluk spheres, it could be that the preponderance of local artists helped to generate a relatively distinctive aesthetic in the town from the late thirteenth century, which included the aforementioned, and otherwise unusual, motifs. A ‘school’ of illumination in this respect may have consisted of a local community of illuminators, who worked alongside calligraphers, bookbinders and papermakers (and also perhaps plasterers, woodworkers and metalworkers). Such craftsmen were connected by networks of production within, and likely beyond, Konya. These networks were perhaps formed by individual artists sharing teachers, patrons or workspaces, or by participating in civic, vocational or religious groups. If monumental manuscripts such as the 1278 MasnavÈ were displayed, this might have also provided another means of strengthening local visual cohesion. Artists of this ‘school’ may have employed motifs and patterns that were common in Konya, and possibly across RËm, but this was not necessarily akin to an organised workshop, such as the early modern Ottoman naqqåshkhåna. It is possible that a different vocabulary was available to the unnamed illuminator of the 1318 MasnavÈ from Sivas, which may account for the unusual blue-­and-­gold script and floral patterns. With no other illuminated manuscripts surviving from early fourteenth-­ century Sivas, there is nothing with which to compare it. Evidence from illuminated manuscripts also highlights the transregional links between production in Konya and elsewhere. The nisbas of scholars and scribes mentioned in this and the previous chapter, such as ‘al-­ShirwånÈ’, ‘al-­HindÈ’, ‘al-­RåzÈ’ and ‘al-­TustarÈ’, could suggest a general westward movement of craftsmen towards RËm. Although nisbas are not always entirely accurate indicators of an individual’s origin, clear visual links to the Ilkhanid and Mamluk arts of the book indicate that some artists gained vocational experience beyond RËm. Such links include illuminated motifs, such as

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

polylobed medallions, and styles of calligraphy, such as mu˙aqqaq. It is possible that artists were following models from manuscripts brought to Konya from other regions, but there is no conclusive evidence of this. Either way, it is indisputable that the arts of the book in Konya did not exist in isolation from manuscript production in Tabriz, Mosul, Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, even though the means of transmission remain unclear. There is no information about the patron of the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, apart from the fact that he was a disciple of Sul†ån Walad. This relationship is indicated by the nisba mentioned as part of his name, ʿUthmån ibn AbÈ Bakr al-­WaladÈ. The choice to use ‘al-­WaladÈ’ rather than ‘al-­MawlawÈ’ is perhaps significant. Even in the late thirteenth century, before the use of ‘al-­MawlawÈ’ was more common, the ‘al-­WaladÈ’ nisba does not appear often. It is used in a handful of manuscripts, all of which are texts by RËmÈ and Sul†ån Walad, and it appears a few times in AflåkÈ’s hagiography.101 Its appearance in the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, up to twenty years after the death of Sul†ån Walad himself, is the nisba’s last-­known usage in a patronage context. The patron was perhaps an intimate or even another freed slave of Sul†ån Walad, as in the case of the scribe of the 1314 Intihånåma and the 1323 MasnavÈ. This could explain why he retained the ‘al-­WaladÈ’ nisba many years later when ‘al-­MawlawÈ’ was more common. A close relationship may also have motivated him to commission and endow a monumental and lavishly illuminated copy of Sul†ån Walad’s masnavÈs to the Mevlevi shrine. That he is not mentioned in any other sources is not unusual. As with the patrons of the 1278 Qur’an and MasnavÈ, ʿUthmån ibn AbÈ Bakr was probably a local notable who was not amongst the region’s political or intellectual heavyweights. As a very early compilation of these collected works in a single volume, the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ was perhaps also produced to fill a gap in the Mevlevi shrine’s holdings.102 It, too, possibly functioned as an authoritative copy intended to prevent others’ inaccurate renderings of the text (although separate copies of the three books predate this manuscript).103 Given the visual references to the monumental 1278 MasnavÈ, both in its motifs and programme of illumination, it is highly likely that this was also a presentation copy intended to be displayed in the sepulchral shrine. The similarity in size to the earlier manuscript, which was endowed with its own lacquered book stand (see figs 1.31–1.32), suggests that the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ may also have been exhibited in a similar manner though no matching book stand appears to have survived. Like the 1278 manuscript, perhaps it too was used during communal recitation led by masnavÈ-khvåns. The similarly large size and visual embellishment of the text served to venerate the teachings within, while also displaying the endower’s devotion to the text, its author, the sepulchral shrine and, by extension, the

133

134

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

wider Mevlevi ­community. The possible display of authoritative, illuminated copies of RËmÈ’s and Sul†ån Walad’s MasnavÈs together would have h ­ ighlighted the spiritual lineage from father to son and, additionally, to later descendants who assumed leadership of the ­ Mevlevis. The illumination of the 1314 Intihånåma, the 1318 Sivas MasnavÈ and the 1323 MasnavÈ, along with their lack of marginal annotations, suggests that these manuscripts were probably not teaching copies. Given their smaller sizes and modest illumination, they were perhaps produced for disciples (possibly even the scribes themselves) from the middle rather than the upper classes, who still desired ornamented versions of important Mevlevi texts. Whomever the owners were, the apparent difference in the quality of the illumination between the pre-­ 1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ and these three earlier manuscripts shows that there were, indeed, different levels of patronage that may have corresponded to the different audiences, readerships and functions of the manuscripts. While the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ (like the 1278 MasnavÈ) was an object perhaps used in communal ritual, the 1314 Intihånåma, the Sivas MasnavÈ and the 1323 MasnavÈ were probably perused by only a few people in private contexts. This may also be the case with the unicum of al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya, copied in 1311 in Konya for the Ashrafid bey, Mubåriz al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad. The fact that there are no other surviving copies of this text suggests that it probably had minimal circulation, likely confined to the Ashrafid court. Given that the author copied a text for a patron based in Tabriz a few years later, he seemingly was, for whatever reason, not content to stay in RËm.104 It is difficult to view al-FußËl in the broader context of the manuscript activities of the beys of Bey∞ehir since no other illuminated manuscripts have survived.105 AflåkÈ mentions that Mubåriz al-­DÈn had an attendant and travelling companion in his service who was a ‘poet and a well-­known, accomplished person’ (shåʿir va fåz˙il-i mashhËr) by the name of ÊiråzÈ.106 Although the evidence is quite limited, it appears that Mubåriz al-­DÈn made some attempt to emulate the archetypal Islamic prince by cultivating a circle of learned persons and consuming Arabic literature on philosophical, astronomical and metaphysical principles. He was also friendly towards the Mevlevis, hosting them at a banquet in Bey∞ehir during his reign. Their leader, Ulu ʿÅrif ChalabÈ (d. 1320), unfortunately caused great distress at this event by declaring that the dynasty would be destroyed under the bey’s heir, Sulaymån.107 This is almost certainly an anachronistic reference to the polity’s eventual demise in 1326. The production of the 1314–15 Qur’an coincides with a brief period in which Konya was temporarily under Qaramanid control. YakhshÈ ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmå­n – ­the brother of the Qur’an’s ­patron – k ­ illed the governor of Konya, AkhÈ Mu߆afå, in early 1314, only to be driven out by the Ilkhanid governor ChËbån early in

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

1315. Given the timing of its production, the commissioning of the 1314–15 Qur’an may well have been facilitated by increased access to the artistic networks of the city. As with Mubåriz al-­DÈn, not a great deal is known about the life of this manuscript’s patron, KhalÈl ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (d. 1340s). He may have been the Turcoman individual named ‘KhalÈl Bahådur’ that the Anonymous TårÈkh-i Ål-i SaljËq dar Ånå†ËlÈ mentions as sacking Konya in the summer of 1291.108 KhalÈl may also have killed his brother YakhshÈ sometime around 1342, which certainly suggests that the family suffered from serious internal divisions.109 KhalÈl also built a mosque (Sipas Camii) and a Mevlevi zåwiya in Ermenek and endowed a field and mill to a Mevlevi zåwiya in Larende, where he was based from 1333 to 1340.110 There is also little known about Badr al-­DÈn IbråhÈm ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (d. after 1341), the reader (and presumed later owner) of the 1228 copy of al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya that was originally produced for ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I. IbråhÈm was almost certainly in Konya around 1317 when it was again under Qaramanid control.111 AflåkÈ recounts how a Qaramanid officer named Jalål-­i KËchak stole a white marble basin (a gift from the Garmiyanids of Kütahya) from RËmÈ’s sepulchral shrine, in order to install it in his house in Larende. Jalål is eventually punished and dismissed by IbråhÈm, who sends apologies and gifts to the shrine as recompense.112 He seems to have been in control of Konya and Larende from some point after 1323, when the Mongol governor of RËm, TÈmËrtåsh, entered Konya and imprisoned IbråhÈm’s brother MËså. Ibn Ba††Ë†a, who visited Konya and Larende around 1331, mentions that both cities were under the control of ‘Badr al-­DÈn ibn Qaråmån’.113 As in the late thirteenth century, named patrons of illuminated manuscripts were mostly from the political class. Although some are named briefly in historical sources, they appear not to have been major regional political players like the Ilkhanid rulers or Mamluk sultans. Evidence suggests that they were not particularly prolific supporters of art and architecture either, though KhalÈl endowed several buildings in Ermenek and Larende. It may well be that the relevant material has simply not survived. This parallels the changing nature of architectural patronage in RËm in the late medieval period. Shifting away from Seljuk strongmen such as Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ and MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Sulaymån, the endowment of buildings in RËm was mostly carried out by Mongol governors and local figures who usually do not appear in historical chronicles.114 The focus of the Ilkhanid state on Tabriz and Soltaniyeh enabled both the development of distinctive local styles and the use of resources by RËm’s local communities.115 As discussed in Chapter 1, patronage of illuminated manuscripts by the Ilkhanids was largely confined to the urban centres of Iran and Iraq.116 In the more intimate, less politically charged context of manuscripts, there is strong evidence of continued localisation and

135

136

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

idiosyncrasy in production and patronage. While common motifs of the ‘Konya school’ exist across the manuscripts examined here, there is also a degree of visual diversity between them in terms of their size and modes of decoration. This suggests that artists based in Konya drew on a range of visual sources, including styles from the Ilkhanid and Mamluk spheres and local ‘Konya’ motifs, while supplementing these with their own creative choices (such as the use of light purple in the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ). Although evidence of the patrons’ wider cultural activities remains scant, what little information exists suggests that they behaved like typical members of the educated upper classes. All three were versed in ­Arabic – ­the language used in al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya, the 1314–15 Qur’an and al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya. In the case of KhalÈl, the interlinear translations of the two-­volume 1314–15 Qur’an suggest that he had an interest in Persian, perhaps in part due to his relationship with the predominantly Persian-­speaking Mevlevis.117 The Qur’an’s colophon also refers to him as the ‘munificent prince, notable of the world’ in Persian (‘humåyËn-i ˙asÈb nasÈb-i jahån’). However, it remains impossible to make any general comments about what kinds of scholarly subjects such individuals may have been reading. Although ownership of a Qur’an must have been reasonably common, the reading (and commemoration of that reading) of al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya suggests a personal interest in the advice literature genre and possibly also in the eminent ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I as a historical figure for whom the work had been originally produced. Advice literature appears to have been relatively popular as a subject of illuminated manuscripts, as will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3. It follows logically that these beys may have encouraged the development of scholarly and literary circles in the towns in which they were based. Indeed, Mubåriz al-­DÈn had a poet in his retinue, while Ibn Ba††Ë†a makes particular mention of the learned circle of men that served the Jandarid ruler Sulaymån (r. 1301–40), father of the patron of the aforementioned 1340 DÈvån-i KabÈr.118 All of the Turcoman patrons mentioned in this chapter were apparently on friendly terms with the Mevlevis. Although the Mevlevi sources do not mention IbråhÈm ibn Sulaymån of the Jandarids, they do state that his father had good relations with the Sufi group.119 IbråhÈm himself was, at the very least, interested in RËmÈ’s works, since he commissioned a copy of his DÈvån. The Ashrafid ruler Mubåriz al-­DÈn hosted the Mevlevi leader at a banquet, while Badr al-­DÈn IbråhÈm arranged compensation for the Sufi group for their stolen marble basin. KhalÈl, for his part, directly contributed to the expansion of the Mevlevi network by supporting two Mevlevi institutions in Larende and Ermenek. The positive relationship between KhalÈl and the Mevlevis possibly explains why the 1314–15 Qur’an is now in the Mevlana Müzesi collection. Perhaps KhalÈl or his descendants donated the manuscript as proof of their devotion. The relation-

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

ship between the Mevlevis and some of the Qaramanids persisted throughout the fourteenth century. Not only did they restore and expand RËmÈ’s shrine in the late fourteenth century, but KhalÈl’s son, ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn (r. 1361–97/8), built the Aktekke Camii (or Mader-­i Mevlana Camii) in Larende in 1370, where some of RËmÈ’s family and members of the Qaramanids are interred.120 AflåkÈ, understandably, goes to great lengths to emphasise the Mevlevis’ support amongst the eminent men and women of RËm. However, even accounting for a degree of exaggeration on the part of the Mevlevi hagiographer, the above artistic and architectural patronage suggests that the Mevlevis were adept at gaining the favour of local notables. There are numerous examples in this and the previous chapter of good relations between the Mevlevi leadership and figures of political influence in Konya and beyond, which must have helped to establish and expand the group’s reach and activities. It is, of course, likely that these local notables also benefited from the Mevlevis’ considerable reach over various levels of society and the wider region. Materially speaking, the financial resources and devotion of such individuals surely also promoted the production of art objects and architecture connected to the group. However, it is important to remember that the picture was not always so rosy. Ulu ʿÅrif ChalabÈ, in particular, seems to have been quite outspoken in his criticisms of some Turcoman princes. For example, during the 1314–15 Qaramanid occupation of Konya, the Mevlevi leader angered the Turcoman group by publicly declaring that he preferred the Mongols, whom he considered God’s chosen successors of the Seljuks.121 These fluctuating instances of friendliness and discord help to flesh out the cultural context and provide a layer of nuance to a period of history that was quite complex. Understandably, surveys or monographs of the Turcoman principalities rarely discuss the activities and affiliations of individuals in depth, in part due to the relatively scarce source material.122 However, this was a time when political authority was fragmented not only between different ruling bodies, but also between individual members of these bodies. As mentioned above, the patron of the Qaramanid Qur’an, KhalÈl, apparently killed his brother YakhshÈ. It was comparatively common for siblings or parents and their offspring to govern separate cities or fight over territory. This discord not only contributed to the splintered nature of the contemporary political scene, but also resulted in conflicting networks of loyalty and patronage. This fracturing highlights the problem of viewing the Turcoman principalities as ‘small interchangeable dynasties’ in modern scholarship, and of using ‘beylik’ as a dynastic descriptor, akin to ‘Mamluk’ or ‘Ottoman’.123 Osman Turan’s conception of the so-­called beyliks as ‘half-­ shamanistic’ and ruled by Turkish ‘frontier princes’ who were resistant to Mongol rule and ‘unaffected by Persian culture’ has served to crystallise how scholars have sometimes viewed and

137

138

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

defined the ‘generic’ beylik.124 Their role in the ‘Turkification’ of the region was undoubtedly important. However, it has profoundly shaped their conception in some modern Turkish scholarship, despite their rule over ethnically diverse populations and their engagement with non-­Turkish people and cultures.125 To give an example: during the 1277–8 Qaramanid occupation of Konya (the first of many), Mu˙ammad ibn Qaråmån (d. 1278) apparently declared that Turkish was to be the official language of government. This unprecedented event (which, as A. C. S. Peacock has recently suggested, may not have even happened) has been imbued with nationalist sentiment by some Turkish scholars and transformed into a symbol of Turkish resistance against foreign interlopers.126 The existence of Persian interlinear translations in the 1314–15 Qur’an, the evidence of consumption of Arabic literature and the affiliation of certain beys to the Mevlevis suggests, however, that there is more to Turcoman cultural history than their ‘Turkification’ of RËm.127 A general observation about the Turcoman principalities is that they partially filled a regional power gap. The Seljuks’ political redundancy and eventual demise and the Ilkhanids’ preoccupation with internal rebellions and Mamluk hostility entailed the relative absence of both in RËm’s political sphere. However, it is difficult and unproductive to attempt to define the Turcoman polities beyond that. In the widest possible sense, they were nebulous collectives that differed in size, geographical territory, political and cultural affiliations and internal dynamics. The Turcoman groups were also nebulous because they were not coherent, unified ruling structures in many cases, with brothers, cousins and vicegerents competing for power, land and resources. In the context of such rivalries, some individuals entered into mutually beneficial relationships with certain networks such as that of the Mevlevi disciples, which in turn helped to shape their cultural activities and artistic patronage. In such cases, focusing on the complexities of the individual and the notion of the ‘Konya school’ has been more fruitful in uncovering the nuanced shape of production, patronage and power in early fourteenth-­century RËm. Conclusion This chapter has discussed six illuminated manuscripts produced in early fourteenth-­century RËm (one of which was largely unknown to scholarship) and one from 1228 with early fourteenth-­century illumination. While three of these manuscripts are connected to Turcoman beys, four are closely linked to the Mevlevis. Three of the four Mevlevi manuscripts (the 1314 Intihånåma, the 1323 MasnavÈ and the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ) clearly show a degree of continuity from the period covered in Chapter 1, in terms of their decoration and production locations, as well as the identity of artists and

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

patrons. As in the late thirteenth century, the Mevlevis continued to play crucial roles in illuminated manuscript production, and Konya remained an important centre for the arts of the book, despite continued political unrest. Based on this cohesive body of evidence, it would appear that a loose ‘school’ of illumination was present in Konya from at least the early fourteenth century, but possibly earlier. Although there were clear visual links to the Mamluk and Ilkhanid traditions of manuscript illumination, this ‘Konya school’ had its own distinctive visual repertoire that may call into question other manuscripts identified as ‘Mamluk’ or ‘Ilkhanid’. Moreover, the production of illuminated manuscripts in Konya for Turcoman patrons who lived elsewhere underlines Konya’s status as the most significant centre for the arts of the book in late medieval RËm. The unusual appearance of the 1318 MasnavÈ from Sivas, which was perhaps produced outside of the boundaries of this ‘school’, supports the notion of a primarily Konya-­based community of illuminators, yet also demonstrates that Mevlevi illuminated manuscript production was not confined to the former Seljuk capital. The visual properties and inscriptions of the three manuscripts produced for Turcoman patrons, together with their wider cultural contexts, show that the ‘beylik’ label is not particularly helpful or revealing in this instance. Even leaving aside the ‘Turkocentric’ quality of the ‘beylik’ concept, the manuscripts vary greatly in terms of their appearance (despite sharing some common motifs), so do not amount to a coherent ‘beylik’ visual identity. It has been more constructive to consider individual patrons on their terms and look closely at their affiliations, relationships and activities. These endeavours have revealed that, in some cases, the internal politics of the Turcoman principalities could be quite antagonistic, and that certain beys were more than forces for ‘Turkification’ in RËm. This re-­evaluation of how to approach this period and how the arts of the book fit into the history of RËm suggests that more attention must be paid to the activities and affiliations of individuals and that scholars must look beyond the political or dynastic macro-­ level. While dynastic or ethnonational frameworks might be entirely appropriate in other circumstances, the tripartite ‘Seljuk-BeylikOttoman’ narrative and the apparent division between cosmopolitan Persian-­speaking urbanites and nomadic Turkish-­speaking frontier lords are no longer tenable where an intimate medium such as illuminated manuscripts is concerned. Such material requires a different perspective that uncovers the nuances of individuals’ histories and fosters a more comprehensive overall understanding of the period’s cultural ­landscape – ­a landscape that was rich in artistic activity and populated by artists and patrons from many different walks of life.

139

140

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Notes 1. Cahen 1968: 304. 2. Al-­AqsaråyÈ 1944: 311. Al-­ AqsaråyÈ notes that, amongst others, members of the Hamidids, the Ashrafids and the Garmiyanids came to pay tribute: ‘Falak al-DÈn Dundår ÓamÈd az BËrghlË (Uluborlu) va awlåd-i Ashraf az GhurghurËm (Gorgorum) va asbå†-i Íå˙ib Fakhr al-DÈn az Qaråhißår dawla (Afyonkarahisar) va umaråʾ-i Garmiyån va abnåʾ-i ʿAlÈshÈr az KËtåhya va qilåʿ-i ån ˙udËd va Sulaymån Påshå az Qas†amËniya (Kastamonu)’. 3. Anonymous 1952: 60, 63, 85, 89. This individual may be the patron of the 1314–15 Qaramanid Qur’an, KhalÈl ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån. 4. At this time, these dynasties were based in Larende and Ermenek, Bey∞ehir, Denizli and the south-­ west coast, respectively (Melville 2009: 78–9; Yıldız 2006: 488). 5. Anonymous 1952: 63, 89; Melville 2009: 79. 6. Blessing 2014: 129. 7. For instance, senior Ilkhanids such as Qunghur†åy and GaykhåtË had held the governorship in the past, but from the late thirteenth century, the post was given to the likes of Taghachar, an army commander of questionable loyalty to the Khån (Melville 2009: 81–2). 8. Ibid: 88. 9. Ibid: 89; Sümer 2001. 10. There is no date for the event, but, as both Melville and Sümer suggest, the reason for ChËbån’s arrival into RËm in the summer of 1314 was probably to deal with both ÏranjÈn and the Qaramanids, so the annexation perhaps took place in early 1314 (Melville 2009: 89; Sümer 2012). ÏranjÈn mounted his own rebellion against Ilkhanid central authority in 1319 and was executed (Melville 1997; 2009: 90). 11. Anonymous 1952: 67–8, 93. 12. Al-ʿUmarÈ 1929: 31–2. 13. Al-­AqsaråyÈ 1944: 324–6; al-ʿUmarÈ 1929: 51–2; Anonymous 1952: 68, 94. 14. Sümer 2001. 15. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 896; 2002: 627. 16. The tombs of Shams al-­DÈn YËsuf ibn ʿIzz al-­DÈn (d. 1285) and Jamål-­i ʿAlÈ (fl. late 13th c.) apparently functioned as mevlevihanes (literally, ‘Mevlevi places’). The tombs are now known as the Ate∞baz-­ı Veli Türbesi and the Cemal Ali Dede Türbesi, respectively. Although Meram today overlaps with Konya, the t­ombs – ­like the sepulchral ­shrine – w ­ ould have been located outside of the main city walls in the medieval period (Gölpınarlı 1953: 331). 17. This zåwiya was founded by Shaykh Sulaymån TurkamånÈ sometime before 1297 (Gölpınarlı 1953: 245; Lewis 2008: 425). Thank you to Zarifa Alikperova for these references. 18. This mevlevihane was established in 1316. The founder was perhaps Ulu ʿÅrif ChalabÈ himself or possibly Nußrat al-­DÈn A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad, a descendant of Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ (Tanrıkorur 2001a: 418; Yürekli-­Görkay 2011). 19. YAK, 6877, fol. 206b (see Peacock 2014: 281 for the details of another manuscript copied by the same scribe). 20. This zåwiya was founded by AkhÈ Mu˙ammad Bey ibn QalamÈ. Both building and founder are mentioned in AflåkÈ’s hagiography (AflåkÈ

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

1961: II, 962; 2002: 673–4). See also Özönder 1994: 145; Tanrıkorur 2001b; Eser and Küçükda© 2013. 21. The Ermenek zåwiya was founded (perhaps in the 1330s) by the patron of the 1314–15 Qur’an discussed below, KhalÈl ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (Eser and Küçükda© 2013). 22. This zåwiya was founded in 760 (1358–9) by Sul†ånshåh al-­MawlawÈ. The inscription pledges allegiance to Mu˙ammad ibn Eretna (r. 1352– 66). RCEA 16: no. 6327. 23. This zåwiya was established in 770 (1368–9) by Is˙åq ibn Ilyås ibn ÍårËkhån (r. 1362–88). The architect (ʿåmir, rather than the usual miʿmår) is named as ʿUthmån ibn Amatallåh. RCEA 17: 770 026. 24. There was probably a Mevlevi zåwiya in Amasya before 1284 as AflåkÈ reports that Óusåm al-­DÈn ChalabÈ was hosted there by ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn-­i ÅmåsiyyawÈ ibn Bayråm (AflåkÈ 1961: II, 877–80; 2002: 614–15). See Karata∞ 2011: 18–19. 25. Today known as the Ergun Çelebi Zaviyesi, this building may have functioned as a mevlevihane under the leadership of Jalål al-DÈn ArghËn ChalabÈ (d. 1373), a great-great-grandson of RËmÈ who is buried there. Parlak and Tanrıkorur 2003: 1. 26. On Mevlevis in Crimea, see Peacock 2018 (with thanks to the author for alerting me to his article). The remaining evidence is discussed later in this chapter. 27. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 855, 864, 939; 2002: 597, 604, 657. 28. Lewis 2008: 425. 29. Schubert 2012. 30. Appendix: cat. 4. SK, Ayasofya 2445. Uzunçar∞ılı 1984: 60, 213; Algaç 2000: 63–4; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 356–61; Özen 2003: 31. 31. These include: Shar˙ Manåzil al-SåʿirÈn; Shar˙ al-Ta˙ßÈl; Mukhtaßar al-Jåmiʿ al-Óikåyåt; Shar˙ Minhåj al-WußËl ilå ʿIlm al-UßËl; TaʿlÈqåt ʿalå Shar˙ al-Ishåråt li-l-ÊËsÈ; al-Mu˙åkamåt bayn Shurrå˙ alIshåråt; Shar˙ TajrÈd al-ʿAqåʾid; and Kåshif al-Asrår. I am grateful to A. C. S. Peacock for providing me with information about this author. 32. Köprülü Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, Fazil Ahmet Pa∞a 831. The manuscript was copied in Tabriz in 703/1303–4 (Ben Azzouna 2018: 570). The author also produced a text for Nåßir al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn QalåwËn (r. 1293–1341, with interruptions). This text, Shar˙ Manåzil al-SåʾirÈn (SK, Fatih 2707), survives in a later copy that was produced in Esfarayen between 1359–68. 33. Al-ʿUmarÈ 1929: 31. 34. Uzunçar∞ılı 2012. 35. Pourjavady 2009. 36. Langermann 2010; Biesterfeldt 2016; Kruk 2017; Janssens 1991: I, 55. 37. Calverley and Netton 2012; Kraemer 1986: 275. 38. Haq 1994: 62; Walker 1993: 103. 39. See, for example, a Qur’an produced in Bost (present-­day Afghanistan) in 505/1111–12 (BNF, Arabe 6041, fol. 1a). Available at (last accessed 28 February 2019). ‘Petals’ also appear in the 391/1000–1 Ibn al-­Bawwåb Qur’an, but they do not feature graduated colour (Wright 2009: fig. 88). 40. Appendix: cat. 5. MMK, 12-­ 1 (vol. 1), 12-­ 2 (vol. 2). Tanındı 1991; Gölpınarlı 2003: 12–13; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 101–23; Arıtan and Boydak 2016; Atalay Varol 2016. 41. Appendix: cat. 6. SK, A∞ir Efendi 316. The original Arabic text has not

141

142

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

been published, but it has been translated into Turkish in al-­ZanjånÈ 2005. See also Ünver 1970: 9; Fazlıo©lu 1997; Peacock 2015b: 283–6. 42. The foremost scholar of the Qaramanids was M. Sehabettin Tekinda© (d. 1983). See, for example, Tekinda© 1947; 1963; 1979. 43. Turan 1977: 252–3. See Yıldız 2012a on how the Qaramanids have been portrayed in modern Turkish scholarship. 44. MMK, 12-­2, fols 372b–373a, 374b–375a, 391b–392a. The translated sections consist of part of the second (al-Baqara), seventy-­eighth (al-Nabåʾ), seventy-­ninth (al-Nåziʿåt), eightieth (ʿAbasa), ninety-­third (al-Îu˙å), ninety-­fourth (al-Inshirå˙), ninety-­fifth (al-TÈn) and ninety-­ sixth (Iqråʾ) sËras. 45. MMK, 12-­2, fols 372b–373a, 374b–375a. 46. All of the sËras are Meccan and, apart from folios iib–1a in Volume One, all are from the thirtieth juzʾ. It could be that shorter verses were easier to memorise and were, therefore, translated to help the patron learn Persian. 47. James 1999: figs 31, 51. 48. TSMK, E. H. 248. See James 1999: fig. 86. 49. I am very grateful to Alison Ohta for her thoughts on the manuscript and its binding. 50. The Qur’an’s binding is very similar to that of another Qur’an (MMK, 13) that was completed on 3 Mu˙arram 727 (29 November 1326) by ʿIzz al-­DÈn al-­Kha††å† al-­SåwajÈ (Gölpınarlı 2003: 13–14). Due to the parallels between these bindings, some have suggested that the later Qur’an is also from Konya, but, as I have proposed, the 1314–15 Qur’an binding may not be original. It is also worth noting that the 1326 Qur’ans doublures, illumination and text block are significantly different in appearance to those of the 1314–15 Qur’an. It is possible that the two manuscripts were rebound at the same time (perhaps in the Mevlevi shrine) in the later fourteenth century (Tanındı 1991: 43–4; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 134–42; Jackson 2017b: figs 91–7). 51. DAK, Rasid 72. Ohta 2012: fig. 6.24. 52. For one volume, see Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 29.58 (Blair 2015). 53. John Rylands Library, Manchester, 42 (Ohta 2012: fig. 4.7). 54. The earliest dated and securely identified binding from RËm is an unilluminated copy of Íadr al-­DÈn al-­QËnawÈ’s (d. 1274) TafsÈr al-Fåti˙a that was copied in Ankara in RabÈʿ I 703 (October–November 1303) by IbråhÈm ibn Shaʿbån (TSMK, A. 110). Tanındı 1990b: fig. 15. 55. SK, A∞ir Efendi 316. 56. Peacock 2015b: 283–4. 57. Ibid: 284. 58. Appendix: cats 7, 9, 10. BNF, Supplément persan 1794; MMK, 1177 and 74. On the BNF manuscript, see Blochet 1928: no. 1507; Richard 1997: cat. 17; Tanındı 2007: 166; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 303–5. On MMK, 1177 and 74, see Tanındı 2001: 147–8; 2007: 165–6; Gölpınarlı 2003: 110, 248–52; Ça©man and Tanındı 2005; Roxburgh 2005b: cat. 91; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 165–83, 306–18. 59. For published versions, see Sul†ån Walad 1936; 1976; 1988. 60. Sul†ån Walad 1980. 61. Sul†ån Walad 1997–8. 62. Appendix: cat. 8. SK, Nafiz Pa∞a 650. This manuscript is mentioned very briefly in Çetin 1961: 99n4, 114. 63. BNF, Supplément persan 1794, fol. 221a; MMK, 1177, fol. 317b.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

ʿUthmån describes himself in this way in another, unilluminated manuscript, which is a complete copy of Sul†ån Walad’s collected MasnavÈs copied on 14 Shawwål 718 (7 December 1318) in Konya (Royal Asiatic Society, Kolkata, no. 1431). See Sprenger 1854: 587–8. The colophon is transcribed in Muqtadir 1908: 93. ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh was possibly the father of two other Mevlevi scribes, named Óasan and Óusayn. Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-­WaladÈ copied an unilluminated manuscript of Sul†ån Walad’s Rabåbnåma on 18 Jumådå II 722 (4 July 1322) (SZB, Or. Quart. 2131) and the same author’s DÈvån on 11 Rajab 722 (26 July 1322) (SK, Halet Efendi EK 139). No location is mentioned. Some forty to fifty years later, Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-­ MawlawÈ copied three illuminated manuscripts dated 1368–72 for a Mevlevi amÈr whose manuscript patronage forms the focus of Chapter 4 (Gölpınarlı 1953: 44). Óusayn ibn ʿUthmån al-­MawlawÈ al-­QËnawÈ completed two unilluminated copies of RËmÈ’s MasnavÈ on 13 Íafar 738 (11 September 1337) and 25 Shawwål 744 (11 March 1344) (respectively, SZB, Minutoli 21, fol. 143b and IK, Orhan 620, fol. 121a). 64. Farhad and Rettig 2016: 208–13, 248–51, cats 25, 37. 65. At least one other manuscript may have been copied in this madrasa. This manuscript is an unilluminated copy of Nihåyat al-Idråk fÈ Diråyat al-Aflåk by Qu†b al-­DÈn ShÈråzÈ (d. 1311) that was completed in the middle of Shaʿbån 680 (November–December 1281) in al-madrasa al-Íå˙ibiyya al-Shamsiyya in Sivas and corrected in the presence of its author on 10 Shawwål 683 (20 December 1284) (SK, Köprülü 956, fol. 148b). The colophon has been transcribed by Kaveh Niazi, who states that ‘al-madrasa al-Íå˙ibiyya al-Shamsiyya’ probably refers to the Çifte Minareli Medrese (Niazi 2011: 115n1). This suggestion is possible, since Shams al-­DÈn was the Ilkhanid ßå˙ib-dÈvån, hence ‘al-Íå˙ibiyya’. I am grateful to Ethel Sara Wolper for this reference. 66. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 831, 844, 867; 2002: 580, 589, 606; Konyalı 1968: 99. Tåj al-­DÈn is not mentioned by Sipahsålår (Sipahsålår 2007). Tåj al-­ DÈn’s son was also a Mevlevi scribe, as shown by an unilluminated MasnavÈ (Books Five and Six) copied by him for AmÈr Óusayn PËlåd on 12 Rama∂ån 743 (8 February 1343) in Konya. He signed the manuscript ‘AbË ÓamÈd/Óåmid ibn Mu˙ammad ibn al-­NaqÈb al-­MawlawÈ’ (Sotheby’s, Lot 62, LN5617, Oriental Manuscripts and Miniatures, 18 October 1995). 67. This madrasa was founded in the 1250s by Fakhr al-­ DÈn Arslån Êughmush ibn Sevinç, but is no longer extant. 68. BSM, Cod. Arab. 2676 (Lings 2005: fig. 102). Lings ascribes the manuscript to fourteenth-­century Iraq, Persia or the Near East. Juzʾ 29 from this Qur’an was sold at Sotheby’s (Lot 108, Sale L16223, Arts of the Islamic World, 19 October 2016). The sale notes attribute it to late fourteenth- or early fifteenth-­century Ottoman Turkey. 69. Known surviving volumes include: juzʾ 4 (Sotheby’s, Lot 122, Sale L16223, Arts of the Islamic World, 19 October 2016); juzʾ 5 (Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, AC1995.124.2); juzʾ 6 (KC, QUR289, James 1992b: cat. 20); one folio from juzʾ 8 (Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, EA1993.394); juzʾ 12 (Private collection, Tanman and Rifat 2001); juzʾ 13 (KC, QUR229, James 1992b: cat. 20); juzʾ 18 (Sotheby’s, Lot 12, Sale L17220, Arts of the Islamic World, 26 April 2017). 70. James 1999: fig. 53.

143

144

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

71. The manuscript was sold at Sotheby’s on 22 April 2015 (Lot 66, Sale L15220, Arts of the Islamic World) though is mistakenly described as Book Six. Thank you to the owner who kindly shared images of the manuscript with me. 72. AflåkÈ mentions a gathering of the ʿulamåʾ in Tokat at the ‘madrasa-yi MuʿÈn al-DÈn-i parvåna’ (1961: I, 559; 2002: 387). 73. See Chapter 1. 74. Unilluminated Mevlevi texts were produced outside of RËm from an early date. A copy of the second volume of the MasnavÈ, which was completed on 4 Shaʿbån 706 (9 February 1307) by MËså ibn Ya˙yå ibn Óamza al-­MawlawÈ, was produced in Damascus. BSM, Cod. pers. 45 (Aumer 1866: 16, cat. 45). 75. Demirel 2009; Faroqhi 2012; Turan 1951. 76. Fleet 2009: 248. 77. Togan 1991: 223–6. Precise figures are not available. 78. Ibid: 228. 79. Blessing 2014: 69. The other two are the Gök Medrese (not to be confused with the Tokat Gök Medrese), founded by Fakhr al-­ DÈn ʿAlÈ, and the Buruciye Medresesi, named for its otherwise unknown patron, MuΩaffar ibn Hibatallåh al-­Mufa∂∂al al-­BurËjirdÈ (of Borujerd in present-­day western Iran). 80. Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 289; 1962: 434. 81. Blessing 2014: 173–5. 82. Ibid: 187–91. 83. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 720–1, 852–6, 863–4, 928, 953–4; 2002: 502, 595–8, 603, 649, 666. 84. This unnamed daughter is almost certainly Íafwat al-­Dunya wa-­l-DÈn (Wolper 2000). AflåkÈ refers to the daughter as ‘khåvandzåda’ (princess) (1961: II, 891; 2002: 623). 85. Appendix: cat. 9. This may be the ‘madrasa-yi khudåvandigår’ mentioned in Chapter 1. See n. 132 (Chapter 1) and n. 101 below. 86. SK, Ayasofya 2442. 87. MMK, 67. Gölpınarlı 2003: 87–9. For a published version, see RËmÈ 1957–66. The DÈvån is a collection of lyric poems containing more than 40,000 verses. 88. See n. 92 below. 89. YAK, 6877. See n. 19 above. 90. SK, Fazil Ahmed Pa∞a 1174. 91. AflåkÈ 1961: I, 165–8; 2002: 115–17. 92. Sotheby’s, Lot 106, Sale L16223, Arts of the Islamic World, 19 October 2016. Thank you to Andrew Butler-­Wheelhouse for allowing me to examine this manuscript, which is presently located in the Sam Fogg collection. The Jandarids are named after their founder, Yaman (ibn?) Jåndår (fl. mid-­13th c.). They are also known as the Isfandiyarids after a later ruler, Mubåriz al-­DÈn Isfandiyår (r. 1393–1440). Mordtmann 2012. 93. Schiltberger 1879: 34; Piloti 1950: 61, 73; Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 286; 1962: 432–3. 94. MK, Afyon Gedik Ahmet Pa∞a Òl Halk Kütüphanesi 18233, fol. 202a. A copy of RËmÈ’s DÈvån-i KabÈr dated mid-­Rajab 723 (July 1323) names the scribe as A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad al-­Kåtib al-­MawlawÈ al-­A˙adÈ (Atatürk Kitaplı©ı, Istanbul, M. C. K/17, mentioned briefly in Waley 2015), while a copy of ʿAwårif al-Maʿårif by the Sufi scholar Shihåb al-­DÈn AbË Óafß ʿUmar al-­SuhrawardÈ produced at the end of RabÈʿ II

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

721 (May 1321) names him as A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad al-­MawlawÈ al-­A˙adÈ al-­Kåtib (Konya Bölge Yazma Eserler Kütüphanesi, Konya, Burdur Òl Halk Kütüphanesi 1839). 95. SZB, Or. Oct. 4046. The scribe’s name was Mu˙ammad ibn ʿÏså al-­ BukhårÈ al-­MawlawÈ (Heinz and Eilers 1968: 296). No copying location is mentioned. ‘Al-mawlawÈ’ or ‘al-mawlawiyya’ was also used in the late Ayyubid and Mamluk periods to refer to viziers or high-­ranking members of the military or ʿulamåʾ, but the epithet in these cases does not appear as part of an individual’s name. For example, the dedication of a copy of the Gospels that was completed in 1340 for a Coptic scholar in Cairo reads: ‘For the sublime treasury of the lord and master’ (‘li-l-khizåna al-ʿåliyya al-mawlawiyya al-målikiyya’). See Hunt 2009: 119, fig. 2 (the Hijri year is mentioned as ‘751’ on p. 122, but this does not correspond to 1340). A similar dedication appears in a 1366 (Jumådå II 767) copy of QaßÈdat al-Burdah by al-­ BËßÈrÈ (d. 1294) with a takhmÈs (amplification) by Nåßir al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad al-­FayyËmÈ (WAM, W.581). The dedication on folio 1a opens with the words: ‘For the noble and sublime treasury of the lord’ (‘li-l-khizåna al-karÈmiyya al-ʿåliyya al-mawlawiyya’). Due to the appearance of ‘al-mawlawiyya’, the manuscript has been erroneously attributed to Konya. The manuscript is available at (last accessed 22 February 2019). 96. Often loosely translated as ‘warrior’, this word usually refers to those who took part in raids or expeditions (ghazw) against non-­Muslim territories. The literature is extensive, but see, in particular, Wittek 1936; Jennings 1986; Imber 2000. 97. It is possible that, rather than being an immigrant from Ray himself, Tåj al-­DÈn’s family was from the region. Howard Crane mentions one Mu˙ammad ibn Ma˙mËd al-­RåzÈ (d. 1256), who was a Seljuk vizier and qå∂È in Konya in the 1240s–50s (Crane 1993: 42). This could be Tåj al-­DÈn’s father, since he gives his full name as ‘Mu˙ammad ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Ma˙mËd al-­RåzÈ’ in the Tokat manuscript. 98. SK, Nafiz Pa∞a 658, fol. 157b. His epithets ‘al-MustaʿßimÈ al-ʿAbbåsÈ’ suggest that he was formerly in the service of the last Abbasid Caliph, al-Mustaʿßim Bi’llåh (r. 1242–58). 99. MMA, 55.125.11–15; Dår al-­Athår al-­Islåmiyyah, Kuwait, MSLNS 17 (Canby et al. 2016: cat. 111, 189–90). The scribe’s name is FarrËkh ibn ʿAbd al-­La†Èf al-­Kåtib al-­YåqËtÈ al-­MawlawÈ. His epithets, ‘al-­Kåtib al-­YåqËtÈ’, indicate that he was a professional scribe and a student of the celebrated calligrapher YåqËt al-­MustaʿßimÈ (d. 1298). The copying location is not mentioned. See the previous note for another scribe with an Abbasid connection. 100. SZB, Or. Quart. 1583, fol. 115b. The scribe’s name is ʿAlÈ ibn Mu˙ammad al-ÓåfiΩ al-­AqsaråyÈ al-­MawlawÈ (Weisweiler 1962: pl. 18). 101. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 797, 928; 2002: 556, 649. Aside from the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, two more manuscripts contain the nisba of ‘al-­ WaladÈ’. Both connect to a specific production location, which is Konya. The first is the 1278 MasnavÈ (MMK, 51) discussed in Chapter 1. The second is an early, unilluminated copy of the Ibtidånåma by Sul†ån Walad. This manuscript was completed in Mu˙arram 694 (November–December 1294) by Mu˙ammad ibn Is˙åq ibn IbråhÈm

145

146

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

al-­LårandÈ (of Larende) al-­WaladÈ in the ‘madrasa-yi khudåvandigår’, which was undoubtedly in Konya (SK, Hacı Mahmud Efendi 2206). On this madrasa, see n. 132 (Chapter 1) and n. 85 above. This scribe also completed a 1297 (end of Jumådå II 697) copy of Sul†ån Walad’s Ibtidånåma (SK, Nafiz Pa∞a 480), a copy of RËmÈ’s MasnavÈ from 711/1311–12 (SK, Hüsrev Pa∞a 184) and a copy of Sul†ån Walad’s Maʿårif from the 1320s (MMK, 2114). Gölpınarlı 1971: 178–9. None of these manuscripts mention a production location. In addition to these two examples, the scribe of the 1314 Intihånåma and the 1323 MasnavÈ described himself as a freed slave (ʿatÈq) of Sul†ån Walad, but did not use the nisba ‘al-­WaladÈ’. In other sources, AflåkÈ’s hagiography mentions, for example, Shaykh Saʿd al-­DÈn-­i MathnawÈ-Khwån-­i WaladÈ (AflåkÈ 1961: II, 797; 2002: 556). 102. Although it might seem odd that there was possibly no copy of this text in the shrine some twenty years after the death of its author, there was no complete copy of RËmÈ’s DÈvån-i KabÈr in the shrine until 1409 (Appendix: cat. 14). 103. See Appendix: cat. 7 and SK, Hacı Mahmud Efendi 2206; SK, Nafiz Pa∞a 480; SZB, Or. Quart. 2131; and SZB, Or. Quart. 3167. See also n. 63 above. 104. See n. 32 above. 105. Gölpınarlı suggests that an unilluminated copy of al-­ZamakhsharÈ’s (d. 1144) al-Kashshåf that was copied on 1 Rajab 712 (1 November 1312) by IbråhÈm ibn NazkarÈ(?) could have been produced for Mubåriz al-­DÈn (MMK, 5806) (Gölpınarlı 1972: 379). A waqf note on folio 68a states that the manuscript was donated to a mosque in ‘Sulaymånshahr’, another name for Bey∞ehir (Cahen 1968: 305). 106. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 951; 2002: 665. 107. ‘baʿd az shumå kharåb-i Èn vilåyat va tafriqa-yi jamʿÈyat-i Èn jamåʿat dar qadam-i u khwåhad bËdand’ (AflåkÈ 1961: II, 924; 2002: 647). 108. Anonymous 1952: 60, 63, 85, 89. 109. Sümer 2001. 110. On these zåwiyas, see notes 20–1 above. 111. IbråhÈm’s presence in Konya can be dated, because AflåkÈ notes that Ulu ʿÅrif ChalabÈ was in Soltaniyeh at the same time, just after the death of the Ilkhanid ruler, ◊ljaytË, on 16 December 1316 (AflåkÈ 1961: II, 906; 2002: 633). 112. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 906–8; 2002: 633–5. 113. Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 281, 285; 1962: 430, 432, 432n73. 114. Blessing 2014: 165–6, 191. 115. Ibid: 167. 116. Wright 2012. 117. It is noteworthy that the primary Qaramanid chronicle, the sixteenth-­ century Turkish prose work, the Qaråmånnåma, which was written by A˙mad ShikårÈ, was apparently based on a lost fourteenth-­century Persian shåhnåma composed by YarjånÈ at the command of the Qaramanids (ShikårÈ 1946; 2005). 118. Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 344; 1962: 463. 119. IbråhÈm’s father, Sulaymån, is mentioned in Mevlevi sources as the recipient of gifts from Ulu ʿÅrif ChalabÈ (AflåkÈ 1961: I, 463; 2002: 319; Sipahsålår 2007: 180). 120. Konyalı 1967: 253; Blessing 2014: 66. ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn will be discussed in Chapter 4.

fourteenth-century konya and sivas

121. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 926; 2002: 647–8. 122. Uzunçar∞ılı 1937. 123. Cahen 1968: 361. 124. Turan 1977: 251–3. 125. Paul 2011: 109. See also Tezcan 2013. 126. Peacock 2019: 147–8; Yıldız 2012a. 127. The 1314–15 Qur’an predates the earliest dated translation of the Qur’an into Turkish (TIEM, 73), though there are eleventh-­century Qarakhanid Turkish paraphrases of Qur’an verses. This manuscript was copied in 734 (1333–4) by Mu˙ammad ibn al-Óåjj Dawlatshåh al-­ShÈråzÈ (Togan 1964; Hamidullah 1965: 67; Birnbaum 1990: 113; Özkan 2010). These authors have suggested Ilkhanid Iraq as a place of production, but it is possible that the Qur’an was copied in RËm. A scribe with the same name completed a copy of RËmÈ’s MasnavÈ on Thursday, 15 DhË-l-Óijja 744 (29 April 1344) that, given its illumination and four-­column text block format, was probably produced in RËm (BSM, Cod. pers. 35). Aumer 1866: 14, cat. 35. Additional Turkish translations of the Qur’an and of Qur’anic commentaries occurred during the 1350s–60s under Inanchid and Ottoman patronage (Özkan 2008).

147

CHAPTER THREE

Two Manuscripts from South‑western Ru¯m

After the disintegration of the Ilkhanid state in 1335, the Mongol hold on central and eastern RËm weakened. Although sources for the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Ilkhanids are relatively meagre regarding RËm specifically, it seems that control lay mainly with local Mongol governors.1 During the ensuing period of conflict between the Mongol Jalayirids (1335–1432) and Chubanids (1335–57), one of these governors, Eretna (d. 1352), worked to establish himself as ruler of eastern RË­m – ­a position he achieved from 1341–2 with the issue of independent coinage.2 The story in central and western RËm was somewhat different. As mentioned in previous chapters, the Turcoman principalities were long-­standing inhabitants of RËm. Having emerged in the wake of the Seljuks’ 1243 defeat at the hands of the Mongols at the Battle of Köseda©, these family based polities were connected by complex networks of rivalries and alliances. By the early part of the fourteenth century, many of these principalities had, by and large, consolidated their hold on their territories and established bases in towns such as Larende, Bursa, Kütahya and Manisa. On the south-­western Mediterranean coast of RËm, with which this chapter is concerned, these polities included the Sarukhanids (1290s–1410), the Mantashids (1261–1424), the Inanchids (after 1261–1391) and the Aydinids (1308–1425), amongst others. This chapter focuses on the activities of two members of the Hamidid principality.3 Founded in Uluborlu in perhaps the 1280s, the principality soon absorbed Antalya, E©irdir (also known as Falakåbåd in the medieval period), Isparta and Burdur into its borders. According to al-ʿUmarÈ writing in the 1340s, the principality possessed twenty-­four towns, fifty-­two fortresses and 24,500 cavalrymen in total.4 Ibn Ba††Ë†a, who visited several Hamidid-­controlled towns in around 1331, paints a favourable picture of the area overall. He was particularly impressed with Antalya, though also held Burdur,

ˉ M TWO MANUSCRIPTS FROM SOUTH-WESTERN RU

Isparta and E©irdir in high regard, noting the abundance of bazaars, orchards, springs and streams. In all of these places, Ibn Ba††Ë†a also visited several madrasas, mosques and zåwiyas, encountering scholars and the akhÈs, who are discussed briefly in this and the following chapter.5 The Hamidid principality persisted until 1423, when their ruler, ʿUthmån ibn Mubåriz al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (r. before 1392–1423), was defeated by the Ottomans. Two manuscripts are discussed in this chapter. Both are, visually speaking, rather modest. They were produced for two beys in Òstanos (now known as Korkuteli) near Antalya. The manuscripts are both copies of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd min al-Mabdåʾ ilå-l-Maʿåd (The Path of God’s Bondsmen from Origin to Return, hereafter ‘Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd’).6 This Persian work was composed by Najm al-­DÈn RåzÈ Dåya (d. 1256), a Kubrawi devotee originally from Ray.7 Whereas the two previous chapters have concentrated on Konya and Sivas as locations of manuscript production and patronage, this chapter shifts focus from central and eastern RËm to the western regions. Analyses thus far highlight Konya’s dominance as a centre for the production of illuminated manuscripts. This chapter, however, reinforces the suggestion in Chapter 2 that Konya was not the whole story where illuminated manuscripts were concerned. Other smaller towns had their own networks for the patronage and production of such material, even if only relatively limited evidence of this survives. As I shall discuss, the copies of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd – a popular work concerning themes of taßawwuf and good g­ overnance – c­ hallenge simplistic conceptions of the ‘frontier’ periphery as a wild ‘no man’s land’ that was distinct from a sophisticated, urban heartland. The I˙stanos copies of Mirsa¯d al-ʿIba¯d ˙ The text of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd was completed in Sivas in 1223–4 after the author fled Khwarazm in 1219 in anticipation of the Mongol advance. We learn from the text that Najm al-­DÈn found RËm’s religious and intellectual landscape to be quite welcoming. He writes that he sought refuge in RËm due to the predominance of Sunni Islam in the region and the absence of sectarian strife that afflicted some Persian cities, resulting from the lack of a strong attachment to a particular madhhab (Sunni school of jurisprudence).8 He also praises the RËm Seljuk rulers for their endowments of educational foundations and sponsorship of both scholars and dervishes.9 According to Ibn BÈbÈ, Najm al-­ DÈn presented and dedicated his recently completed work to the Seljuk sultan, ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I (r. 1219–37),10 following a meeting in Malatya with Shihåb al-­DÈn AbË Óafß ʿUmar al-­SuhrawardÈ (d. 1234), the well-­known dervish and Abbasid envoy.11 The latter gave Najm al-­DÈn a letter of reference to take to the sultan, introducing both the author and his work. Ibn BÈbÈ further reports that the text, which apparently was completed before

149

150

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

the author’s arrival in Malatya, met with the sultan’s approval.12 The text that was composed in Sivas and presented to Kayqubåd was, in fact, the second version of the work, which was originally completed in 1221, soon after the author’s arrival in Kayseri. Najm al-­DÈn seemingly did not care to stay in central RËm, as he soon produced a third version of the work for the Erzincan-­based Mangujakid ruler, ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn DåwËd ibn Bahråmshåh (r. 1225–8). This version, which is entitled MarmËzåt-i AsadÈ dar MazmËråt-i DåvËdÈ, does not seem to have been in wide circulation, as only one copy has survived.13 It has much more of a focus on governance than taßawwuf.14 Despite his earlier praise of the region, the third version mentions Najm al-­DÈn’s miserable experiences in RËm, which ultimately led him to leave permanently for Baghdad in around 1225.15 Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd provides guidance for those following the path of taßawwuf and includes some sections on how rulers should apply these spiritual principles. Specifically, the first part of the fifth chapter is devoted to the conduct of kings, ministers and deputies.16 The text as a whole was probably not intended by the author as a ‘mirror for princes’, seeing as it does not deal with governance in extensive detail, nor is it arranged into the ‘classic ten-­chapter format’ of royal mirrors.17 Indeed, Najm al-­DÈn himself states that both ‘elect and commonalty’ (‘khåßß u ʿåm’) should benefit from the book’s teachings.18 However, the sections concerning the behaviour of kings and others are a form of advice literature that should be viewed in the broader context of the popularity of the genre in late medieval RËm. This is discussed in more detail below. As evidenced by Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd and other works of his, such as Ba˙r al-Óaqåʾiq wa-l-MaʿånÈ,19 Najm al-­DÈn was a vital contributor to the spiritual and intellectual life of Islamised RËm, along with such other figures as Ibn al-ʿArabÈ, Shams al-­DÈn TabrÈzÈ and Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ.20 Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd is Najm al-­DÈn’s most celebrated work, and numerous manuscripts of it survive. Copies were produced across the Islamic world, though, to begin with, it was perhaps most popular in RËm.21 It was praised by AflåkÈ as the ‘stock-­in-­trade of teachers of the Qur’an’22 and was one of the few contemporary works to be endorsed by Ibn BÈbÈ.23 However, these two manuscripts are the earliest surviving illuminated copies and the only ones from the fourteenth century that are securely attributable to RËm.24 The two copies of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd possess striking physical similarities to each other. They were copied by Ra˙matallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Muqarrab. The earlier manuscript was completed at the end of Mu˙arram 750 (mid-­April 1349) for ʿÏså, son of Zakariyyåʾ, who is described in the dedication as deceased (‘mar˙Ëm’) (figs 3.1–3.2).25 The later manuscript was produced on 23 Jumådå I 752 (18 July 1351) for Ghiyåth al-­DÈn ʿAbd al-­Ra˙Èm, son of YËnus (fig 3.3, see also fig. A.14).26 Both patrons were members of the Hamidid principality that was based on the south-­ western coast of RËm

Figure 3.1 Dedication, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1349, SK, Fatih 2841, fol. 1a.

Figure 3.2 Colophon, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1349, SK, Fatih 2841, fol. 176a.

152

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 3.3 Dedication, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1351, SK, Ayasofya 2067, fol. 1a.

ˉ M TWO MANUSCRIPTS FROM SOUTH-WESTERN RU

during the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries (see fig. 3.7). The colophon of the 1351 manuscript notes that it was produced in Òstanos, a small town about 60km north-­west of Antalya. Since the same scribe produced the manuscripts for individuals in the same family, it is highly likely that the earlier manuscript was also completed in Òstanos. The medium-­sized manuscripts are physically very similar and were probably illuminated by the same artist. They are virtually the same size and their text blocks are nearly identical in format. The only significant difference in the manuscripts’ mise-­ en-­ page is that the colophon of the earlier manuscript is arranged into an upturned triangle (see fig. 3.2). The 1351 manuscript contains two types of paper. The first is not particularly noteworthy, but the second is very significant. It appears throughout the last quarter of the manuscript (including fol. 200, on which the dated colophon is written) and contains a watermark that has not been noted in previous scholarship. The watermark, which consists of two conjoined, equally sized circles bisected by a long vertical line, likely originated in fourteenth-­century Italy (fig. 3.4).27 Similar watermarks mainly appear in fourteenth-­century Italian manuscripts, but also appear in books from all over eastern and western Europe.

Figure 3.4 Watermark, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1351, SK, Ayasofya 2067.

153

Figure 3.5  Text page, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1349, SK, Fatih 2841, fol. 1b.

Figure 3.6  Contents pages, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1349, SK, Fatih 2841, fols 2b–3a.

ˉ M TWO MANUSCRIPTS FROM SOUTH-WESTERN RU

The main script of both manuscripts is neat but unremarkable naskh, written in black ink (fig 3.5). The calligraphy features many of the characteristics seen in scripts discussed in earlier chapters. These characteristics include short serifless alifs, terminal nËns, låms and qåfs with deep round bowls and kåfs with long broad heads. Additionally, the contents pages of both manuscripts are headed by titles written in large, elongated gold, black and red thuluth (fig. 3.6). The illumination of both manuscripts is visually very similar and is rather modest compared to the manuscripts of Konya discussed in previous chapters. Both open with a full-­page illuminated dedicatory frontispiece, followed by a slim headpiece. The manuscripts’ frontispieces and headpieces are of slightly different sizes, which indicates that the later example was not traced or replicated from the earlier manuscript. There are several elements of illumination in both manuscripts that appear in earlier manuscripts from RËm. For example, the upper and lower panels of the dedications feature inscriptions on scrollwork grounds, while the central panels contain red cross-­hatched ground. Both decorative motifs feature in the 1314–15 Qur’an discussed in Chapter 2 (see figs 2.8 and 2.12). Scrollwork in upper and lower panels appears in manuscripts from medieval Persia and Central Asia, while the use of red cross-­hatching was probably adopted from the Mamluk and Ilkhanid arts of the book (or had, perhaps, become more widespread in RËm by this period).28 The 1349 manuscript also features a colophon written in gold, with gold titles and rosettes appearing throughout the manuscript (see fig. 3.2). A short, rather messy Persian inscription below the colophon of the 1351 copy details the birth dates of three individuals from the same family (fig. A.14).29 The first line concerns one WalÈ ÓåjjÈ Bey al-­ MawlawÈ al-­BurhånÈ, who was born in 762/1360–1.30 The second and third lines mention the birth of his sons, Mu˙ammad and A˙mad, in 805/1402–3 and 806/1404, respectively. WalÈ ÓåjjÈ Bey, who is described as the ‘weak slave’ (‘banda-yi z˙aʿÈf’), presumably wrote the inscription. Nothing further is currently known about this later owner other than the suggestion that he acquired the manuscript some years after it was produced. Frontier patrons, paper and plague The name of the manuscripts’ scribe – Ra˙matallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn ­Muqarrab – ­does not give any clues as to his geographical origins or religious affiliations.31 The unnamed illuminator evidently had access to wider regional or transregional styles, as the illumination shows several visual links to the 1314–15 Qur’an, as well as Mamluk and Ilkhanid decorative styles. Overall, the amount of illumination is modest and what is present is not particularly distinc-

155

156

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

tive, ­especially in comparison to what we have seen from Konya in Chapters 1 and 2. The patron of the 1349 copy of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd was ʿÏså ibn Zakariyyåʾ, and the patron of the 1351 copy was Ghiyåth al-­DÈn ʿAbd al-­Ra˙Èm ibn YËnus (fig. 3.7). As far as can be established, ʿÏså and ʿAbd al-­Ra˙Èm are not mentioned in any historical chronicles and perhaps were not rulers at all. Both, however, are called ‘great commanders’ (‘al-amÈr al-kabÈr’) in their dedicatory frontispieces. ʿÏså is also termed ‘possessor of the sword and the pen’ (‘ßå˙ib al-sayf wa-lqalam’), which suggests that he may have been a scholar or bureaucrat of some kind, in addition to undertaking a military role. As well as being an amÈr, ʿAbd al-­Ra˙Èm was given the title ‘zayn al-˙åjj [sic: ˙ajj] wa-l-˙aramayn’, which was perhaps a logistical post concerning the organisation and safeguarding of the annual pilgrimage to Mecca on behalf of the area’s inhabitants.32 ʿAbd al-­Ra˙Èm’s father, YËnus (d. before 1324), was the brother of the Hamidid ruler Falak al-­DÈn Dundår Bey (d. 1324). At some point in the first decade of the fourteenth century (perhaps after 1308),33 Falak al-­DÈn Dundår captured Antalya and handed control of the city over to YËnus.34 Al-ʿUmarÈ noted that ‘mamlakat An†ålÈyå’ (the kingdom of Antalya) was ruled by ʿAbd al-­Ra˙Èm’s brother, Sinån al-­DÈn Khi∂r ibn YËnus (d. after 1331), who occupied twelve towns and twenty-­five fortresses and possessed 8,000 cavalrymen.35 While the descendants of Falak al-­DÈn remained in E©irdir, Uluborlu, Isparta and Gölhisar, the descendants of YËnus were based in Antalya, Òstanos and a certain ‘Karahisar’.36 After YËnus died, Zakariyyåʾ fought with YËnus’ unnamed heir and seized Karahisar, becoming its ruler.37 This Zakariyyåʾ was YËnus’ former slave (‘mamlËk’) and is almost certainly the father of ʿÏså, the patron of the 1349 Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd.38 It is unclear precisely when Zakariyyåʾ took Karahisar, but it must have been before 1349, as he is mentioned as deceased in the 1349 manuscript’s frontispiece. Al-ʿUmarÈ notes that the territory was somewhat limited (‘hiya mamlaka ∂ayyiqa ilå ghåya’), encompassing three towns and twelve fortresses and possessing only 1,500 cavalrymen.39 However, the fact that Zakariyyåʾ, as a former slave, was able to successfully raise an army and occupy Karahisar speaks to the resources that some slaves and former slaves could accrue in medieval RËm, as we have seen in Chapter 1 with the patrons of the 1278 Qur’an and MasnavÈ. Much like the Qaramanids discussed in the previous chapter, the Hamidids were not a unified body and also subject to internal discord. This is apparent from the conflict between Zakariyyåʾ and the heir of YËnus. Another of YËnus’ heirs, Ma˙mËd, was allied with the Mongol TÈmËrtåsh ibn ChËbån (d. 1328). This was despite TÈmËrtåsh killing Ma˙mËd’s uncle Falak al-­DÈn Dundår in 1324 and attacking Uluborlu in 1327.40 After the Mamluks detained Ma˙mËd and TÈmËrtåsh in 1327, the former’s brother, Khi∂r,41 took over as ruler of Antalya, where he met Ibn Ba††Ë†a around the year 1331.42

Figure 3.7  Hamidid family tree (manuscript patrons highlighted).

158

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

It is unclear who was in charge of Antalya or Òstanos at the time of the manuscripts’ production in 1349–51, though Khi∂r constructed a madrasa (the Emir Sinaneddin Medresesi) there in 1319.43 The copies of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd show that the patrons ʿÏså and ʿAbd al-­Ra˙Èm were interested in the development of their spiritual lives and how this related to the practice of good governance. This is perhaps unsurprising in light of how their manuscripts’ dedications describe them: ʿÏså is termed the ‘possessor of the sword and the pen’, while ʿAbd al-­Ra˙Èm is given the title of ‘leader of the pilgrimage to Mecca’. Both their titles and their manuscripts indicate that the patrons were probably well-­educated members of court. The Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd manuscripts also suggest that the two Hamidid patrons were interested in accessing the tradition of Persian advice literature that was well-­established in the region.44 Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd and its later version, MarmËzåt-i AsadÈ, were part of a series of Persian and Arabic advice literature produced in thirteenth- and fourteenth-­ century RËm. Persian advice manuals had been composed for the RËm Seljuks since the early thirteenth century.45 Aside from Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, notable works include (in order of composition): Rawzat al-ʿUqËl written by Mu˙ammad ibn GhåzÈ al-­Mala†yawÈ around 1201 for Rukn al-­ DÈn Sulaymånshåh (r. 1196–1204);46 Rå˙at alÍudËr va Åyat al-SurËr by Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAlÈ RåwandÈ, which was written soon after 1202 and dedicated to Ghiyåth al-­DÈn Kaykhusraw I (r. 1192–1211, with interruption);47 BarÈd al-Saʿåda by Mu˙ammad ibn GhåzÈ al-­Mala†yawÈ, which was completed in 1209 in Sivas for ʿIzz al-­DÈn KaykåwËs I (r. 1210–19);48 al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya (the only Arabic-­language advice manual dedicated to the RËm Seljuks) written in 1228 by A˙mad ibn Saʿd ibn MahdÈ ibn ʿAbd al-Íamad al-­ZanjånÈ al-ʿUthmånÈ (d. after 1228) for ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I;49 Óadåʾiq al-Siyar fÈ Adab al-MulËk by NiΩåm al-­DÈn Ya˙yå ibn Íåʿid ibn A˙mad, of uncertain date, for ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I;50 La†åʾif al-Óikma by Siråj al-­DÈn al-­UrmawÈ, which was completed in 1257 for ʿIzz al-­DÈn KaykåwËs II (r. 1246–57); and, finally, QaniʿÈ’s KalÈla wa-Dimna (c. 1260), also dedicated to ʿIzz al-­DÈn KaykåwËs II.51 It is perhaps noteworthy that three of the fifteen core manuscripts discussed in the present study are naßÈ˙atnåmas, in addition to a copy of La†åʾif al-Óikma that possesses a minimal amount of illumination, produced in 684/1286 in Konya.52 A. C. S. Peacock has noted how mirrors produced in medieval RËm generally promote the notion that the sultan is the ‘deputy’ of God and that he has the responsibility of preserving the rules of divine law.53 Beyond an interest in governance and walking the path to perfection, it could be that the patronage of such works was a more intimate facet of the patrons’ wider aspirations to portray themselves as archetypal Islamic princes in the mould of the lionised RËm Seljuk rulers. Indeed, it is possible that the association between specific naßÈ˙atnåmas and distinguished rulers may have played a part in the patrons’ interest.

ˉ M TWO MANUSCRIPTS FROM SOUTH-WESTERN RU

Although Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd was a relatively popular text in its own right, it may have also been favoured because it was dedicated to the celebrated Seljuk ruler, ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I. As discussed in Chapter 2, early fourteenth-­century illuminations were added to the 1228 copy of al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya that was originally produced for Kayqubåd I, which suggest that its reader, IbråhÈm ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån, may have been interested in the intellectual legacy of the Seljuk ruler. It may also have been the legacy of Kayqubåd that partially inspired the Hamidid patronage of the Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd manuscripts. The patronage of illuminated copies of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, and the apparent interest of ʿÏså and ʿAbd al-­Ra˙Èm in governance, taßawwuf and, possibly, the intellectual legacy of the Seljuks, indicates that these individuals were educated in Persian and able to engage with Persian literature and the naßÈ˙atnåma genre. Another Hamidid bey was also interested in Qur’anic exegesis. An undated Turkish tafsÈr of SËrat al-Ikhlåß was written for Badr al-­DÈn Khi∂r ibn Mubåriz al-­DÈn Is˙åq by MußlÈ˙ al-­DÈn Mu߆afå ibn Mu˙ammad, perhaps in Antalya or E©irdir.54 As with their ­contemporaries – ­the Ashrafids and the Qaramanids discussed in Chapter 2 ­ – ­these rulers cannot be classified merely as frontier warriors averse to Persian culture. One significant reason that some twentieth-­century scholars have viewed the Turcoman principalities in this way is due to the conception of the western part of RËm as the ‘Ëj’, which has generally been translated as ‘frontier’ or ‘marches’ in the literature. Although a full analysis of the ‘Ëj’ is beyond the scope of this chapter, a brief overview of the concept in primary and secondary sources is useful for framing the present discussion. As briefly mentioned in the Introduction, the idea of the ‘Ëj’ (used interchangeably with ‘frontier’) in secondary scholarship has been significantly impacted by the notion of the romantic, lawless marches inhabited by Turcophone, heterodox nomads and the urbane, ‘Persianate’ towns of central and eastern RËm that were controlled by imperial powers.55 The frontier was apparently populated by nomadic Turcoman tribes who, despite a ‘veneer apparently borrowed from Arabic and Persian culture’, maintained ‘folk’ customs and the ‘harsh and heroic spirit of the early migratory Turkish hordes’.56 Such views were perpetuated into the latter half of the twentieth century by scholars such as Osman Turan, who claimed that the Turcoman beys of the frontier, ‘unaffected’ by Persian culture, were powerful drivers of the ‘Turkification’ of the region.57 Through the writings of Köprülü, Wittek and Turan, the characterisation of the frontier as a region inhabited by nomadic Turcoman raiders (ghåzÈs), heterodox båbås and folk poets continues in some modern scholarship.58 The picture that emerges from the sources is, however, not so clear-­cut, as others have recently suggested.59 Dimitri Korobeinikov has pointed out that Ibn BÈbÈ and al-­AqsaråyÈ use the term ‘Ëj’ to

159

160

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

refer to a sizeable territory that sometimes even includes Konya, while A. C. S. Peacock avoids the use of ‘Ëj’ altogether due to its ambiguity and suggests that it may even refer to ‘a people’ (the Turcomans) rather than a place. ʿAbdallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Kiyå al-­MåzandarånÈ’s Risåla-yi Falakiyya (written around 1363), which details methods of accounting and bookkeeping under the Ilkhanids, lists the regions of ‘vilåyat-i Arman’ (the state of Greater Armenia), ‘vilåyat-i Diyår Bakr-i ʿArabÈ’ (the state of the Jazira) and ‘mamålik-i RËm al-ma˙rËsa’ (the protected kingdom of RËm).60 Within RËm are two regions: ‘al-Was†åniyya’ (the centre) and ‘al-◊jåt’.61 Al-Was†åniyya includes several towns in central and eastern RËm, such as Konya, Kayseri, Erzincan, Erzurum, Sivas, Tokat, Amasya, Aksaray, Malatya and Ankara. Al-◊jåt includes the towns of Sinop and Kastamonu, as well as the territories of the Hamidids (‘avlåd-i ÓamÈd’), the Qaramanids (‘Qaråmån’), the Aydinids (‘UmËr Bey’) and the Garmiyanids (‘Garmiyån’).62 Clearly, ‘al-Ëjåt’ – supposedly a lawless frontier filled with Turcoman ­nomads – ­was not beyond the reach of Ilkhanid tax collectors, even if Mongol governance of the region was limited in practical terms. It is notable that the Qaramanids, ever-­hostile to Mongol rule, were also apparently compelled to pay financial tribute. Other sources indicate that the ‘Ëj’ was not disconnected from the Persian-­speaking intellectual circles of RËm’s urban centres, as the patronage of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd suggests. AflåkÈ gives the impression that the western region of the ‘Ëj’63 was not a land of unruly, heterodox Turcomans, but rather home to several Mevlevi devotees, such as ‘Mu˙ammad Bey of the ◊j’ and AkhÈ PËlåd,64 as well as Shujåʿ al-­DÈn ◊rkhån (d. c. 1344) of the Mantashids65 and Shujåʿ al-­DÈn Ïnånch, ruler of Ladik.66 A copy of Najm al-­DÈn RåzÈ’s Ba˙r al-Óaqåʾiq wa-l-MaʿånÈ produced in the ‘frontier city of Ladik’ (‘dår al-thaghr LådhÈq’) further demonstrates that inhabitants of the ‘Ëj’ could indeed partake in the type of intellectual activities supposedly reserved for the central lands.67 This manuscript was copied in DhË-l-Óijja 738 (June–July 1338) by ʿAbd al-­Salåm ibn Turkmån ibn ÊËghånshåh al-­QËnawÈ, whose name indicates that he was a Muslim Turk from Konya. This scribe completed another unilluminated copy of this work in the same year in a Mevlevi zåwiya in Ladik.68 The two unilluminated manuscripts copied by ʿAbd al-­Salåm ibn Turkmån, as well as the copies of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, are all Persian works by Najm al-­DÈn RåzÈ produced in western RËm by, or for, Turcoman individuals, who were not only knowledgeable of Persian but interested in taßawwuf, Qur’an interpretation and governance. The watermark that is present in the second half of the 1351 copy of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd indicates that this paper was not produced in RËm and was very likely Italian in origin. It is the only manuscript discussed in the present study that features a contemporary watermark and is thus far the earliest dated example of watermarked paper

ˉ M TWO MANUSCRIPTS FROM SOUTH-WESTERN RU

being used in an Islamic manuscript from RËm. However, since no systematic study has been conducted concerning papers from medieval RËm,69 it remains unclear to what extent Italian paper was used in this context.70 Even though paper was a mobile commodity, it is perhaps not a coincidence that the watermark appears in an illuminated manuscript produced in Òstanos, rather than, say, Konya or Sivas. Considering Òstanos’ location near ­Antalya – ­one of RËm’s major international centres of mercantile a­ ctivity – ­it follows that acquiring Italian paper may have been relatively straightforward for the producers of the Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd manuscript. As a port city, Antalya was a commercial gateway from Europe to the rest of RËm, where foreign traders and goods from across and beyond the Mediterranean converged. It probably only grew in economic importance following the fall of the Ilkhanids in 1335 and the consequent instability in the eastern regions.71 Antalya had been an important trading post since the tenth century, attracting the attention of Byzantine, Muslim, Jewish, Armenian and (since the eleventh century) Italian merchants.72 According to Ibn BÈbÈ, the initial motivation for the Seljuks’ conquest of Antalya in 1207 was primarily economic, prompted by the apparent mistreatment of local Muslim merchants by Frankish authorities.73 Having acquired Antalya and ­Sinop – a­ n important commercial port on the Black ­Sea – i­n 1214, the Seljuks established merchant communities in the cities to encourage trade and included both towns as significant stops in their vast network of caravanserais.74 By the middle of the thirteenth century, the city formed a vital entrepôt in the movement of goods and traders in RËm and beyond. As well as overland links that were reinforced by the caravanserai network, Antalya was also connected to other Mediterranean ports that were administered by various powers. Such ports included Ayasuluk (Selçuk), which was controlled by the Aydinids, Candia (Heraklion), which was part of Venetian Crete, Famagusta, which was a possession of Lusignan Cyprus, Rhodes, which was run by the Knights Hospitaller, and Ayas (Yumurtalık), which was occupied by the Mamluks.75 Although religious tensions or military conflicts could put pressure on these trading relationships, it seems that, by and large, ‘commercial interests opened a middle ground beyond religious or ethnic antagonisms’.76 It is these commercial links, constructed and maintained via the caravanserai system and the movement of goods and people, that helped to ensure that the so-­called western ‘frontier’ was economically, socially and politically connected with other parts of RËm and the rest of the Islamic world, Europe and even China. Contemporary sources give a vivid picture of cosmopolitan, prosperous fourteenth-­century Antalya.77 Ibn Ba††Ë†a, who visited around 1331, noted that Antalya was ‘one of the finest of cities, enormous in extent and bulk, [among] the most handsome of cities to be

161

162

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

seen anywhere, as well as the most populous’.78 He also noted that the main city had ‘vast bazaars most admirably organized’, in addition to separate, walled living quarters for its Christian and Jewish populations.79 An akhÈ zåwiya in the town visited by the traveller was furnished with ‘beautiful RËmÈ carpets’ (‘busu† al-RËmiyya li-l˙isån’) and ‘Iraqi glass chandeliers’ (‘thurayyåt al-zajåj al-ʿIråqÈ’), which gives an indication of the affluence of at least part of the local community.80 The Venetian merchant from Crete Emanuele Piloti (fl. c. 1371–after 1441) noted that Antalya was a regional centre of shipbuilding and the slave trade.81 Francesco Balducci Pegolotti (fl. 1310–47), a Florentine merchant, wrote in the 1330s that Antalya exported grain, vegetables and pulses to the Aegean coastal region and traded imported gold, silver, tin, copper and iron in its markets.82 Antalya was also central in the trade of fine textiles. Along with Balat (Miletus), it was an export centre for the kilims and pile carpets that were to become popular with much of Europe’s aristocracy.83 It also sold Turkish and Persian silk to Constantinople and Alexandria and imported Cypriot camlet and other fabrics from Italy and France.84 In light of the area’s evident prosperity, it seems a little strange that the only surviving illuminated manuscripts from this context are two modest copies of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd and that they were produced in the small town of Òstanos, rather than in Antalya. Additionally, after the prolific illuminated manuscript production of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth century, there are very few securely identified illuminated manuscripts from later fourteenth-­century RËm.85 The integrity of the Mevlevi shrine’s library partially explains the shape of surviving material, with a clear emphasis on Mevlevi texts. Beyond the usual vagaries of survival, there is another possible reason why illuminated manuscript production appears to take a downward shift from the mid-­fourteenth century: the spread of the bubonic plague. Originating in the Central Asian steppes, the plague (or, ‘Black Death’) most likely travelled westwards via Black Sea trading routes. Consignments containing foodstuffs and furs were particularly susceptible to rats that carried plague-­ ridden fleas. The disease was first recorded in the region, specifically in Crimea, in 1346 and Constantinople in 1347.86 Ironically, the bustling Mediterranean trade that brought prosperity enabled the quick spread of plague throughout the port cities of the Middle East and Europe. Soon after appearing in Constantinople, the plague reached Alexandria, Sicily, Marseille and Trebizond over 1347–8.87 In 1348 and 1349, the epidemic spread inland, hitting Divri©i, Ak∞ehir and Antakya (Hatay), as well as Damascus, Cyprus, Cairo, Tunis, Mecca, Mosul and Baghdad, finally subsiding in 1351.88 Although there are no records of when the plague appeared in south-­western RËm, coastal cities were particularly adversely affected, due to the constant movement of people (and fleas and rats) in and out of their ports. There is no reason to assume that the disease spared the coastal regions of RËm.89

ˉ M TWO MANUSCRIPTS FROM SOUTH-WESTERN RU

A possible consequence that the plague had on city life was the movement of elites from urban to more rural and plague-­free environments. In order to escape the epidemic in Antalya, the court may have relocated to Òstanos, where the manuscripts were then produced. Antalya was not on the busy trade route between Tabriz and Trebizond, where the plague initially appeared, which could explain a possibly slightly later appearance, perhaps around 1349– 50.90 Korkuteli is today a yayla (summer resort) for the inhabitants of Antalya, which may well have also been the case in the medieval period.91 It appears that the town was, in later years, used as a refuge from attacking Lusignan forces.92 More generally, the disruption caused by repeated episodes of plague in the later fourteenth century may have impacted upon the production of illuminated material. Current estimations place the death toll in Europe at between one-­ third to two-­thirds of the total population.93 No similar figures exist for the Near and Middle East, but similar levels of devastation are plausible. If that was the case, it could be that the artistic communities of RËm’s cities experienced a sudden and calamitous decline in numbers, leading to a decrease in the production of the arts of the book. Conclusion Although the copies of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd produced in 1349 and 1351 in Òstanos are relatively modest in appearance, they are noteworthy for further demonstrating that Konya was not the whole story where illuminated manuscripts are concerned, as first shown in Chapter 2 with a small 1318 MasnavÈ from Sivas. Broadly speaking, their specific decoration shows some links to the contemporary Ilkhanid and Mamluk arts of the book, as well as to earlier medieval manuscripts from Persia and Central Asia. The patrons of the manuscripts are not mentioned in historical chronicles, but appear to have been well-­educated Turcoman princes of the ‘Ëj’ who were interested in following the path of taßawwuf and in Persian-­ language advice manuals. NaßÈ˙atnåmas seem to have been in demand in this period, and these two manuscripts are further evidence of this. The desire to read specific advice texts may also reflect an interest in the literary heritage of the RËm ­Seljuks – ­particularly that connected to the famous ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd. The manuscripts’ contents alongside their physical properties, challenges divisions between the so-­called ‘frontier’ – an abode of nomadic, heterodox, Turcophone a­ctivity – a­nd the ‘centre’ – an urban, ‘Persianate’ and orthodox cultural space. Although the ‘Ëj’ was a concept and place in the medieval period, roughly in western RËm, its boundaries seem to have been somewhat flexible, and it was not necessarily equal to the ‘frontier’. However, it did appear to take on this meaning in some instances. Clearly, the idea of the

163

164

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

‘Ëj’ did not necessarily imply a lawless land of Turcoman nomads and raiders, being home instead to Sufis, scholars and intellectually curious princes. Not only were the manuscript patrons concerned with taßawwuf and ideals of good governance, but they also inhabited what was probably one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse settings in the region. Although Òstanos itself was a small town (and perhaps yayla) that chronicles rarely mention, the nearby city of Antalya was one of RËm’s most active ports. The city’s cosmopolitanism probably explains the presence of Italian paper in the 1351 copy, which, as mentioned previously in the chapter, is the earliest known instance of watermarked paper in a securely identified manuscript from RËm. Some of the affluence that this port city brought to the region, however, was likely diminished by the repeated appearance of the bubonic plague in the second half of the fourteenth century, which may also explain why there are comparative gaps in the illuminated manuscript record of RËm after this period. Notes   1. Melville 2009: 94.   2. Ibid: 95. Eretna and his descendants will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.   3. There are inconsistencies in the primary and secondary sources concerning the name of this principality. Some scholars differentiate between the Hamidids and the Teke principality, while others refer only to the former. The Teke principality is often cited as a subsidiary branch of the Hamidids. A full discussion of their relationship is beyond the scope of this chapter and, for the sake of simplicity, I refer to both groups (if indeed they were separate) as the Hamidids. See Uzunçar∞ılı 1937: 62–9; Flemming 1964; Planhol 2012; Leiser 2012; Kofo©lu 1997; 2006; 2011.  4. Al-ʿUmarÈ 1929: 39, 48. By way of comparison, al-ʿUmarÈ notes that the Qaramanids possessed around fourteen towns, 150 fortresses and 25,000 cavalrymen (ibid: 48).   5. Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 260–70; 1962: 421–4.  6. RåzÈ 1933–4; 1982.   7. This was a Sufi order founded in the thirteenth century in Khwarazm by Najm al-­DÈn Kubrå (d. 1221).  8. RåzÈ 1933–4: 20; Algar 2012. On factionalism in medieval Persia, see, for instance, Bulliet 1972 (thank you to A. C. S. Peacock for this reference).  9. RåzÈ 1982: 43–4. 10. Ibn BÈbÈ 1956: fol. 234. 11. This individual should not be confused with Shihåb al-­DÈn Ya˙yå ibn Óabash al-­SuhrawardÈ (d. 1191). 12. Ibn BÈbÈ 1956: fol. 234. 13. SK, Esad Efendi 1704. 14. Peacock 2015b: 293. 15. RåzÈ 1982: 12–13. 16. Ibid: 395–444.

ˉ M TWO MANUSCRIPTS FROM SOUTH-WESTERN RU

17. Peacock 2015b: 289–95, 290. The differences between the two earlier versions mainly consist of stylistic matters, with the second version being more ‘ornate’ (RåzÈ 1982: 12n38). 18. RåzÈ 1933–4: 34 (of main text); 1982: 57. ‘Khåßß u ʿåm’ can mean ‘the public in general’. 19. The second work is a tafsÈr, also known as al-TaʾwÈlåt al-Najmiyya. It was completed after Najm al-­DÈn al-­RåzÈ’s death by ʿAlåʾ al-­Dawla SimnånÈ (d. 1335). Algar 2012. 20. The text of Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd was not translated into Turkish until 1422 by Qåsim ibn Mu˙ammad al-­Qarå˙ißårÈ for Muråd II (r. 1421–51, with interruption) under the title Irshåd al-MurÈdÈn (Okuyan 2006). 21. Peacock 2015b: 290. At least sixty copies of the work survive, with around half of these in Turkish collections. 22. ‘tafsÈr-i Shaykh Najm al-DÈn-i Dåya-rå ki sarmåya-yi mu˙aqqiqån-i Qurʾån-ast’ (AflåkÈ 1961: II, 933; 2002: 652). Transliteration by James White. AflåkÈ’s assertion that the text spread throughout RËm after Ulu ʿÅrif ChalabÈ was given a copy in Tabriz seems rather unlikely. 23. Peacock 2015b: 289. 24. The Òstanos copies are amongst the earliest extant copies of the text (RåzÈ 1933–4: introduction, 110–20). The earliest dated copy mentioned by the text’s editor was completed in 1285, but there is a copy from 672/1272–3 (SK, Sehid Ali Pa∞a 2708-­1). It was produced in Erzincan by A˙mad ibn ʿUthmån. 25. Appendix: cat. 11. SK, Fatih 2841, fol. 1a, 176a. Ünver 1970; 1975; Algaç 2000: 96–7; 2006; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 362–8; Peacock 2015b: 290. 26. Appendix: cat. 12. SK, Ayasofya 2067, fol. 1a, 200b. Algaç 2000: 98–9; 2006; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 369–75; Peacock 2015b: 290. 27. Briquet 1907: I, 214–15. 28. TSMK, E. H. 12, fol. 3a (Ettinghausen et al. 2001: fig. 430); CBL, 1479, fol. 235b (James 1999: fig. 31); TSMK, E. H. 249, fol. 3a (ibid: fig. 51). 29. Appendix: cat. 12. 30. It is unclear what ‘al-­ BurhånÈ’ means in this context as its literal meaning is ‘demonstrative’ or ‘evidential’. It may refer to a personal affiliation, perhaps to Qå∂È Burhån al-­DÈn A˙mad of Sivas and Kayseri (r. 1381–98). 31. This scribe also completed a copy of al-Fiqh al-Nåfiʿ by Nåßir al-­DÈn al-­SamarqandÈ (d. 1258) on 6 RabÈʿ I 753 (19 April 1352). No copying location is mentioned. CBL, 4616. See Arberry 1955–66, 6: 35–6. 32. According to Oleg Grabar, this title of ‘zayn/raʾÈs al-˙ajj wa-l-˙aramayn’ signified the ‘leader of the pilgrimage to Mecca’ (Grabar 2006: 210). The title appears on late medieval buildings in Tokat, Konya, Òznik, Ayasuluk and Kütahya (RCEA 13, no. 4959; 15, no. 5638; 16, no. 6018; 17, no. 783 012; Yıldız 2016: 200–1). In this politically decentralised context, it is possible that each town or principality appointed their own leader to organise and safeguard the annual pilgrimage. 33. Leiser 2012. 34. Ibid. 35. Al-ʿUmarÈ 1929: 48. 36. This ‘Karahisar’ most likely refers to ‘arå Óißår-­i Teke’ (Pa∞a 1876: II, 912). arå Óißår-­i Teke may be associated with the ancient site of Perge, north-­east of Antalya (Mordtmann and Planhol 2012). YåqËt al-ÓamawÈ described this Karahisar as one day’s travel from Antakya (‘Qarå˙ißår

165

166

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

ʿalå yawm min An†åkiya’), by which he presumably meant Antalya (al-ÓamawÈ 1869: 44–5). 37. Al-ʿUmarÈ 1929: 48. 38. There is another Zakariyyåʾ in the Hamidid family, who was the son of Is˙åq ibn Falak al-­DÈn Dundår. However, this Zakariyyåʾ died in 755 (1354–5). Since the Zakariyyåʾ mentioned as the patron’s father in the frontispiece was deceased by 1349, it cannot be him (Co∞an 1981: 109). ʿÏså died sometime after 1354–5 (Kofo©lu 2006: 218–19). 39. Al-ʿUmarÈ 1929: 48. 40. Melville 2009: 91. 41. Uzunçar∞ılı 1937: 67; RCEA 14, no. 5420. 42. Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 265; 1962: 421. 43. Kofo©lu 1995. Some have suggested that Khi∂r may have been in charge of Òstanos, based on the establishment of this madrasa (Emecen 1991; Leiser 2012). 44. Copies of illuminated fourteenth-­ century Turkish-­ language mirrors have not survived, although the almanacs recently examined by A. C. S. Peacock contain some Turkish words (Peacock, forthcoming). Some notable examples of Turkish-­ language mirrors include the GharÈbnåma by ʿÅshiq Påshå (d. 1333), which was completed in 1330 (Òz 2012), and Seyho©lu’s (d. 1401–9) Turkish translations of the Marzubånnåma and QåbËsnåma, which were completed for the Garmiyanid ruler Sulaymån Shåh (r. before 1363–87). Seyho©lu based his translation of the Marzubånnåma on Saʿd al-­DÈn WaråwÈnÈ’s Persian Marzubånnåma (which, in turn, was based on a lost tenth-­ century work), completed in c. 1210–25 for the Ildiguzid ruler MuΩaffar al-­DÈn Uzbak (r. 1210–25). Rawzat al-ʿUqËl (see n. 46 below) was also based on this now-­lost composition. Seyho©lu’s latter translation, the QåbËsnåma, was originally written by the Ziyarid ruler of Tabaristan, KaykåwËs ibn Iskandar (r. c. 1050–87) for his son, GÈlånshåh (r. c. 1087– 90). See Peacock 2015b: 278. 45. Marlow 2007; Peacock 2015b. 46. Al-­Mala†yawÈ 2004–5. 47. RåwandÈ 1921. 48. Al-­Mala†yawÈ 1972–3. 49. Al-­ZanjanÈ 2005; Appendix: cat. 6. 50. NiΩåm al-­DÈn 1982. 51. Al-­UrmawÈ 1972; QåniʿÈ 1979. 52. Appendix: cats 6, 11–12. See also BNF, Persan 121. This manuscript was completed on 4 DhË-l-Óijja 684 (31 January 1286) by AbË al-­Ma˙åmid Mu˙ammad ibn Ma˙mËd ibn al-ÓåjjÈ, nicknamed (‘al-mulaqqab bi-’) ÓamÈd al-­MukhlißÈ al-­BukhårÈ (al-­UrmawÈ 1972; Richard 1989: 138–9; 1997: cat. 5). See n. 98 (Chapter 1). 53. Peacock 2015b: 295–6. 54. Co∞an 1981: 104. An undated Turkish tafsÈr of SËrat al-Mulk copied for one ‘Khi∂r ibn Gölbeyi’ (lake prince) by the same author may also have been written for Badr al-­DÈn Khi∂r ibn Is˙åq (ibid: 109). 55. Wittek 1934: 3–4, 55. 56. Köprülü 2006: 210. 57. Turan 1977: 252–3. 58. Hopwood 1993; Zachariadou 2012. 59. Heywood 1999; Peacock 2014: 274; Korobeinikov 2014: 218–82. 60. Al-­MåzandarånÈ 1952; Togan 1991: 232–3; Remler 1985. Although the

ˉ M TWO MANUSCRIPTS FROM SOUTH-WESTERN RU

record is dated 750 (1349–50), it may refer to an earlier period of Ilkhanid rule when the dynasty held a politically and economically stronger position (Tezcan 2013: 36n28). 61. Togan 1991: 233. 62. Ibid. As mentioned in the previous chapter, many representatives of these same polities, such as the Hamidids, the Garmiyanids and the Jandarids, had already come to pay homage in 1314 to the new Mongol governor of RËm, ChËbån, in QarånbËk (al-­AqsaråyÈ 1944: 311). 63. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 990–1; 2002: 694. In one anecdote, AflåkÈ relates a journey to the Ëj, in which he left Konya and passed by Ladik, which is less than 400km directly west of Konya. 64. AflåkÈ 1961: I, 485–6, II, 921; 2002: 334–5, 644–5. 65. AflåkÈ mentions another courtier as ‘Tarkån of the Turks’ (‘Tarkån-i turkån’), and their chief spiritual advisor is also identified as a Turk (AflåkÈ 1961: II, 851; 2002: 595). John O’Kane states that Tarkån is a woman and perhaps MasʿËd’s wife, but it is not clear why he claims this (AflåkÈ 2002: 746n34). The word ‘†arkhån/tarkhån/tarqån’ appears to be a title derived from Central Asia that is not attached to a specific gender (Golden 2012). 66. AflåkÈ 1961: II, 864; 2002: 604–5. 67. Peacock 2014: 281 (SK, Hudai 71). ‘Thaghr’ (pl. thughËr) – literally ‘gap’ – was used to denote ‘points of entry between the Dår al-­Islåm and the Dår al-Óarb’. In its plural form, it also identified fortifications that protected gaps along the frontiers between Muslim and Christian territories (Bosworth and Latham 2012). 68. YAK, 6877. See notes 19 and 89 (Chapter 2). 69. See Ka©ıtçı 1976. On Islamic paper generally, see Karabacek 2001; Loveday 2001; Bloom 2001. 70. One other manuscript discussed in this book has a secure paper provenance (of Damascus). See Appendix: cat. 14. 71. Pamuk 2000: 33. 72. Preiser-­Kapeller 2015: 121–2. 73. Ibn BÈbÈ 1956: fols 95–105. 74. Fleet 2009: 258. 75. Preiser-­Kapeller 2015: 124. 76. Fleet 1999: 141. 77. Preiser-­Kapeller has demonstrated that, in addition to Constantinople, the most active port cities in the region were Antalya, Ayas, Ayasuluk and Trebizond (2015: 127). 78. ‘Wa-hiya min a˙san al-mudun mutanåhiyya fÈ ittisåʿ al-så˙a wa-∂akhåma ajmal må yurå min al-bilåd wa-akthara ʿimåra wa-a˙sana tartÈban’ (Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 258–9; 1962: 418). Translation by Gibb. 79. ‘Wa-aswåq ∂akhma murattaba bi-abdaʿ tartÈb’ (ibid). Archaeological evidence from Antalya does not support Ibn Ba††Ë†a’s assertion that Christians and Jews lived in separate, walled quarters (Redford and Leiser 2008: fig. 2). Special living arrangements for Christian merchants (funduq) were, however, included in commercial treaties between the Venetians and the ports of Balat and Ayasuluk (Preiser-­Kapeller 2015: 125n42). 80. Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 263. 81. Piloti 1950: 61, 73, 95–6. 82. Pegolotti 1936: 56–8.

167

168

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

83. Piloti 1950: 60, 73. 84. Fleet 1999: 98–103. 85. See Chapter 4. 86. Ayalon 2015: 29. 87. Schamiloglu 2004: 265; Ayalon 2015: 29; Varlık 2015: 103. 88. Dols 1977: 60, 66; Ayalon 2015: 29. There were, however, several further outbreaks in the Middle East in the second half of the fourteenth century in 1362–4, 1373–5, 1380 and 1395 (Ayalon 2015: 40; Varlık 2015: 118–20). 89. Schamiloglu 2004: 271. On the plague in the early Ottoman Empire, see Lowry 2003; Ayalon 2015; Varlık 2015. 90. Varlık 2015: 105. 91. Not much else is known about Òstanos in the medieval period. There are a few surviving medieval buildings, including the Emir Sinaneddin Medresesi, built by the Hamidid amÈr Sinån al-­DÈn Khi∂r in 1319 (Kofo©lu 1995) and the Alaaddin Camii, which may have been constructed by the Qaramanid ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ibn KhalÈl (r. 1361–97/8). Çaycı 2004: 112. 92. The Hamidid ruler Mubåriz al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn Ma˙mËd (d. after 1377) apparently fled to Òstanos when Peter I of Cyprus (r. 1361–8) attacked Antalya in 1361 (Kofo©lu 2011). 93. Ayalon 2015: 22.

CHAPTER FOUR

Sa¯tı¯ ibn Hasan: A Mevlevi ˙ Patron of Erzincan

After the fall of the Ilkhanids in 1335, their lands in RËm, the Jazira and Persia were soon beset by conflict and divided between competing factions. In the Jazira and Persia, Mongol successor s­ tates – ­namely, the Jalayirids (1335–1432), Chubanids (1335–57), Injuids (1325–53) and Muzaffarids (1314–93) – fought for political supremacy. In eastern RËm, power was soon split between the Eretnids (1341–81) based in Sivas and Kayseri,1 the Byzantine Empire of Trebizond in the Pontus region (1204–1461), the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (1198–1375) and various other polities, including Mongol tribes, ambitious amÈrs and the akhÈs. Of Uyghur origin, Eretna (Aratnå) had initially arrived into the region as a subordinate of the governor of RËm TÈmËrtåsh (d. 1328). Following the latter’s execution, Eretna participated in a conspiracy at the Ilkhanid court sometime in 1334, but was pardoned and sent back to RËm under the command of the new governor Shaykh Óasan Jalåyir (r. 1335–56). He was then appointed governor by Shaykh Óasan when the latter returned to Persia in the wake of AbË SaʿÈd’s death. Eretna rose to a powerful position fairly quickly by seeking out and supporting various, sometimes opposing, camps.2 Having captured Sivas in the late 1330s, the governor started minting coins in his name from 1341–2 and adopted the name Sul†ån ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Eretna.3 Ibn Ba††Ë†a, who met him in around 1331, noted that he spoke Arabic eloquently.4 Eretna eventually amassed a sizeable territory. By the time that he died in 1352, this included Sivas, Kayseri, Ankara, Amasya, Kemah, Erzincan, Erzurum, Bayburt, Tokat, Sebinkarahisar, Niksar, Samsun, Ni©de and Konya. In the decades following his death, however, most of these territories were lost to local Turcoman and Mongol commanders by his son Ghiyåth al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (r. 1352–65) and grandson ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ (r. 1365–80). Konya, Ni©de and Aksaray, for example, were recaptured from 1366–7 by the Qaramanid prince ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ibn KhalÈl (r. 1361–97/8) and

170

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

remained in Qaramanid hands until 1475.5 It is sometimes difficult to ascertain which territories were retained by the Eretnids, as, in some cases, the young ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ held only nominal control, with independent lords exercising de facto authority. For example, ÓåjjÈ IbråhÈm temporarily held Sivas in the late 1370s, ÓåjjÈ Sadgeldi (d. after 1381) controlled Amasya, Qilich Arslån (d. 1380–1) ruled Koyulhisar and Sebinkarahisar and Shaykh Junayd governed Kayseri (fl. 1380s).6 In the chaos that followed the death of ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ in 1380 from plague and the brief rule of his juvenile son Mu˙ammad II (r. 1380–1), remaining Eretnid lands were taken over by a variety of amÈrs.7 These included the former Eretnid vizier Qå∂È Burhån al-­DÈn A˙mad (r. 1381–98), the ruler of Sivas and Kayseri and Mu†ahhartan (r. 1379–1403), the ruler of Erzincan. Before the rule of Mu†ahhartan, Erzincan was under the control of PÈr Óusayn (r. 1362–79), about whom very little is known. Originally from Sebinkarahisar, he issued coinage during his rule acknowledging Eretnid authority, but, like many local amÈrs, appears to have been mostly independent.8 Late medieval Erzincan shared some of the characteristics that were common to many of RËm’s cities, such as Konya and Sivas. Erzincan, too, was an economic hub and a trading post on the major commercial route that stretched from Ayas (Yumurtalık) to Tabriz. Contemporary accounts accordingly indicate that the town was quite prosperous.9 Ibn Ba††Ë†a stated that it was part of Ilkhanid territories and that the Muslim population spoke Turkish.10 He seems to have had a predominantly positive impression of the town, noting its majority Armenian population, well-­organised bazaars and the local manufacture of fine fabrics and copperware.11 Additionally, despite the fractured and changeable political landscape, cultural and intellectual life persevered, albeit probably diminished by the persistent presence of the bubonic plague, which periodically erupted in the region throughout the rest of the fourteenth century.12 Nevertheless, eastern RËm was home to well-­ established communities of scholars, artists and dervishes. Indeed, the region (particularly the Eretnid strongholds of Kayseri and Sivas) also witnessed the limited production of architecture in local styles.13 However, Erzincan was notably different from places such as Konya and Sivas, in that many (if not most) of the inhabitants were Armenian, with several, active Armenian monasteries nearby. As was the case with Greek Christians in Konya, Armenian Christians lived and worked alongside Muslims in eastern RËm as merchants, slaves, members of the clergy, scholars, craftsmen and scribes.14 Erzincan was also home to an akhÈ community that included both Muslim and Armenian Christian members.15 Although the town was not a multicultural utopia, the activities of these urban brotherhoods suggest that ‘linguistic plurality and interfaith interaction were part and parcel of everyday life’.16 The Mevlevis were also present in

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

the city, according to Sipahsålår, who states that the ‘cream of the virtuous’ (‘zubdat-i azkiyåʾ’) Óusåm al-­DÈn Óusayn, a resident of Erzincan, was Sul†ån Walad’s representative (‘qåʾim-maqåm’) in the town.17 This chapter focuses on the manuscript patronage of one individual: a Mevlevi amÈr named Sharaf al-­DÈn SåtÈ ibn Óusåm al-­DÈn Óasan (d. 1386), who was based in Erzincan, but whose family were originally from Konya.18 Based on surviving manuscript evidence, SåtÈ was the most prolific patron of illuminated manuscripts in RËm during this period. He was also the author of a Persian text entitled TårÈkh-i ChingÈz Khån (1378), which was based on RashÈd al-­DÈn HamadånÈ’s world history, Jåmiʿ al-TavårÈkh (completed c. 1306–11). The emphasis of this chapter on a single patron (and his descendants) differs from preceding chapters, which focused on groups of patrons drawn from a variety of political and cultural circles. In many cases, these individuals held multiple affiliations, and this was no less true for SåtÈ, as we shall see. None of SåtÈ’s manuscripts mention a production location, but Zeren Tanındı has attributed his manuscripts to Erzincan (and, in one case, possibly Damascus).19 The attribution to Erzincan is due to SåtÈ’s connection to the town, while the link to Damascus relates to the paper of one of the manuscripts and is discussed below. Although focusing on manuscripts with a secure provenance is ideal, SåtÈ’s manuscripts form a significant part of the body of manuscripts from late medieval RËm and are, visually and historically, too compelling to omit. There is much more to say about their production and patronage contexts and visual qualities. For the broader field, their presentation here may also, hopefully, elicit further research on this intriguing context. The three manuscripts of Sa¯tı¯ ibn Hasan ˙ SåtÈ’s three manuscripts are all lavishly illuminated, monumental copies of texts by Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ and Sul†ån Walad. All were produced between 1365 and 1372. In order of production, they are: an incomplete copy of the MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ (containing the Rabåbnåma and Intihånåma only); a two-­volume copy of RËmÈ’s DÈvån-i KabÈr (also known as the DÈvån-i or Kulliyåt-i Shams-i TabrÈzÈ); and a one-­volume copy of RËmÈ’s MasnavÈ.20 The MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ was completed in 1366, the DÈvån-i KabÈr was copied in 1368, and is the oldest known illuminated copy of this text, and the MasnavÈ was finished in 1372. For the sake of clarity and brevity, I will refer to these manuscripts as the 1366 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, the 1368 DÈvån and the 1372 MasnavÈ. All of SåtÈ’s manuscripts are large, and each is bigger than the last. As a point of comparison, the 1278 MasnavÈ discussed in Chapter 1 measures 49.5cm by 33.5cm, while SåtÈ’s largest manuscript, the 1372 MasnavÈ, measures 56.2cm by 40cm. The 1372 MasnavÈ

171

172

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

has been cropped significantly, so would originally have been even larger, perhaps ‘full BaghdådÈ’-sized.21 All three manuscripts are arranged into the four-­column format discussed in Chapter 1. Many fourteenth-­century Mevlevi texts (illuminated or otherwise) were copied in this text block format, and it is likely that SåtÈ’s manuscripts followed the conventions set by earlier copies of RËmÈ’s and Sul†ån Walad’s works. However, it is also possible that the presence of four-­column text blocks was due to wider regional shifts in manuscript production towards the format.22 As the dimensions of the manuscripts expanded over time, the quality of their paper also improved, becoming smoother and shinier (and, therefore, a more durable support for inks and pigments) with each codex. The 1368 DÈvån and the 1372 MasnavÈ both employ two types of paper (one tinted) that have been interleaved.23 Coloured paper became more widely available in the Islamic world from the early fourteenth century, particularly in the Ilkhanid realm, as a result of the fashion for imported Chinese papers.24 In both manuscripts, the tinted paper is brownish-­orange in colour. However, the chain and laid lines are different, so the same paper has not been used across both manuscripts. At least two other manuscripts dating from the second half of the fourteenth century also feature cream and ‘rusty orange’ interspersed papers, but neither mentions a production location.25 The similarity in appearance could mean that the paper of the two manuscripts was sourced from the same place, which in this case would have been Damascus. The second volume of the DÈvån contains an inscription on folio 147b written by SåtÈ himself that concerns the purchase of the paper from the city (fig. 4.1). SåtÈ notes that ‘ninety-­five large-­sized sheets of paper’ were ‘brought specially from Damascus’ for copying the DÈvån.26 The exact date that SåtÈ purchased the paper has been lost due to cropping and reads only as ‘22 Jumådå al-Avval’.27 The DÈvån also contains an inscription concerning its endowment to the Mevlevi shrine in 1409 by SåtÈ’s son, Mustanjid (see fig. 4.1). In a long Persian waqf note scribbled on the manuscript’s dedication page, Mustanjid notes that there was previously no complete copy of the text in the library and hopes its presence will benefit frequenters of the shrine. In this note, he names himself ‘Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ al-­MawlawÈ al-­ArzinjånÈ’ (the Mevlevi of Erzincan).28 The only manuscript of SåtÈ’s to have retained a medieval binding is the second volume of the DÈvån. The dark brown binding features six hexagons and wide strapwork borders divided into six panels (fig. 4.2). Inquiries have not uncovered any other similar bindings, though, broadly speaking, it resembles other geometric binding designs seen on late fourteenth- and fifteenth-­ century Mamluk manuscripts.29 However, since the manuscript has been cropped (a sure sign of re-­binding), it is unclear whether the binding is indeed original.30 It could have been re-­bound soon after its endowment in 1409. The

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

Figure 4.1 Dedication, waqf note and note about paper, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 147b.

173

174

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.2  Upper cover, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69.

binding was undoubtedly made for this specific manuscript, as the title is inscribed on the fore-­edge spine. The cover is signed by its ­binder – ­AbË Bakr, the Mevlevi bookbinder of ­Hama – ­on the back doublure (‘ʿamal-i AbË Bakr al-Mujallid(È) al-MawlawÈ al-ÓamawÈ’) (fig. 4.3). These may have been the original doublures, retained by later binders, or the signature may belong to a later re-­binding. Since stamped leather doublures were used well into the fifteenth century, it is difficult to tell. Tanındı has suggested that because the paper of the 1368 DÈvån was purchased in Damascus and the binder was from Hama, the manuscript could have been produced in Syria.31 This is certainly possible, but it is not clear whether AbË Bakr al-­MujallidÈ was indeed the original binder and, even if he was, artists’ nisbas are not reliable indicators of where a manuscript was produced, since their mobility was hardly unusual. After all, Chapter 1 discussed an illuminator named ‘al-­HindÈ’ who produced manuscripts in Konya. Moreover, the paper’s purchase in Damascus does not necessitate its production there. Given the expense (6,000 silver dirhams) and time needed (fifteen months) to produce the manuscript, commissioning it from a city over 1000km from the patron’s home seems somewhat precarious. Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-­MawlawÈ copied all three manuscripts in naskh script.32 Although nastaʿlÈq was increasingly used in the later

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

Figure 4.3  Lower doublure, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69.

fourteenth century, it was not unusual for copies of Mevlevi texts to be written in naskh well into the fifteenth century, even in Persia.33 Three other unilluminated manuscripts may also have been copied by this scribe in the first half of the fourteenth century.34 The handwriting is consistently neat, fluid and well-­spaced, though the overall appearance sometimes varies between manuscripts, due to the use of different nibs (fig. 4.4). The scribe’s handwriting is characterised by perpendicular, serifless alifs; mÈms with long, sharp tails; deep, almost circular nËns with dots often quite deep in the bowl; and swooping bowls of sÈns, shÈns, qåfs and yåʾs. Despite the distinctive nËns and the relatively elongated alifs and mÈms, the handwriting is, on the whole, not too dissimilar to examples of late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-­century naskh seen in previous chapters. The main ink used is pure, smooth black, suggesting that the scribe was quite adept at ink making. There is also one instance of alternating black and gold script, ­which – ­as discussed in Chapter ­2 – ­is associated with Ilkhanid Qur’ans.35 Additionally, a very skilfully executed (usually white) thuluth is used for dedications and illuminated cartouches and panels. All three manuscripts are extensively and expertly illuminated. They are predominantly decorated in large amounts of gold, as well as blue, with smaller areas of black, red, green, pink, purple, bronze

175

176

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.4 Script, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod. Mixt.1594, fol. 11b; DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 16a; MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 5b.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

and silver. The use of silver in Islamic illumination is relatively unusual, though more common in Christian manuscripts. It is possible that its use in SåtÈ’s manuscripts was derived from the Armenian arts of the book, though comparisons with contemporary Armenian illumination have not revealed any further visual overlaps.36 If the manuscripts were produced in Erzincan, which had a sizeable Armenian population, this connection is perhaps not so surprising. White is also used for inscriptions and for lining strapwork, knotwork and some curvilinear decorations, thus enhancing their visibility. Similar white ‘highlights’ are present in several manuscripts from Konya (see Chapters 1 and 2). The 1366 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ opens with a polylobed medallion naming SåtÈ as the patron (fig. 4.5). This medallion is followed by a double frontispiece, two illuminated text pages and a headpiece (figs 4.6–4.7). The first text, the Rabåbnåma, also closes with a double medallion finispiece that contains verses detailing the text’s original composition date of DhË-l-Óijja 700 (August–September 1301) and a colophon (fig. 4.8; note that the composition date appears on fol. 74b which is not pictured). The Intihånåma opens with a double medallion frontispiece, followed by two illuminated text pages and a headpiece, and closes with a medallion again containing verses about the text’s original composition at the end of DhË-l-­Qaʿda 708 (early May 1309) (figs 4.9–4.11). The style of illumination across the two volumes is somewhat varied, particularly in comparison to both the 1368 DÈvån and the 1372 MasnavÈ, which, as we shall see, are decorated similarly to each other. For example, the frontispiece of the Rabåbnåma consists of large panels containing roundels that are inscribed with the ninety-­ nine names of Allåh (see fig. 4.6). Conversely, the frontispiece of the Intihånåma consists of small circular medallions filled with intricate scrolling split palmettes that are framed by delicate gold and blue scrollwork (see fig. 4.9). The manuscript’s final medallion is particularly distinctive, featuring colourful encircled lotuses interspersed with projected palmettes (see fig. 4.11). However, both volumes of the work feature thick, gold strapwork and knotwork, small polychrome flowers and gold and silver split palmette borders. The 1368 DÈvån is even more extensively illuminated than the 1366 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ. The first volume features a double illuminated contents page containing elaborate scrollwork medallions, a double geometric frontispiece, two pages of illuminated text, twelve headpieces, thin illuminated subtitle bands, gold rosettes and large decorated ‘finispieces’ of varying shapes and designs that appear immediately after each chapter (figs 4.12–4.20). The second volume again contains several headpieces, thin illuminated subtitle bands, gold rosettes and ‘finispieces’ at the end of each chapter (apart from the final, twenty-­fourth chapter), as well as an illuminated scribal note, a small framed colophon and an impres-

177

178

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.5 Dedication, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod. Mixt.1594, fol. 1a.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

Figure 4.6 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod. Mixt.1594, fol. 1b.

179

180

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.7  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod. Mixt.1594, fol. 2b.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

181

Figure 4.8 Colophon, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod.Mixt.1594, fol. 75a.

182

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.9 Medallion, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod. Mixt.1594, fol. 77b.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

183

Figure 4.10  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod. Mixt.1594, fol. 78b.

184

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.11  Finispiece medallion, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1366, ONB, Cod.Mixt.1594, fol. 159a.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

185

Figure 4.12  Contents page, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 2a.

186

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.13 Frontispiece, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 3a.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

187

Figure 4.14  Illuminated text, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 4a.

188

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.15 Headpieces, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fols 4b, 22a, 52a and 94b.

Figure 4.16  Text bands, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fols 19a, 22a and 52b.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

Figure 4.17  Finispiece medallion, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 66a.

sively ornate dedication medallion (figs 4.21–4.26 and A.15; see also fig. 4.1). The manuscript’s decoration is dominated by geometric motifs, such as multilobed roundels, six- and eight-­pointed stars, pointed ovals, octagons and hexagons. Eight-­ lobed roundels are particularly prominent. Moreover, thick, gold strapwork and knotwork, interlacing split palmettes, scrollwork and small floral motifs (particularly lotuses) also appear throughout the illumination. There is also a strong emphasis on geometric patterns, as well as floral motifs, split palmettes, strapwork and knotwork in the 1372 MasnavÈ. The range of patterns and motifs that appear in the 1372 MasnavÈ is, however, more limited than in the 1366 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ and the 1368 DÈvån-i KabÈr, which overall gives a visually cohesive, if not relatively restrained, effect. The majority of motifs in the manuscript consist of four- and eight-­lobed roundels, eight-­pointed stars, split palmette borders on blue ground and lotuses. Following an opening double frontispiece, each of the six Books begins with two pages of illuminated text and a slim headpiece (figs 4.27–4.33).37

189

190

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.18  Finispiece medallion, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 69b.

Figure 4.19  Finispiece medallion, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 94b.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

Figure 4.20  Finispiece panel, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 68, fol. 124b.

A circular dedicatory medallion appears immediately following the end of the MasnavÈ’s main text, but before an epilogue authored by Sul†ån Walad and a short Persian treatise on the attributes of Allåh (fig. 4.34).38 A simple colophon appears just after the conclusion of this text (fig. A.16). There are several decorative elements common to all three manuscripts: polylobed roundels (sometimes inscribed), split palmette borders paired with thick, gold strapwork, lotuses, small pointed

191

192

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.21 Headpieces, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fols 40a, 64b and 90b.

Figure 4.22  Finispiece panel, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 75b.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

Figure 4.23  Finispiece panel, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 86a.

Figure 4.24  Finispiece panel, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 90b.

ovals, small polychrome flowers and delicately interlacing scrolls and split palmettes (see, for example, figs 4.10, 4.13 and 4.27). This suggests that all three were probably illuminated by the same artist(s). The 1368 DÈvån and the 1372 MasnavÈ are particularly close in their palettes and motifs. We see elements of the manuscripts’ illumination in several fourteenth-­century manuscripts from RËm, Persia, Egypt and Syria. In the following sections, I will highlight these connections, with reference in particular to: the page format of a circle set into a square and framed by a rectangle, the use of polylobed medallions and geometric shapes such as stars and octagons, the appearance of lotuses, designs using split palmettes and particular forms of strapwork.

193

194

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.25  Finispiece panel, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 121b.

For the most part, illuminated text in SåtÈ’s manuscripts is set into relatively straightforward rectangular panels that are framed by various types of thick, gold strapwork and split palmette borders (see, for example, figs 4.10 and 4.29–4.32). Other illuminated text pages are arranged into a format consisting of a circular shape set into a square that is then framed by a rectangle (see figs 4.14 and 4.28). This page format appears in Persian manuscripts from at least the early twelfth century, as shown by illumination from a 505/1111–12 Qur’an produced in Bost (Lashkargah).39 It is notable, however, that the central circular shape that appears in figs 4.14 and 4.28 takes the form of a polylobed roundel. The specific format of a framed polylobed roundel is present in two mid-­fourteenth-­century manuscripts that Elaine Wright has attributed to Injuid Shiraz: the Fårs Malik KhåtËn Qur’an and the Stephens Shåhnåma (fig. 4.35).40 Polylobed medallions (framed and unframed) make numerous appearances in SåtÈ’s manuscripts as small motifs and larger panels. Beyond the Injuid context, such shapes are found in several illuminations from fourteenth-­century Persia, Egypt and RËm. As discussed in Chapter 2, inscribed polylobed roundels are seen from at least the Ilkhanid period and in early fourteenth-­century Konya (see figs 2.11 and 2.15). They also appear in Muzaffarid, Jalayirid

Figure 4.26  Illuminated calligrapher’s note, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 130b.

196

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

and early Timurid illumination.41 We also occasionally see inscribed polylobed roundels in the Mamluk context (fig. 4.36), as well as polylobed shapes being incorporated into larger illuminated designs in fourteenth-­century Mamluk manuscripts.42 The use of polylobed shapes in the upper and lower panels of illuminated Mamluk text pages is particularly similar to their appearance in SåtÈ’s manuscripts, where they are sometimes ‘stretched’ to accommodate inscriptions or cut in half to fit into the panel (see the upper and lower panels of figs 4.28–4.31, for example).43 Aside from polylobed roundels, several further types of geometric shapes appear in SåtÈ’s manuscripts, such as eight-­pointed stars, octagons, hexagons and pointed ovals. The pointed oval has been discussed thoroughly in Chapters 1 and 2, mainly in the context of freestanding frontispieces. In SåtÈ’s manuscripts, they appear as small- and medium-­sized motifs, which probably derives from earlier Konya illumination that itself was shaped by earlier illumination from medieval Persia and Central Asia (see figs 1.8–1.13 and 1.22). The use of geometric shapes was particularly popular in imperial Ilkhanid Qur’ans of the early fourteenth century, as seen in well-­known examples such as ◊ljaytË’s (r. 1304–16) Mosul, Baghdad and Hamadan Qur’ans.44 Again, the employment of small geometric shapes, such as pointed ovals, octagons and eight-­pointed stars, is apparent in fourteenth-­century Coptic and Islamic manuscripts from the Mamluk realm.45 Lotuses also appear several times across SåtÈ’s three manuscripts, where they often take the same form, which consists of a single stem, four or six petals and a central club-­ shaped petal (see figs 4.11, 4.19 and 4.28, for example). Lotus motifs entered the Islamic decorative repertoire from China and were popularised in particular by the Ilkhanids.46 They appear in many fourteenth-­century illuminated manuscripts in various forms. The specific type of lotus seen in SåtÈ’s manuscripts is closest in appearance to lotuses found in some manuscripts from the 1330s and 1340s. For instance, we see lotuses with six petals and a central club-­shaped petal in Qur’ans attributed to Baghdad and Cairo.47 In other instances (the Injuid or later Mamluk periods, for example), the lotus often displays a teardrop-­shaped or pointed oval-­shaped central petal (see fig. 4.35).48 In the later Muzaffarid and Timurid arts of the book, the lotus is transformed into a ‘butterfly-­like’ lotus-­type blossom that is visually removed from the lotuses of SåtÈ’s manuscripts.49 Many of the medallions and illuminated panels in SåtÈ’s manuscripts are bordered with thick strapwork that is adjacent to gold or silver split palmettes (see, for example, figs 4.5, 4.13 and 4.27). This combination of motifs used in the context of borders appears in Ilkhanid Qur’an illumination, as well as the arts of the book of the Injuids (see fig. 4.35).50 Split palmette borders and strapwork are also common in Mamluk manuscripts from this period, although the

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

Figure 4.27 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 3b.

197

198

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.28  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 5a.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

Figure 4.29  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 60a.

199

200

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.30  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 85a.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

Figure 4.31  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 120b.

201

202

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.32  Illuminated text, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 154a.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

203

Figure 4.33 Headpieces, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fols 5b, 33b and 121b.

­ almettes often form part of highly intricate border designs.51 Several p types of strapwork are used in SåtÈ’s manuscripts, though two varieties deserve further comment. The first is the strapwork type that is used most throughout the three manuscripts. It is formed from two bands that intertwine to form ‘S’ shapes, so shall be referred to as ’S-­shaped’ strapwork (see figs 4.10, 4.14 and 4.28, for example). This type of strapwork occasionally appears in Ilkhanid manuscripts from Baghdad and Tabriz, as well as in manuscripts from Konya (see figs 2.26 and A.2).52 The style of strapwork was probably adapted from earlier types, since a similar motif appears in a Qur’an from 419/1028 that was probably produced in Fatimid Cairo.53 Another distinctive variety of strapwork that appears in SåtÈ’s manuscripts consists of bands that interlace to form four-­ point crosses (see figs 4.20 and 4.31). This ‘four-­point cross’ strapwork is less common than its ‘S-­ shaped’ counterpart. Similar motifs appear in some Konya manuscripts (see the centres of figs 1.17 and 2.31). It is also present in the frontispiece border of a copy of AbËl-­MaʿålÈ Naßrallåh’s KalÈla wa-Dimna completed on 15 Íafar 661 (29 December 1262) by Mu˙ammad ibn Mu˙ammad ibn ʿUmar, nicknamed (‘al-mulaqqab bi-’) al-­Jalål, known as (‘al-maʿrËf bi-’) Ibn al-­Kamål al-­Kha††å† (the calligrapher), probably in Konya.54 The strapwork design also appears in the portal niche of the Sahip Ata Külliyesi in Konya (fig. 4.37).55 Again, the motif likely derives from

204

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.34 Dedication, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 188b.

earlier strapwork types, since very similar versions appear in an eleventh-­century Qur’an from Afghanistan and in a copy of Kitåb al-AghånÈ produced in 616/1219 in Mosul.56 I have, so far, not come across the ‘four-­ point cross’ variety of strapwork in fourteenth-­ century illumination from Egypt, but it does appear in a 702/1303 manuscript, perhaps from the Ilkhanid realm.57 What is particularly distinctive about some of the strapwork and knotwork in SåtÈ’s manuscripts is that it is ‘highlighted’ with bold, white pigment (see figs 4.14 and 4.20, for example). Although strapwork and, to a lesser extent, knotwork are common features of Islamic illumination in this period, the use of bold white colour to emphasise the interlacing is, so far, only seen in manuscripts from Konya. Thin, faint white lines are indeed visible on some instances of strapwork in Ilkhanid manuscripts, but this does not resemble the

205

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

Figure 4.35  Detached frontispiece folio, Shåhnåma, Shiraz (probably), late 1340s or early 1350s, FAS, LTS1998.1.1.70a.

Figure 4.36 Frontispiece (detail), Qur’an, Damascus, c. 1330–40, KC, QUR807, fol. 1a.

206

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.37  Mosque portal (detail), Sahip Ata Külliyesi, Konya, 1258.

‘highlighted’ strapwork and knotwork being presently discussed.58 I have yet to find this white-­lined style of strapwork and knotwork in fourteenth-­century manuscripts from beyond RËm. As mentioned previously, gold and silver split palmette borders frequently appear in SåtÈ’s manuscripts and many fourteenth-­century illuminations from Egypt and greater Persia. A split palmette border is also present in the only illuminated manuscript known to scholarship that is linked to late fourteenth-­century Konya (fig. 4.38). This is a recently discovered almanac (taqwÈm) produced in 771 (1369–70) for ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ibn KhalÈl of the Qaramanids (r. 1361–97/8), who was the son of the patron of the 1314–15 Qur’an discussed in Chapter 2.59 By this time, the Qaramanids were in control of Konya, so it is likely that the manuscript was produced there. In the double medallion frontispiece of the Intihånåma in the 1366 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ (see fig. 4.9), the split palmettes are combined with knots and a central eight-­pointed star to form an intricate circular motif. The split palmette and knot combination is repeated in the four corners of the frontispieces’ frames as well. Very similar motifs appear in two manuscripts that may also have been produced in Erzincan, but, like SåtÈ’s manuscripts, they do not contain inscriptions that mention a production location. The first is a copy of RËmÈ’s MasnavÈ that was copied by Mu˙ammad ibn Óusayn al-­MawlawÈ in Shaʿbån 774 (January–February 1373) for one Tåj al-­DÈn Shaykh

Figure 4.38  Frontispiece dedication, TaqwÈm, Konya (probably), 1369–70, UBL, Or. 563, fol. 1a.

Figure 4.39 Frontispiece, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1373, SK, Halet Efendi 171, fol. 212b.

208

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Óusayn Bey (fig. 4.39).60 The illumination pictured also features both the ‘S-­shaped’ and ‘four-­point cross’ types of strapwork. As Zeren Tanındı has suggested, the patron of this manuscript is probably PÈr Óusayn, the ruler of Erzincan (r. 1362–79).61 The second manuscript containing the split palmette and knot motif is a copy of Sul†ån Walad’s DÈvån, completed in Jumådå II 793 (May–June 1391) by A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad al-­Mutafaqqih (student of fiqh) al-­MawlawÈ (figs 4.40–4.41).62 The manuscript, to which I will return below, may have been commissioned or inherited by Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ.63 He certainly donated the manuscript (to the Konya shrine, presumably, where it currently resides), as is evident from a waqf inscription by him dated to 1393 (10 RabÈʿ II 795).64 It is likely that these sorts of designs ultimately come from the Ilkhanid arts of the book. Similar motifs are found, especially in ◊ljaytË’s 713/1313 Hamadan Qur’an, which features several instances of gold interlacing split palmettes and knots with central star-­like shapes.65 We see similar, smaller-­ scale motifs in later Mamluk illumination, often at the centre of multi-­armed polygons.66 The above sections have shown that the illumination of SåtÈ’s manuscripts features numerous elements, some of which were adapted from the Ilkhanid, Injuid and Mamluk arts of the book, while others relate closely to the arts of the book of Konya (the white-­lined strapwork and knotwork being notable examples). Although the manuscripts and their patron are closely connected to Erzincan, as I discuss momentarily, we know very little about the nature of manuscript production in this context, particularly in comparison to Konya in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, where the evidence is richer (see Chapters 1 and 2). However, the extensive and distinctive illumination of SåtÈ’s manuscripts at the very least suggests that the manuscripts were produced by a team of creative, proficient and experienced craftsmen. As in earlier decades, these craftsmen may well have been intimately connected to the town’s Mevlevi community, which we know was present in Erzincan from at least the early fourteenth century. This community may have provided the appropriate network and infrastructure for the production of the arts of the book so that faraway patrons did not have to rely on Konya for their illuminated manuscripts (as demonstrated in Chapter 2). It is possible that the growth of a Mevlevi artistic community in Erzincan was additionally encouraged by the presence of long-­ established Armenian workshops in the area. This context could explain the presence of silver pigment throughout SåtÈ’s manuscripts, which is otherwise not common in the Islamic context, but used in several medieval Armenian manuscripts.67 Although not as active as better-­ known Armenian manuscript production centres such as Rumkale, illuminated manuscripts were produced in Erzincan throughout the late medieval period. Some examples include an early thirteenth-­century Gospels completed in the Avak Vankʿ ­monastery

Figure 4.40 Frontispiece, DÈvån, RËm (possibly), 1391, MMK, 75, fol. 2a.

Figure 4.41 Headpiece, DÈvån, RËm (possibly), 1391, MMK, 75, fol. 2b.

210

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

about 30km from Erzincan,68 a Bible commissioned by Bishop SargÈs of Erzincan in 126969 and a copy of the Homilies of St John Chrysostom on the Epistle of St Paul completed in 1334.70 It seems that the presence of Armenians or Armenian converts to Islam in RËm’s broader artistic landscape was not unusual. As mentioned in Chapter 1, it is possible that an Armenian convert to Islam (KalËk ibn ʿAbdallåh) participated in the construction of buildings for the Seljuk vizier Fakhr al-­ DÈn ʿAlÈ, while Armenian architects were involved in other Seljuk building work, such as the construction of the Ta∞han caravanserai near Malatya in 1218.71 Rumkale was also a prolific centre of Armenian illuminated manuscript production in the thirteenth century, while Sivas was home to several Armenian scriptoria.72 Sa¯tı¯’s world: Konya, Erzincan and Baghdad Two artists are named in the manuscripts: the scribe Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-­MawlawÈ, who copied all of the manuscripts, and AbË Bakr al-­MujallidÈ al-­MawlawÈ al-ÓamawÈ, the (not necessarily contemporary) binder of the 1368 DÈvån. The participation of Mevlevi craftsmen in the production of lavish, illuminated manuscripts is consistent with contexts discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, which examined several manuscripts copied by, and for, Mevlevis. Unlike some of the artists mentioned in previous chapters, however, neither Óasan nor AbË Bakr appear to have been converts to Islam. The involvement of the same scribe in copying all three manuscripts certainly does indicate a patron-­scribe relationship between SåtÈ and Óasan ibn ʿUthmån that lasted over several years. This long-­term collaboration may also have included the illuminator(s), who appear to have been employed for the extensive decoration of all three volumes. The 1366 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ opens with an illuminated dedication to SåtÈ (see fig. 4.5) endowing him with a series of extremely lofty titles and epithets, including ‘the most exalted vizier…the best of the Arab and Persian ministers’ (‘ßå˙ib-i aʿΩam…zubda-yi dasåtÈr al-ʿarab va al-ʿajam’).73 Near-­identical dedications appear in his later manuscripts (see figs 4.1 and 4.34). All mention that he was an amÈr and a Mevlevi devotee. Since he is apparently not mentioned in any contemporary or later Mevlevi sources, it is difficult to discern any specific role he might have had within the group.74 The way in which SåtÈ is described suggests that he was a person of some eminence, or at least wanted to be seen as such. Indeed, the opening of the dedication is very similar to the titulature of the Seljuk vizier Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ – one of the most powerful political figures of the late thirteenth ­century – ­though there is no evidence to suggest that SåtÈ was anything near this influential.75 SåtÈ was perhaps a vizier or a minister. Certainly, as I discuss below, he was a history writer

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

for the Jalayirid court in Baghdad sometime after 1372. The size and lavish appearance of SåtÈ’s manuscripts demonstrate that he was not only an ardent bibliophile, but also a person of means. This is emphasised in his dedications, which describe him as ‘the one who drags the skirts of nobility and magnanimity’ (‘så˙ib-i azyål al-majd va al-karam’) – a figure of speech that emphasises his unprecedented virtue and generosity.76 As we have seen in Chapters 1 and 2, several manuscript patrons of relative affluence or high rank are also not mentioned in historical chronicles or hagiographies. SåtÈ himself noted that the copying and illumination of the 1368 DÈvån cost 6,000 silver dirhams, which, according to a source from the 1340s, was equivalent to the annual wage of an amÈr of 1,000 soldiers.77 If SåtÈ was a vizier, beylerbeyi or ulus beyi (regional/city governor), he could have earned upwards of several hundred thousand dirhams yearly.78 If he were also the shaykh of a dervish lodge, for example, he would also have received zakåt (alms).79 In addition to the waqf note in the 1368 DÈvån, there are several further inscriptions in SåtÈ’s manuscripts, as well as other material, that are revealing about him and his family. The contemporary (that is, completed during the patron’s lifetime) inscriptions in SåtÈ’s illuminated manuscripts do not mention a connection to Erzincan. Looking at other inscriptions and manuscripts, however, confirms the link to Erzincan beyond any doubt. Firstly, Mustanjid mentions a personal connection to Erzincan (‘al-­ArzinjånÈ’) in the aforementioned 1409 waqf note of the 1368 DÈvån. Secondly, we have three Persian inscriptions by Mustanjid and his son Muʿta∂id (SåtÈ’s grandson) that reaffirm that Erzincan was their home. The two inscriptions by Mustanjid appear in the 1372 MasnavÈ (fol. 195b) and an unilluminated, undated copy of RËmÈ’s FÈhi Må FÈhi.80 Both inscriptions discuss Mustanjid’s long journey from Otrar to Erzincan, his ‘customary domicile’ (‘maw†in-i måʾlËf-i khËd’), in 1405–6 after TÈmËr (r. 1370–1405) died.81 The inscription by Muʿta∂id is also written in the undated copy of FÈhi Må FÈhi. It mentions: ‘the deputy judges, property owners and tax-­officers/record-­keepers of the abode of victory of Erzincan, may Allåh Almighty protect it from misfortunes and accidents’.82 Finally, SåtÈ mentions a link to Erzincan in a text that he composed in 1378 for a Jalayirid princess. The author describes himself as ‘SåtÈ, son of Óasan, son of Ma˙mËd, Konya by origin, Erzincan by birth, ÓanafÈ by madhhab and Mevlevi by breeding/education’.83 This manuscript will be discussed below. From SåtÈ’s inscription, we learn the name of his grandfather: Ma˙mËd. An Arabic inscription by Muʿta∂id also partially reveals the name of SåtÈ’s great-­ grandfather: ‘Muʿta∂id son of Mustanjid son of SåtÈ son of Óasan son of Jalål al-­DÈn Ma˙mËd son of ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn […], his forefather, of Konya, the Mevlevi’ (fig. 4.42).84 This genealogical note appears in the illuminated copy of Sul†ån Walad’s DÈvån from 1391, mentioned above. It remains unclear who precisely

211

212

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure 4.42 SåtÈ’s family tree and Mevlevi links.

any of SåtÈ’s named forebears were.85 There was a Seljuk mustawfÈ (accountant-­ general) named Jalål al-­DÈn Ma˙mËd, who held the post twice, in 670/1271–2 and 675–6/1276–8. He later became the nåʾib al-sal†ana for a year, succeeding AmÈn al-­DÈn MÈkåʾÈl, after the latter’s execution in 1277.86 He appears in several sources as ‘Jalål al-­DÈn-­i MustawfÈ’ and, according to AflåkÈ, became RËmÈ’s disciple during the latter’s lifetime.87 A Jalål al-­DÈn Ma˙mËd-­i MustawfÈ is also mentioned briefly in Bazm u Razm, as the grandfather of one ʿAbdallåh who quashed an uprising against Qå∂È Burhån al-­DÈn (r. 1381–98), ruler of Sivas and Kayseri after the demise of the Eretnids.88 Further Persian inscriptions in the same manuscript mention the birth of two sons to (probably) Muʿta∂id: MuʿÈn al-­DÈn Muʿtaßim in 1394; and Sharaf al-­DÈn SåtÈ in 1396.89

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

Muʿta∂id’s genealogical note in the 1391 DÈvån clearly shows that the family were originally from Konya, but had made Erzincan their home. One also wonders whether Muʿta∂id’s note in the undated FÈhi Må FÈhi gives us a clue about his possible profession, given the specific references to the ‘deputy judges, property owners and tax-­officers/record-­keepers’ of Erzincan. Both Mustanjid and Muʿta∂id also used the ‘al-­MawlawÈ’ nisba, so at least three generations of their family were Mevlevi disciples. Although SåtÈ is not mentioned in any Mevlevi sources outside of his family’s manuscripts (as far as I know), Mustanjid appears to have been connected to the Mevlevi community in Erzincan in some capacity. A Persian inscription written by him in an illuminated, partial copy of Shams al-­DÈn TabrÈzÈ’s (d. c. 1247) Maqålåt states that the manuscript was transferred to him from Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad-­i Munajjim (astrologer) in 789 (1387–8).90 The inscription describes Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad-­ i Munajjim as the son of the deceased Óusåm al-­DÈn Óusayn al-­MawlawÈ, one of the vicegerents of Sul†ån Walad in Erzincan, mentioned by Sipahsålår.91 Gölpınarlı suggests that, because of the transfer of the Maqålåt manuscript, Mustanjid may have been Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad-­i Munajjim’s own vicegerent.92 It is unclear where the manuscript was produced, but the inscribed frontispiece medallion is bordered with thick, gold strapwork and split palmettes, as seen in all of SåtÈ’s manuscripts (fig. 4.43; compare to figs 4.5 and 4.17, for example). The headpiece of the Maqålåt is also very similar to the headpiece of Mustanjid’s 1391 DÈvån mentioned above (fig. 4.44; compare to fig. 4.41). This style of headpiece is present in several Mamluk manuscripts from throughout the fourteenth century.93 It is notable that nearly all of the inscriptions by SåtÈ, Mustanjid and Muʿta∂id are in Persian, rather than, say, Turkish, which suggests that the former was their preferred written language.94 This is perhaps not so surprising, given that all three appear to have been committed Mevlevis and may have predominantly operated within a Persian-­speaking Mevlevi milieu. More puzzling is the choice of the n ­ ames – ­ Mustanjid, Muʿta∂id and Muʿtaß­ im – ­ which are all shared with early medieval Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad. These are otherwise very uncommon for the period and could reflect the family’s (perhaps somewhat grandiose) aspirations or even some distant (possibly imagined) ancestry. The origins of SåtÈ’s name are also unclear, though it has possible Mongol links.95 His forebears’ names of Óasan and Ma˙mËd were rather more conventional. Two sources give further information about SåtÈ. These are a taqwÈm compiled by Mustanjid sometime after he returned to Erzincan from Otrar in 1406, and a Persian-­language book on Chingizid history authored by SåtÈ in 1378. According to the taqwÈm, the young bey of Kö©onya (present-­day Sebinkarahisar), PÈr Óusayn (r. 1362–79), became the ruler of Erzincan on 14 Shaʿbån 763 (8 June

213

Figure 4.43 Medallion, Maqålåt, RËm (possibly Erzincan), before 1387–8, SK, Fatih 2788, fol. 1a.

Figure 4.44 Headpiece, Maqålåt, RËm (possibly Erzincan), before 1387–8, SK, Fatih 2788, fol. 1b.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

1362), following the death of the previous ruler of Erzurum, Erzincan and Bayburt, Ghiyåth al-­DÈn AkhÈ Ayna Bey (r. 1348–62).96 Both rulers nominally acknowledged Eretnid authority.97 By the end of July 1362, PÈr Óusayn had also defeated the amÈrs of Erzincan, who then fled to the nearby towns of Tercan and Bayburt. PÈr Óusayn captured the fortress of Bayburt on 21 DhË-l-­Qaʿda 763 (11 September 1362), which was being defended by Malik al-­DÈn Óasan Jånbag, ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ and ‘SåtÈ-i MawlawÈ’.98 SåtÈ’s text on Chingizid history, which has survived in a single illustrated copy, is entitled TårÈkh-i ChingÈz Khån.99 Although there are no other works known to have been authored by him, the existence of the TårÈkh validates the description of SåtÈ in his manuscripts’ dedications as a ‘model of the lords of the pen’ (‘usva-yi arbåb al-qalam’). For the most part, the text is based on the Persian version of RashÈd al-­DÈn HamadånÈ’s Jåmiʿ al-TavårÈkh and replicates sections of this work verbatim.100 The manuscript’s contents indicate that SåtÈ was familiar with Jåmiʿ al-TavårÈkh specifically and with Chingizid history more generally. While the manuscript is, on the whole, a history of ChingÈz Khån’s descendants, with particular reference to the Ilkhanids, it focuses in particular on genealogical matters and concepts of good governance.101 Although it is unclear whether this copy dates from SåtÈ’s time, the text notes that the author started its composition on 1 Rama∂ån 779 (1 January 1378), six years after his last surviving illuminated manuscript was produced (cat. 15). The manuscript does not mention where it was copied. Charles Melville and Zeren Tanındı have suggested that the manuscript was probably produced in the late fourteenth century, but that the illustrations were added later (possibly in the fifteenth century) and perhaps have a Central Asian provenance.102 The patron of the text is named as ʿIßmat al-­DÈn Khwand Islåmshåh KhåtËn.103 Melville has suggested that she may be the mother or wife of the Eretnid ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ.104 The text on folio 73b identifies the two illustrated, closely seated figures as ‘Shåhzåda Shaykh ʿAlÈ’ and ‘Khwandgår KhåtËn’, and calls her the ‘glory of the illustrious family of ChingÈz Khån’.105 ‘Khwandgår KhåtËn’ and ‘ʿIßmat al-­DÈn Khwand Islåmshåh KhåtËn’ are surely the same person, given the similarity in name. Additionally, Shåhzåda Shaykh ʿAlÈ is glowingly referred to several times in the text, along with the author’s hopes for his prosperous rule.106 Apart from a Jandarid princess, there appear to be no records of anyone with a name similar to ʿIßmat al-­DÈn Khwand(går) Islåmshåh KhåtËn from late fourteenth-­century RËm.107 There is, however, a Qur’an juzʾ (originally part of a thirty-­volume Qur’an) that was endowed by one ʿIßmat al-­DÈn Khwånd(i)går KhåtËn bint AkhÈʿÈ Bey on 10 DhË-l-Óijja 787 (12 January 1386) to her (no longer extant) madrasa in eastern Baghdad.108 The manuscript was donated ‘for the benefit of the students and ˙åfiΩs [those who have

215

216

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

memorised the Qur’an in its entirety] of the mausoleum of Shåhzåda Shaykh ʿAlÈ’ in northern Baghdad, near the tomb of AbË ÓanÈfa (d. 767).109 The location of the aforementioned buildings indicates that ‘Shåhzåda Shaykh ʿAlÈ’ must therefore be the son of the Jalayirid Shaykh Uvays (r. 1356–74). Uvays is mentioned briefly in positive terms in the text of TårÈkh-i ChingÈz Khån (fol. 17b).110 Shaykh ʿAlÈ, whom Uvays designated governor of Baghdad before his death in 1374, died in 1382, so would have still been alive when SåtÈ was composing his history for ʿIßmat al-­DÈn, likely a wife or relative of the Jalayirid prince.111 The emphasis on their Chingizid links in the text may certainly have interesting implications for the construction of dynastic ideology in the Jalayirid context, but further discussion of this is beyond the scope of this chapter.112 In any case, these manuscripts raise the fascinating possibility that some time after the 1372 MasnavÈ was produced, SåtÈ left Erzincan and moved to the Mongol Jalayirid court in Baghdad, although the family evidently maintained links to Erzincan (see fig. A.17).113 There is currently no clear reason why SåtÈ would move from his hometown and its Mevlevi community.114 It also begs the question of whether all of SåtÈ’s manuscripts were, in fact, produced in Baghdad, though the analysis of illumination conducted above would call that suggestion in question. Jalayirid illumination needs further investigation, but even a cursory glance at securely identified surviving manuscripts from mid-­ to-­ late fourteenth-­ century western greater Persia does not show much in the way of visual similarities.115 SåtÈ is not mentioned in other historical chronicles, travelogues, hagiographies or architectural inscriptions. However, we can learn a significant amount about him, his life, his interests and his family from his and his descendants’ manuscripts. The picture that emerges is one of many facets. SåtÈ was a Muslim who primarily wrote in Persian, a Mevlevi, a wealthy amÈr and possibly a vizier or minister, a historian of the Chingizids and, of course, an ardent bibliophile. He lived in Erzincan (and, later, Baghdad), but his family were originally from Konya, which is probably where their Mevlevi affiliation initially took root. Analysing a figure such as SåtÈ calls attention to the insight that can be gained by examining sub-­dynastic patronage and the activities of individual patrons. Whether SåtÈ was a person of political weight or not, his history has remained relatively unknown in scholarship, much like those histories of numerous other manuscript patrons and local beys discussed in previous chapters. Since such individuals are not the focus of politically centred accounts, they are often relegated to the peripheries in studies of the period’s history. Regarding late medieval eastern RËm, Jürgen Paul has argued that a narrow focus on larger polities in previous scholarship has effectively excluded smaller political bodies or figures from the narrative.116

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

This, he contends, has arisen out of the preoccupation with the ‘beylik’ model in Turkish scholarship. In addition to a disproportionate emphasis on the Ottomans (the most successful ‘beylik’), polities are often mapped onto a standardised template. This template is composed of ‘a complex including at least one town (or fortress or both), an expanse of agricultural hinterland, and sufficient pasture’ – or, in other words, a ‘basic beylik’. This polity is then analysed within the framework of a ‘certain kind of “beylik monograph”’.117 Another crucial aspect of this past scholarship is the question of ‘Turkishness’. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, perceptions of the so-­ called beyliks have, particularly in Turkish scholarship, been guided by (for example) Osman Turan’s view that they were Turkish-­speaking, ‘half-­shamanistic’, frontier polities that existed beyond the reach of Mongol and Persian culture.118 Faruk Sümer’s study of the Mongols in Anatolia builds upon this premise, claiming that the Mongols were incapable of founding a ‘beylik’ in the region.119 Kemal Göde and Ya∞ar Yücel reproduced much of Sümer’s analysis, stating that all of eastern RËm’s prominent amÈrs were of non-­Mongol origin.120 Although scholars rightly regard the rise of the Turcoman dynasties as a significant turning point in the history of the region, the focus on Turkish ethnicity has hindered a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of eastern RËm’s cultural and political spheres. As Paul shows, local Mongol groups and individual amÈrs, like SåtÈ, were undoubtedly important parts of eastern RËm’s multifaceted and ethnically mixed landscape, where Turks, Arabs, Persians, Mongols, Greeks and Armenians lived, and neither conversion nor intermarriage was uncommon.121 As a Persian- and Arabic-­speaking Muslim amÈr with Mevlevi and, later, Jalayirid affiliations, SåtÈ embodied this cultural complexity, and learning more about him and his patronage only enriches our understanding of this complex context. Conclusion The three manuscripts produced for SåtÈ ibn Ó­ asan – ­ the 1366 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, the 1368 DÈvån and the 1372 MasnavÈ – are rare examples of illuminated material almost certainly from late fourteenth-­century RËm, probably Erzincan. Moreover, they show that the production of the arts of the book remained alive and well, despite disruption in the political sphere and the ravages of recurrent plague. The manuscripts are not only monumental in size and extensively illuminated, but display a range of motifs and patterns that are innovative and distinctive. Many of these motifs relate to the Ilkhanid, Injuid and Mamluk arts of the book, but also display key elements that indicate their RËmÈ ­origin – ­the presence of white-­ lined strapwork and knotwork, which is strongly associated with late thirteenth-­century and early fourteenth-­century illumination from Konya, being particularly noteworthy.

217

218

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

The production and patronage of the manuscripts also demonstrate how the Mevlevis remained crucial to the arts of the book in this period. Several inscriptions by SåtÈ and his descendants detail their attachment to Erzincan and its Mevlevi community, as well as emphasising their connection to Konya, the Mevlevis’ ancestral home. Konya possessed a well-­ established Mevlevi community and artistic networks that enabled the production of illuminated manuscripts. As discussed in Chapter 2, there was certainly Mevlevi manuscript production in Sivas (and Tokat).122 Erzincan clearly also had its own local circle of Mevlevis, and the production of illuminated manuscripts (and the inclusion of silver illumination) may well have been encouraged by this Sufi community and the long tradition of Armenian manuscript production in the local area. From the numerous inscriptions in SåtÈ’s and Mustanjid’s manuscripts, it is possible to gain a significant amount of information about a specific family who are otherwise not very well documented in historical chronicles. SåtÈ does appear to have had some military experience (in defending the fortress of Bayburt), but it seems that he moved into a different role later in his life. Perhaps while retaining the title of amÈr, SåtÈ was primarily a well-­paid bureaucrat or historian. His work on Chingizid history, TårÈkh-i ChingÈz Khån, indicates that SåtÈ was at some point affiliated with the Jalayirid court of Shaykh ʿAlÈ in Baghdad and was therefore familiar with Mongol genealogy. This certainly adds another interesting dimension to what we know of him from his own manuscripts and the inscriptions of his descendants. The rise of local, ambitious amÈrs was widespread in central and eastern RËm, particularly following the fall of the Ilkhanids. Many of these amÈrs (and their families), like SåtÈ, receive only a few mentions in contemporary sources and are thus often consigned to the fringes in accounts of the period. Learning more about his life and his manuscripts underlines the benefits of going beyond the dynastic level, thereby redressing the emphasis placed on dynastic and quasi-­dynastic figures in scholarship and providing an alternative view into the political and cultural landscapes of late medieval RËm. SåtÈ was a manuscript patron, an amÈr, a Mevlevi, a Persianand Arabic-­speaking Muslim from Erzincan with links to Konya, a learned historian for a Mongol Jalayirid princess and possibly a vizier or bureaucrat. As an individual, he demonstrates the multiple roles and identities that one could adopt in this environment of political upheaval and intellectual efflorescence. As a case study, he also undoubtedly enhances our understanding of the arts of the book in this complicated period.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

Notes 1. On the Eretnids, see Uzunçar∞ılı 1937: 49–50; Yücel 1989; Göde 1994; Cahen 2012b. 2. Melville 2009: 94; Shukurov 1994: 24–5. 3. Remler 1980: 173. 4. ‘wa-kåna faßi˙a al-lisåni bi-l-ʿarabiyya’ (Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 291; 1962: 435). Thank you to Sara Youssef for her help with this transliteration. Ibn Ba††Ë†a met Eretna in Sivas, though it was not yet officially part of his territory (the traveller may, of course, have been mistaken with some details). Ibn Ba††Ë†a also notes that Eretna’s wife, ÊaghÈ/Êughå Aghå, was a relative (nisba) of AbË SaʿÈd, but there is no corroborating evidence for her existence (Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 287–8; 1962: 433, 434n81). ◊ljaytË had a wife named Êughå KhåtËn, so Ibn Ba††Ë†a may have been confused (Wing 2016: 68). 5. Aside from a brief occupation by BåyazÈd I in 1397 (Ònalcık 2012). See also Sümer 1969: 126. ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn’s father was the patron of the 1314–15 Qaramanid Qur’an discussed in Chapter 2. 6. Paul 2011: 121–6. 7. Al-­AstaråbådÈ 1928: 180. 8. Shukurov 1994: 32; Remler 1980: 176. 9. Al-­QazwÈnÈ’s (d. after 1340) Nuzhat al-QulËb lists the town’s annual revenue at 332,000 ­dinars – r­ oughly the same as that of Mosul (Togan 1991: 223, 227). 10. Ibn Ba††Ë†a 1854: 294; 1962: 437. 11. Ibid; Polo 1871: I, 45; Pegolotti 1936: 208. 12. See Chapter 3 (especially pp. 162–3 and notes 86–90). 13. Blessing 2017: 207–11. 14. Dadoyan 2011–13. 15. Goshgarian 2013: 46–8. 16. Goshgarian 2012: 246. 17. Sipahsålår 2007: 154–5. This individual may be the scribe of an illuminated Qur’an juzʾ (vol. 30) completed at the end of RabÈʿ I 734 (November–December 1333) and now in the New York Public Library (Spencer Arab Ms 3). The scribe is named as ‘Óusayn ibn Óasan almulaqqab bi-Óusåm al-FaqÈr (the poor/mendicant) al-MawlawÈ’ (fol. 40a). The manuscript was owned at some point by an AkhÈ YËsuf (fol. 40b). See Schmitz 1992: fig. 298; Jackson, forthcoming-­a. AkhÈ YËsuf remains unidentified, but there are two tombstones from the 1380s in Ankara (an akhÈ stronghold in the later medieval period) bearing this name (RCEA 18, nos 787 005; 789 005). Nineteen unpublished Qur’an sections exist that are possibly part of this 1333 Qur’an (MK, Tokat Müzesi 276–94). 18. SåtÈ’s date of death was 5 Jumådå I 788 (4 June 1386). MMK, 2111, fol. 172b. Gölpınarlı 1971: 173–4. 19. Tanındı 2000; 2007; 2012. 20. Appendix: cats 13–15. Respectively, these manuscripts are Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, Cod.Mixt.1594, MMK, 68, 69 and 1113. For Cod.Mixt.1594, see Duda 1983: 219–21; for MMK, 68–9, see Gölpınarlı 2003: 89–99; and for MMK, 1113, see Çetin 1961: 106; Önder 1968: 519; Gölpınarlı 2003: 233–6. For all three manuscripts, see Tanındı 2000; 2007; 2012; Ça©man and Tanındı 2005; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 184–208, 261–301, 319–27; 2014: 267–8.

219

220

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

21. A full BaghdådÈ bifolio was about 73cm by 110 cm (Bloom 2001: 53). 22. Wright 2012: 126. 23. The 1278 MasnavÈ is the only other manuscript discussed in this book which contains a mix of tinted and plain papers. 24. Blair 2000: 25. 25. Ibid: 34n14–15. 26. Appendix: cat. 14. Following repeated bouts of bubonic plague in the middle of the century, as well as fiscal mismanagement at the hands of Mamluk governors, paper production in Damascus declined in the second half of the fourteenth century until finally crumbling following TÈmËr’s sacking of the city in 1401 (Bloom 2001: 56, 60–1). 27. The copying of the DÈvån was begun on 2 Shawwål 768 (1 June 1367), so the latest possible date that SåtÈ could have purchased the paper is 22 Jumådå I 768 (24 January 1367). 28. Appendix: cat. 14. Mustanjid died sometime after 1409, perhaps before 1417, which is the earliest date found in his son’s inscriptions, discussed below. 29. Ohta 2012: figs 5.14, 5.16, 5.20, 5.26. 30. Previous scholarship has assumed the binding to be original (Demircan Aksoy 2011: 284; Tanındı 2012: 223). 31. Tanındı 2012: 223. Of course, Tanındı also suggests Erzincan as a possibility. 32. It is possible that Óasan was the son of ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh, who copied the 1314 Intihånåma (BNF, Supplément persan 1794) and the 1323 MasnavÈ (MMK, 1177), both of which were produced in Konya. See n. 63 (Chapter 2), and Appendix: cats 7, 9. 33. See, for example, Wright 2012: figs 66–7 and WAM, W.625, available at (last accessed 22 February 2019). 34. The first manuscript is a copy of the DÈvån of Sul†ån Walad that was produced by Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-­WaladÈ (SK, Halet Efendi EK 139). The second manuscript is a copy of the Rabåbnåma by the same author and scribe (SZB, Or. Quart. 2131). Both were copied in 722/1322. On the Berlin manuscript, see Heinz and Eilers 1968: 89. The third manuscript is a copy of Shar˙ al-Shåfiya by Fakhr al-­DÈn A˙mad ibn Óasan al-­JårabardÈ (d. 1345), which was completed by Óasan al-­MawlawÈ al-­QËnawÈ in 737/1337 or 739/1339 (IK, Ulucami 3330). A comparison of the scripts confirms that ‘Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-­WaladÈ’ and ‘Óasan al-­MawlawÈ al-­QËnawÈ’ were almost certainly the same person. Whether he was also the scribe of SåtÈ’s manuscripts, produced several decades later, is unclear. The scripts in the later manuscripts are quite different, but it was possible for a scribe’s handwriting to change considerably over the course of his life. 35. James 1999: fig. 53. 36. Soucek 1998: 129. Silver occasionally also appears in Ilkhanid manuscripts, so its use in SåtÈ’s manuscripts may have come from Persia via the presence of Armenian artists at the Mongol court (ibid: 116). On Armenian-­ Mongol artistic connections, see, for example, Kouymjian 2006. Silver does not seem to appear in medieval Coptic or Mamluk manuscripts. Thank you to Lucy-­ Anne Hunt for her thoughts on this. 37. The original foliation of the manuscript was unclear, so I have renumbered the pages.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

38. The treatise’s authorship is unclear. Both texts are noted in the manuscript’s contents page (fol. 2b) under the title, ‘majmËʿa’ (compendium). 39. BNF, Arabe 6041. Available at (last accessed 28 February 2019). 40. Wright 2006; 2012: 25–30; see also James 1992a: 122–35. 41. See, for a very early Timurid example, O’Kane 1999–2000: fig. 13; and for a Jalayirid example, Ça©man and Tanındı 2011: fig. 1. 42. James 1999: figs 35, 141. 43. See the upper and lower panels of Lings 1976: pls 42–3, 64–70, 76–8. 44. James 1999: figs 54, 69, 79, 82, 86; Baker 2007: fig. 31. 45. Hunt 2009: figs 3–4, 7–8; Lings 1976: pls 39–40, 44, 62, 71. 46. On the adoption of the Chinese lotus motif in Islamic art, see Kadoi 2009. 47. James 1999: figs 99, 110; Farhad and Rettig 2016: 216. 48. James 1999: 132, 135, 142; Wright 2012: figs 1, 4, 6, 7, 20. 49. Wright 2012: 49. See the central panel of the headpiece of BNF, Persan 377, fol. 2b, for example. Available at (last accessed 2 May 2019). 50. James 1999: figs 55, 112, 115. 51. Lings 1976: pl. 62, for example. 52. See also Jackson 2019: figs 9, 11, 12; and Farhad and Rettig 2016: cats 23, 25. 53. Farhad and Rettig 2016: 168–9. The strapwork also appears on the inside of a silver bowl from the first half of the thirteenth century, perhaps from Anatolia or Cilician Armenia (KC, MTW 1313). See Rogers 2010: cat. 116. 54. Fondation Martin Bodmer, Cologny, 527. Benouniche has attributed the manuscript to Konya based on its small amount of illumination and textual similarities with another copy of the text produced in Konya in 676/1278 (Benouniche 1995: 65–6, 71–83, pl. A). 55. The complex has several dates, but the portal dates specifically to 1258. 56. On the Afghanistan Qur’an, see Adamova and Bayani 2015: cat. 1. On the 1219 Mosul manuscript, see Canby et al. 2016: 61. 57. This manuscript, completed in DhË-l-Óijja 702 (August 1303) by alÓusayn ibn Mu˙ammad al-ÓusaynÈ, was perhaps produced in Tabriz or Maragha (Sotheby’s, Lot 20, Sale LN8627, Arts of the Islamic World, 22 October 1998). ‘Four-­ point cross’ strapwork also appears in an undated manuscript, possibly from fourteenth-­ century RËm (James 1992a: cat. 50), and in fifteenth-­century manuscripts of possible Persian and Ottoman provenance (Lings 1976: pl. 89; Rogers 2010: 172). 58. See, for example, Farhad and Rettig 2016: 209. 59. UBL, Or. 563. See n. 76 in the Introduction and Appendix, cat. 5. 60. See also Jackson, forthcoming-­b. 61. Tanındı 2000: 521n6. 62. MMK, 75, fol. 122a. Gölpınarlı 2003: 110–12; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 328–38. This scribe copied two further illuminated MasnavÈs, neither of which contain any information concerning ownership or production location (unfortunately, the illumination cannot be obviously situated). The first is dated to 25 Rajab 781 (5 November 1379) (MK, Nev∞ehir Damad Òbrahim Pa∞a Kütüphanesi 36), and the second was completed in mid-­RabÈʿ I 788 (mid-­April 1388) (Hacı Selim A©a Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, 554). The illumination of the 1379 manuscript displays some

221

222

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

similarities to the 1391 DÈvån. The 1388 manuscript’s illumination, however, is very different and some of it was possibly completed at a later date. For the 1379 manuscript, see Önder 1968: 520; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 230–5. The 1388 manuscript is unpublished. 63. The manuscript was not SåtÈ’s, as he died in 1386. 64. ‘This dÈvån of lovers was donated in order to be read (literally, for reading), so that lovers and seekers [of truth], having read it, might remember [the donor] kindly. The servant, Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ the Mevlevi, wrote it’ (‘Ïn DÈvån al-ʿushshåq-rå jihhat-i mu†ålaʿa bi-dast dåda shud ki ʿåshiqÈn va †ålibÈn mu†ålaʿa farmËda ba-khayr yådåvard farmåyand. Katabahu al-ʿabd Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ al-MawlawÈ’) (MMK, 75, fol. 122a). The grammar of this inscription is slightly incorrect, since ‘bi-dast dåda shud’ is a passive verb and should therefore not take a direct object. Thank you to James White for correcting this translation and pointing this out. Gölpınarlı 2003: 111. Demircan Aksoy (2011: 328) suggests that Mustanjid completed the manuscript himself, but I can find no evidence of this. 65. Lings 1976: pl. 59; James 1999: figs 75, 78–9. 66. Lings 1976: pl. 64, for instance. 67. Korkhmazian et al. 1984: cats 37–40; Thierry and Donabédian 1989: 396, 455. 68. Korkhmazian et al. 1984: cat. 4. 69. Narkiss 1980: 66–74. 70. Mathews and Sanjian 1991: 71. 71. Cowe 2015: 86, 118. See also Ghazarian and Ousterhout 2001. 72. Der Nersessian 1993; Coulie 2004. Rumkale was briefly discussed in Chapter 1, while Sivas was mentioned in Chapter 2 (see Appendix, cat. 8). 73. Appendix: cat. 13. 74. I am grateful to Nuri Sim∞ekler for confirming that neither SåtÈ nor his descendants are mentioned in the unpublished Mevlevi source Gulshan-i Asrår, which was written in 1544 by ShåhidÈ IbråhÈm Dede (d. 1550). Sim∞ekler 1998. 75. Rogers 1976: 70n6. 76. Appendix: cats 13–15. This trope suggests that SåtÈ has effaced what has come before or, in other words, that he is nobler and more magnanimous than previous patrons. Thank you to James White for this translation and information. 77. Togan 1991: 235–6. We do not have many recorded examples of the specific cost of manuscript production, but, as a point of comparison, a thirty-­volume Qur’an and a ˙adÈth collection produced for the Rabʿ-i RashÈdÈ in Tabriz cost around 2,000 gold dinars, while a copy of al-­ GhazålÈ’s (d. 1111) I˙yåʾ ʿUlËm al-DÈn from around the same period cost 500-­1,000 dinars (Ben Azzouna 2018: 307). 78. Togan 1991: 236, 239. 79. Ibid: 239. 80. MMK, 2111, fol. 172a. Gölpınarlı states that the handwriting of the unnamed scribe is very similar to that of an undated, illuminated partial copy of Shams al-­DÈn TabrÈzÈ’s Maqålåt, which was copied by a calligrapher named Gawharshåd, literally ‘shining jewel’ (SK, Fatih 2788). Gölpınarlı 1971: 173–4. See n. 90 below. 81. Appendix: cat. 15. See also fig. A.17 and note 113 below. 82. ‘Óukkåm-i navvåb va mutaßarrifån va bÈtakchÈyån-i dår al-naßr-

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

i Arzinjån ˙arasahå Allåh taʿålå ʿan al-åfåt va al-˙adsån’ (MMK, 2111, fol. 2b). Gölpınarlı 1971: 173. The inscription was written on 1 DhË-l-Óijja 819 (20 January 1417). Thank you to James White for his corrections. 83. ‘SåtÈ ibn al-Óasan ibn Ma˙mËd al-QËnawÈ ma˙tidan wa-l-ArzinjånÈ mawlidan al-ÓanafÈ madhhaban wa-l-MawlawÈ maʾduban’ (SPBU, O.P.950(b), fol. 9b). The choice of ‘maʾduban’ is odd, since it literally means ‘banquet’, but was perhaps chosen for rhetorical effect. It is from the same root (aduba) as ‘taʾdÈb’ (education) and ‘taʾaddub’ (good breeding), which make more sense in this context. I am grateful to Charles Melville for sharing images of this manuscript. Melville 2010: fig. 9.2. 84. ‘Muʿta∂id ibn Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ ibn al-Óasan ibn al-Jalål al-DÈn Ma˙mËd ibn al-ʿAlåʾ [al-DÈn…] abËhu al-QËniyawÈ [sic: al-QËnawÈ] al-MawlawÈ’ (MMK, 75, fol. 1a). This note was written on 8 Rama∂ån 821 (9 October 1418). Gölpınarlı 2003: 111. 85. Lewis suggests that SåtÈ’s father, Óusåm al-­DÈn Óasan, could be the grandson of RËmÈ’s successor, Óusåm al-­DÈn ChalabÈ (Lewis 2008: 299). However, in the Konya shrine, the tombstone of this grandson, Óusåm al-­DÈn Óasan, shows that his father’s name was Íadr al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad, not Jalål al-­Din Ma˙mËd (Gölpınarlı 1953: 358). 86. Cahen 1968: 342–3. 87. Ibn BÈbÈ 1956: fol. 662; al-­AqsaråyÈ 1944: 97, 100, 102; AflåkÈ 1961: I, 133–5, 565; 2002: 94–5, 391. 88. Al-­AstaråbådÈ 1928: 215. 89. MMK, 75, fol. 123b (Gölpınarlı 2003: 111). 90. SK, Fatih 2788, fol. 123a. The undated manuscript was copied by Gawharshåd, who may also have copied MMK, 2111 (see n. 80 above). The leather binding may not be original as the manuscript has been cropped. There is another surviving volume of this manuscript, albeit without any contemporary inscriptions (SK, Darülmesnevi 271). Tanındı 2000: 526; 2007: 173; Demircan Aksoy 2011: 339–55. There probably was a Mevlevi lodge in Erzincan (as claimed in Miro©lu 1995; Sahin 1998: 138), but there is thus far no physical evidence for its existence. 91. Sipahsålår 2007: 154–5. 92. Gölpınarlı 1953: 173. 93. James 1992a: 191; 1999: fig. 99. 94. Ibn Ba††Ë†a noted that Erzincan’s Muslims spoke Turkish (1854: 294; 1962: 437). 95. Peacock suggests that he may be Mongol, based on his name (Peacock 2019: 101). ‘SåtÈ’ could derive from the Arabic så†iʿ (radiant/brilliant) or the Turkish satılmı∞/ßåtÈlmish, meaning ‘one who is sold/consecrated’ to a saint. ‘Íåtılmı∞’ was apparently used by ‘hitherto barren’ mothers (Ed. 2012). Contemporary individuals with similar names all have Mongol connections, with the most well-­known being SåtÈ/Så†È Bey KhåtËn, sister of AbË SaʿÈd and brief puppet ruler of the Ilkhanids in 1339 (De Nicola 2017: 102–4). There was also an amÈr named Tåj al-­DÈn ÍatÈlmish and a princess named Såtilmish KhåtËn. Tåj al-­DÈn ÍatÈlmish was the husband of KËrdËjin KhåtËn (d. 1338), who was HËlågË’s granddaughter (Lambton 1988: 275). According to a seventeenth-­ century Chaghatai source, Såtilmish KhåtËn was the wife of Ïsan BËghå, ruler of the Chaghatai Khanate (r. 1310–18) (Bahådur 1871: I, 155–6; II, 165).

223

224

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

96. Turan 1984: 80–1; Yücel 1989: 64n106, 151; Sinclair 2016. Ayna Bey and PÈr Óusayn may have been father and son (Shukurov 1994: 36). Unusually, Ayna Bey purchased control of Erzincan, rather than conquering it (ibid: 32). He was apparently attacked in 1355 by one ‘Khwåja ʿAlÈ’ (Sanjian 1969: 90). Bazm u Razm describes PÈr Óusayn as the ‘vålÈ’ (ruler or governor) of Erzincan (al-­AstaråbådÈ 1928: 151). 97. Shukurov 1994: 32; Remler 1980: 174, 176. 98. Turan 1984: 80. This ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ is not the Eretnid ruler of the same name who would have been a very young child at this time (Paul 2011: 122). 99. SPBU, O.P.950(b). 100. Melville 2010: 130. 101. Melville notes, for example, that SåtÈ omitted the career and conquests of ChingÈz Khån in favour of information concerning his wives and sons (ibid: 132–5). 102. Ibid: 139–46; Tanındı 2012: 222. Melville also suggests that the whole manuscript could have been produced in the fifteenth century. 103. SPBU, O.P.950(b), fol. 9b. The name ‘Islåmshåh’ also appears on fol. 42b. 104. Melville 2010: 137. The only physical evidence we have of an Eretnid princess concerns SËlÈ Påshå KhåtËn, one of Eretna’s wives, who is buried in the Kö∞k Medrese in Kayseri (built in 1339). RCEA 15, no. 5812. 105. ‘mafkhara-yi arËgh-i nåm-dår-i ChÈnggÈz Khån’ (Melville 2010: fig. 9.3). 106. Ibid: 137. 107. Khwånd KhåtËn bint AmÈrzå Bey, who died in Rajab 780 (October– November 1378), is buried alongside several s­ iblings – a­ ll apparently plague ­victims – i­n the Emir Mirza Bey Türbe in Bafra (1381). Oral 1956: 392–3; RCEA 17, nos 782 008–12. 108. National Museum of Iran, Tehran, no. 9230. See Ben Azzouna 2018: 611, cat. 113. 109. Ibid. 110. Melville 2010: 139. 111. Wing 2016: 153. 112. Ibid, particularly Chapter 7. 113. It is also unclear why Mustanjid was in Otrar when TÈmËr died and what connection he had to the Timurid court. Perhaps he was in Baghdad in DhË-l-­Qaʿda 803 (June–July 1401) when TÈmËr besieged the city and was taken prisoner, along with many others. 114. An outbreak of plague in the region over 1373–5 may have prompted SåtÈ to move. See n. 88 (Chapter 3). 115. On Jalayirid illumination, see Ça©man and Tanındı 2011; Wright 2012: 80–1; Ben Azzouna 2018: 455–63. 116. Paul 2011: 108–10. 117. Ibid: 109. Generally, these monographs follow a set framework that begins with a chronological description of rulers, relevant battles and their territories, followed by their relations with other Turcoman polities and their cultural and building activities. See, for example, Yücel 1989; Göde 1994. Uzunçar∞ılı 1937, which follows this pattern, remains the most comprehensive publication on the Turcoman polities of RËm. 118. Turan 1977: 251–3.

¯ TI¯ IBN H ASAN: A MEVLEVI PATRON SA ˙

19. Sümer 1969: 120. 1 120. Yücel 1989: 19; Göde 1994: 102–4, citing information from Sümer 1969: 125. 121. Paul 2011: 121–6, 137–47. 122. Appendix: cat. 8.

225

Epilogue

This book has uncovered the aesthetic variety and documentary richness of the Islamic arts of the book of the late medieval Lands of RËm and produced new ways of understanding this material in its proper cultural and intellectual contexts. It has done so by considering the manuscripts as ‘whole’, complex objects. This approach has entailed looking closely at the codicological and visual properties of the manuscripts themselves, reading their inscriptions and analysing this material within a framework that accounts for patronage beyond dynastic ­confines – ­a facet that is sometimes overlooked in the wider scholarly field of Islamic art history. The manuscripts discussed here show that some of RËm’s cities (particularly Konya) were home to dynamic artistic communities that consisted of local and émigré craftsmen, including converts to Islam and, possibly, Christians. This material also reveals that patrons were often drawn from the political classes, but were, generally speaking, otherwise not well-­ known from historical sources. In some cases, patrons’ affiliations and intellectual interests challenge simplistic or unambiguous conceptions of the ‘frontier’ and the role of ‘Turkishness’ in late medieval RËm. Questions of change and continuity are often at the heart of historical inquiry. In this case, so little of the arts of the book of medieval RËm survives from before the Mongol conquest that such questions are impossible to fully answer at present. However, we can, to a certain extent, reconstruct relationships between the visual vocabularies of medieval Persian and Central Asian Qur’ans and the manuscripts discussed in this book. This general westward movement of motifs and patterns likely correlates with the slow movement of Turkic settlers into RËm and provides some idea of how twelfth- and thirteenth-­century manuscripts from the region may have appeared. The Ottoman consolidation of Anatolia following the Interregnum (1402–13) did not immediately result in the emer-

epilogue

gence of an imperial ‘Ottoman’ arts of the book. This period requires further research, but current scholarship suggests that a distinctly ‘Ottoman’ manuscript style did not emerge until around the 1470s.1 Prior to this, the aesthetics of Ottoman manuscripts seem to owe more to the contemporary Timurid, Turcoman and Mamluk arts of the book than to the manuscripts of this study. Understanding this highlights the inappropriateness of labelling this material and this period ‘pre-­Ottoman’. Indeed, the regional centres of manuscript production appear to have shifted with relative speed to Ottoman-­held Amasya, Bursa, Edirne and, eventually, Istanbul. Of course, manuscript production in other areas did not suddenly cease, but, until further investigations are conducted, the evidence for manuscript patronage beyond these cities currently appears relatively meagre.2 There are elements of calligraphy and illumination in this period that clearly relate to motifs and patterns seen in the contemporary Ilkhanid and Mamluk arts of the book. Émigré artists with experience gained in the workshops of these areas probably provided the main conduit by which styles and motifs from neighbouring regions appeared in manuscripts from RËm. It is likely that this was not a one-­way system. Through the work of IbråhÈm al-ÅmidÈ (discussed in Chapter 1), the impact that illumination from Konya may have had on artists beyond RËm is apparent. The elements borrowed from Mamluk and Ilkhanid contexts were combined with a variety of other motifs and patterns, leading to a visual and physical diversity that belies dynastic or ethnonational classification. Within this array of characteristics, however, are a small yet significant group of motifs that appear in several manuscripts from late thirteenth- and early fourteenth-­ century Konya. These include the large, freestanding pointed oval medallion, alternating circle-­and-­pointed-­oval borders and rotating split palmettes. These motifs, which do not seem to appear elsewhere in the manuscript record, are strongly associated with Konya specifically and suggest that a very loose ‘school’ of illumination may have existed in the city during this period. This ‘school’ potentially consisted of a network of local artists connected through patrons, local organisations or teacher-­student relationships. It may well have existed from the heyday of Seljuk rule, though the evidence for this is not forthcoming. In any case, this distinctive aesthetic demonstrates the importance and inventiveness Konya developed as a centre for the arts of the book. Similarly compelling evidence has not emerged from other towns in which illuminated manuscripts were produced, such as Sivas and Òstanos. It is thus difficult to argue for the existence of a ‘RËmÈ’ style of manuscripts, though evidence for a Konya ‘school’ is more apparent. Eight of the fifteen core manuscripts of this study are works by RËmÈ and Sul†ån Walad. We can partially attribute this to the exceptional survival of the Mevlevi treasury from the late thirteenth century onwards. However, it also attests to the success of the

227

228

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Mevlevis in eliciting support from wealthy bureaucrats and amÈrs, as well as to the devotion of individual disciples, some of whom possibly copied and decorated manuscripts for themselves. It also highlights the importance that the Mevlevis held for the dissemination, preservation and visual commemoration of their texts. The copying of monumental tomes (including Qur’ans), especially those destined for endowment, highlights the function of manuscripts as expressions of patrons’ piety and perhaps also their desire to gain support from certain religious groups. Large copies of Mevlevi texts possibly played a role in the samåʿ ritual, as well as other forms of devotion and instruction, and underline the centrality of the written word to such activities. Additionally, the elaborate decoration of some manuscripts, even small ones such as the 1278 Qur’an, could suggest a level of rivalry or competition between patrons and highlights the status of illuminated manuscripts as possible items of conspicuous consumption. In addition to their position as precious possessions or endowments, illuminated manuscripts also give insights into the intellectual tastes or possible motives of patrons. The modest illumination of Ibn BÈbÈ’s chronicle contravenes its historical significance as a record of Seljuk history and as a platform for the JuwaynÈ ­brothers’ ambitions. Given the identity of its commissioner, ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ, it is also the only manuscript in this book that shows any indication of Ilkhanid participation in the arts of the book. Save for this manuscript and the likely westward movement of craftsmen into RËm, it appears that the Mongol conquest had limited direct impact on manuscript production in RËm, with Ilkhanid patronage occurring instead in the cities of Tabriz, Maragha, Mosul and Baghdad. The production of advice literature such as Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd and al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya (with its later reading note) for Turcoman beys underscores one facet of their desire to rule as consummate Islamic princes, which also entailed pursuits such as the endowment and construction of buildings and the enlistment of educated and cultured supporters. The texts’ connections to the celebrated Seljuk ruler ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I may also have inspired the production of these particular manuscripts, in an effort to emulate or learn from his reign. The number of Mevlevi texts illuminated in this period focuses attention on the dervish group’s significant contribution to the arts of the book. Although scholarship often characterises the group as ‘aristocratic’ (particularly in studies of the Ottoman period), some of these manuscripts show that Mevlevi scribes, while educated, were not necessarily of an elite class. The professional scribe (‘kåtib’) of the pre-­1332 MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, for example, was the son of a weaver. This material also highlights several other groups’ roles in production and patronage. By and large, craftsmen in this period appear to have been from RËm (according to their nisbas), but there

epilogue

is also some evidence of scribes and illuminators possibly coming from further afield, with names such as ‘al-­HindÈ’ and ‘al-­TustarÈ’. Al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya, for instance, was produced for an Ashrafid prince based in Bey∞ehir by an author from Shushtar, thereby reaffirming the importance of Konya as a regional manuscript production centre and highlighting RËm’s potential attractiveness to itinerant scholars. Several of the artists discussed in this book appear to have been first- or second-­generation converts to Islam, drawing attention to the possible role that (former) Christians may have held as craftsmen and devotees of RËmÈ in medieval RËm. Indeed, there have been many suggestions of the parts that Greeks and Armenians may have played in the production of material culture. The identities of manuscript patrons parallel the shifts in political power in late medieval RËm, to a certain extent. Late thirteenth-­century patrons included two bureaucrats connected to the prominent and influential Seljuk vizier Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ, as well as ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ, whose brother, Shams al-­DÈn, had overseen the economic integration of RËm into the Ilkhanid Empire several years before. In the fourteenth century, the changing nature of illuminated manuscript patronage reflected the rising status of the Turcoman principalities and the continued territorial and political fragmentation of the region. Perhaps surprisingly, the level of patronage appears to diminish somewhat after the mid-­fourteenth century, leaving aside the activities of SåtÈ ibn Óasan and his son. This may be partially explained by recurrent plague, which, in this period, has not been studied in great depth (due largely to the inadequate source material). Fourteenth-­ century manuscripts produced for local beys are, however, not ‘Beylik’ manuscripts. In the case of the prolific patron SåtÈ ibn Óasan, it is unclear whether he was a member of a particular regional polity. He may have been attached to a court at some point, but forcing him and his significant cultural activities into a dynastic framework does not serve the material well. Through SåtÈ and other patrons discussed in this book, the importance of carefully considering the sub-­dynastic and individual aspects of patronage becomes evident. Analysing these figures and their intellectual interests also emphasises the futility of ascribing essentialist ethnonationalist identities in a period when these were largely irrelevant. SåtÈ and others, such as KhalÈl ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån, demonstrate that the affiliations and roles that one person might adopt could be varied and multiple. In these cases, questions over ‘Turkishness’ are not particularly revealing for more comprehensive insights into the cultural landscape. Indeed, this material challenges the idea that the Turcoman principalities were forces for ‘Turkification’ and opposed to Persian culture. It also complicates an understanding of ‘frontier vs centre’ dynamics and the attached dichotomies of the wild, Turcoman marches and the sophisticated, Persianate towns.

229

230

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Despite significant political unrest, which continued from the mid-­thirteenth century right through to the fifteenth (and even sixteenth) century, this book has shown that artistic production and intellectual activities continued to thrive in many of RËm’s towns, advanced by a diverse coterie of craftsmen, scholars, dervishes and patrons. Konya, in particular, was a vibrant and dynamic centre for the production of the arts of the book, although its output may not quite rival the finest masterworks of the contemporary Ilkhanid or Mamluk ateliers. Nevertheless, the manuscripts analysed here demonstrate that RËm was hardly a mere periphery to the workshops of the central Islamic lands, but was, in fact, an important part of the transregional networks that criss-­crossed the Muslim world and connected it to its non-­Muslim neighbours. Although broader surveys of Islamic art history have comparatively neglected this material, this book has hopefully highlighted its deserved place within the medieval Islamic manuscript record and demonstrated the value of examining illuminated manuscripts for the investigation of cultural history. Notes 1. Raby and Tanındı 1993. 2. See, for example, a Qur’an endowed in 845/1441, probably produced in Konya (American University of Beirut, Beirut, 297.122:K84quA). Available at (last accessed 30 April 2020).

APPENDIX

Catalogue, Transliterations and Translations

Manuscripts from Chapter One Cat. 1 Title: Qur’an Author: N/a Language: Arabic Genre: N/a Date: End of RabÈʿ II 677 (mid-­September 1278) Place of production: Konya (madrasa of Saʿd al-­DÈn Köpek) Artists: Óasan ibn ChËbån ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­QËnawÈ (scribe); Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­HindÈ (illuminator) Patron: Sayf al-­DÈn Sunqur ibn ʿAbdallåh al-Íå˙ibÈ Later owners: Unknown Seals: None Folios: 335 Size: 105mm × 80mm (all measurements are length by width) Text block: 70mm × 50mm; fifteen lines in one column Script and ink: Naskh; fairly solid black Pigments: Gold, dark blue, small areas of red and green, white Description of paper: Dark yellowy-­cream; smooth and slightly shiny with several inclusions; ten folios = 2mm approx. thickness Chain and laid lines: No visible chain or laid lines Binding: Dark brown leather stamped binding preserved on upper and lower covers; no flaps (fourteenth- or fifteenth-­century Mamluk?) Quires: Quaternions Condition and later repairs: Cropped substantially due to rebinding; minor repairs Collection information: Chester Beatty, Dublin, Is.1466

232

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure A.1  Colophon, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fols 329b–330a.

Colophon (fols 329b–330a, see fig. A.1) Faragha min kitbati hådhå al-muß˙afi al-karÈmi al-ʿabdu al-∂aʿÈfu al-mu˙tåju ilå ra˙mati rabbihi al-la†Èfi al-Óaßanu ibnu ChËbån ibnu ʿAbdallåhi al-QËnawÈ fÈ QËniyatta al-ma˙rËsati ˙arasahå Allåhu bi-madrasati Saʿdi al-DÈni KËbak ra˙imahu Allåh fÈ åkhir RabÈʿ al-Åkhir sanat sabʿin wa-sabʿÈna wa-sittu-miʾatin The weak servant in need of the mercy of his Gentle Lord, Óaßan son of ChËbån son of ʿAbdallåh of Konya, completed the writing of this glorious Qur’an volume in the protected city of Konya, may Allåh protect it, at the madrasa of Saʿd al-­DÈn Köpek, may Allåh have mercy upon him, at the end of RabÈʿ II, in the year six hundred and seventy-­ seven (mid-­September 1278). Illuminator’s inscription (fols 329b–330a, see fig. A.1) Dhahhabahu hådhå al-muß˙af al-karÈm Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh Mukhliß son of ʿAbdallåh gilded it, this glorious Qur’an volume.

appendix

Figure A.2  Dedication, Qur’an, Konya, 1278, CBL, Is.1466, fols 332b–333a.

Dedication (fols 332b–333a, see fig. A.2) BËrika hådhå al-muß˙afu al-karÈm li-ßå˙ibihi wa-mustansikhih al-ßadr al-kabÈr malik al-khawåßß wa-l-˙ujjåb qudwat al-kufåt wa-l-kuttåb sayf al-milla wa-l-dawla wa-l-dÈn ʿazÈz al-Islåm wa-l-muslimÈn mukhtår al-mulËk wa-l-salå†Èn Khåßß ʿåqil kåfÈ kadkhudå bey Sunqur ibn ʿAbdallåh al-Íå˙ibÈ al-aʿΩamÈ waffaqahu Allåh taʿålå li-l-khayråt wa-ßånah bi-fa∂lih ʿan al-˙awådith wa-l-åfåt ʿalå taʿåqub al-layl wa-l-nahår na˙wa Mu˙ammad wa-ålih wa-ßa˙bih al-akhyår Blessed is this glorious Qur’an volume by its owner and transcriber, the great minister, head of the courtly elites and the chamberlains, model of skilled people and of scribes, sword of the community, the state and the religion, the power of Islam and Muslims, the choice of kings and sultans, an intelligent and skilful senior courtier (kadkhudå bey) Sunqur son of ʿAbdallåh of the great Íå˙ib (Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ), may Allåh, exalted be He, make him prosper with good deeds, and may He defend him through His favour against accidents and pestilence throughout the nights and days, just like Mu˙ammad, His family and His choicest companions.

233

234

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Cat. 2 Title: MasnavÈ-i MaʿnavÈ Author: Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ (d. 1273) Language: Persian Genre: Taßawwuf Date: Rajab 677 (November–December 1278) Place of production: Konya Artists: Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­QËnawÈ al-­WaladÈ (scribe); Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­HindÈ (illuminator) Patron: Jamål al-­DÈn Mubårak ibn ʿAbdallåh al-Íå˙ibÈ Later owners: None Seals: Mevlana Müzesi (modern) Folios: 325 Size: 495mm × 335mm Text block: 368mm × 257mm; twenty-­nine lines in four columns Script and ink: Naskh; solid black; gold rubrics Pigments: Gold, bright blue, bright green, red, white Description of paper: Light brownish cream with slight pinkish hue (fols 159–229 quite pink, though appears to be the same paper); smooth and slightly shiny; ten folios = 2mm approx. thickness Chain and laid lines: Twenty horizontal laid lines = 28mm Binding: Tan leather with flap, embossed ovals and corner panels (seventeenth-­century Ottoman) Quires: Quaternions Condition and later repairs: Cropped due to rebinding; creasing on several pages; watermarked flyleaves and later paper inserts at beginning Collection information: Mevlana Müzesi, Konya, 51 Colophon (fol. 325b, see fig. A.3) Raßßaʿahu wa-zayyanahu bi-l-tadhhÈb Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh al-HindÈ Tamma al-kitåb al-MathnawÈ al-hådÈ ilå-l-ßirå† al-sawÈy wa-l-˙amdu li-llåhi ʿalå itmåmih wa-l-ßalawåtu wa-l-salåmu ʿalå Mu˙ammadin nabiyyih khiyarati rusulihi wa-khayri anåmih ʿalå yad al-ʿabdi al-∂aʿÈf al-faqÈri al-mu˙tåji ilå ra˙mati rabbih Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAbdallåh al-QËnawÈ al-WaladÈ wa-kåna istinsåkhuh min al-nuskhat al-aßliyyat al-maqrËʾati al-mußa˙˙a˙ati al-muhadhdhabati al-munaqqa˙ati ʿalå ˙a∂rat al-shaykh muʾallifih wa-˙u∂Ëri khalÈfatih wa-khalafih fÈ majålis ʿiddati qaddasa Allåhu sirrahu al-ʿazÈz wa-adåm niʿmata baqåʾ wujËdihimå ʿalå al-muslimÈn åmÈn yå rabb al-ʿålamÈn yawm al-ithnayn min shahr Allåhi al-aßamm Rajab sanat sabʿin wa-sabʿÈn wa-sittu-miʾa wa-ra˙ima Allåhu man qiråʾa wa-†ålaʿa wa-naΩara fÈh wa-intafaʿa wa-daʿå li-kåtibih wa-wåqifih bi-l-khayr

Figure A.3  Colophon and waqf note, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1278, MMK, 51, fol. 325b.

236

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Mukhliß son of ʿAbdallåh of Hindustan ornamented and decorated it with gold. The book of the MasnavÈ (spiritual couplets), the guide to the straight path, has been finished, thanks to Allåh for its completion and prayers and peace upon Mu˙ammad, His Prophet, the best of His messengers, and the choicest of His creatures, by the hand of the weak and poor servant who is in need of the mercy of his Lord, Mu˙ammad son of ʿAbdallåh of Konya and of (Sul†ån) Walad, having been copied from the original and legible transcript that was authenticated, corrected, and revised by his excellence the shaykh, who is its author, in the presence of his successor (Óusåm al-­DÈn ChalabÈ) and his heir (Sul†ån Walad) in numerous meetings, may Allåh sanctify his glorious secret, and make the blessing of the continued existence of the latter two upon the Muslims long-­lasting, Amen, O Lord of all that exists. On Monday of Allåh’s silent month of Rajab, in the year six hundred and seventy-­ seven (November–December 1278). May Allåh have mercy on those who recite, read and contemplate it and benefit [from it] and pray with good wishes for its scribe and its endower. Waqf note (fol. 325b, see fig. A.3) Wuqifa hådhå al-kitåbu al-muwa††adu al-karÈmu wa-l-khi†åbu al-mumajjadu al-ʿaΩÈmu ilå-l-turbati al-muqaddasati al-mu†ahharati wa-l-raw∂ati al-maʾnËsati al-mumajjadati allatÈ hiya ßadafu durrati al-asråri al-låhËtÈyati wa-ßadafu ʿizzati al-anwåri al-malakËtÈyati wa-muntaqå al-abråri dhawÈ al-maqåmåti wa-l-karåmåti wa-multaqå al-salåmi mina Allåhi fÈhå wa-l-ta˙Èyåtu wa-mubtaghå al-†ålibÈna al-sålikÈna mina al-qå†inÈna minhumu wa-l-mutaqarribÈna wa-muntahå al-wåßilÈna al-nåsikÈna min al-såkinÈna minhumu wa-l-mutanaqqibÈna al-mansËbati ilå mawlånå wa-sayyidinå wa-muʿtamadi yawminå wa-ghadinå al-shaykhu ibnu al-shaykhi ibnu al-shaykhi al-ilahÈ wa-l-imåmu ibnu al-imåmi ibnu al-imåmi al-˙anafÈ al-rabbånÈ al-mustaghnÈ bi-l-ishåbi mina al-i†nåbi fÈ-l-alqåbi idh hËwa shamsun lå yatawårå bi-i˙tijåbin wa-intiqåbin ʿalå an lå yataʾattå fÈ hådhå al-maw∂iʿ må yasËghu lahu min dhikri baʿ∂i nuʿËtihi masågha istinjåbi Jalåli al-Millati wa-l-Óaqqi wa-l-DÈni Mu˙ammadun ibnu Mu˙ammadin ibnu al-Óusayni al-BalkhÈ ra∂iya Allåhu ʿanhu wa-ʿan aslåfihi alladhÈna ʿatabåtuhum li-jibåhi al-ʿåshiqÈna masåjidun wa-mawålåtuhum li-qulËbi al-ʿårifÈna ʿaqåiʾdun wa-maqålåtuhum li-afʾidati al-muqirrÈna bi-him maqålidun wa-ruwåyåtuhum li-åßmikhati al-munkirÈna ʿalayhum aghshÈyatu wa-makåyidu man ˙ådå al-nåsa qå†ibatan sirran sabaqahum sabaqa ʿUkåshatin fÈ-l-dårayni jahran bi-fawzi al-saʿådati al-ʿuΩmå wa-˙awzi al-siyådati al-kubrå wa-dhålika lammå attafaqa lahu mina Allåhi tabåraka wa-taʿålå ʿinåyatan azalÈyatan fa-ßa˙˙at ʿaqÈdatuhu fÈ ˙aqqi awlÈyåʾihi wa-

appendix

ßanaʿat †awiyyatuhu bi-mu†åwaʿati aßfÈyåʾihi wa-ßadaqat niyyatuhu li-mutåbaʿati atqÈyåʾihi wa-kathurat raghabatuhu fÈ irådati a˙ibbåʾihi wa-huwa al-amÈru al-kha†Èru al-ajallu al-kabÈru al-zåhidu al-ʿåbidu al-nåsiku al-muʿtaqidu al-muntaqidu al-ßåli˙u al-mutadayyinu sayyidu al-khuddåmi maliku al-umaråʾi wa-l-˙ujjåbi muqarrabu al-˙a∂rati ßaffÈyu al-mamlakati safÈru al-dawlati Jamålu al-DÈni Mubåraku ibnu ʿAbdallåhi ʿatÈqu al-ßå˙ibi al-muʿaΩΩami wa-l-dustËri al-mukarrami Fakhru al-DÈni ʿAlÈun ibnu al-Óusayni ballaghahu Allåhu fÈ-l-dårayni mubtaghåhu wa-jaʿla lahu fÈ sidrati al-muntahå muntahåhu qåßidan bi-hi mina Allåhi taʿålå dharÈʿata li-ibtighåʾi maråʿÈhi wa-jåʿilan li-nafsihi wasÈlatan fÈ aʿlå darajåtihi wa-maråqÈhi wa-li-yabqå lahu al-dhikru al-jamÈlu mukhalladan ʿalå ßafahåti al-ayyåmi wa-ya˙Ωå bi-al-ajri al-jazÈli muʾabbadan fÈ ʿarßåti yawmi al-qiyåm[a]ti wa-shar†a an lå yakhruja minhå ilå mustaʿÈri il-lå bi-rahnin wathÈqin wa-ʿiwa∂in yalÈqu wa-lå yughayyaru wa-lå yubaddalu wa-lå yËhabu wa-lå yunqalu bal yuqråʾu wa-yanfaʿu wa-yuntasikhu wa-yu†ålaʿu wa-yudʿå li-wåqifihi bi-al-ra˙mati wa-l-ghufråni wa-ʿalå khåʾinihi bi-al-laʿnati wa-l-khidhlåni fa-man baddalahu baʿda-må samiʿahu fa-innamå ithmihu ʿalå alladhÈna yubaddilËnahu inna Allåha samÈʿun ʿalÈmun fÈ thamånin wa-sabʿÈna wa-sitt-miʾatin This established honourable book and glorious magnificent address has been endowed to the pure sacred tomb and sublime familiar garden, which is the mother-­of-­pearl of the pearl of the theological secrets and the twilight of the lights of the heavenly Kingdom; the choice of righteous people with dignity and esteem; the gathering place of greeting from Allåh and salutation within; the goal of desperate pursuers of the Sufi path among them and of devotees; the final destination of ascetic incomers among them who dwell there and of explorers attached to our lord and master, in whom we shall trust forever, the divine shaykh, son of a shaykh, son of a shaykh, the divine ÓanafÈ imam, son of an imam, son of an imam, who does not need elaboration through lengthy titles as he is the sun that one cannot make disappear by hiding away or covering with a veil. However, as far as mentioning some of his qualities is concerned, the possibility of selecting [some of them] is not easy to do in this passage, nor is it permissible. Jalål al-­Milla wa-­l-Óaqq wa-­l-DÈn (glory of the people, of truth, and of religion) Mu˙ammad son of Mu˙ammad son of Óusayn of Balkh, may Allåh be pleased with him and with his ancestors, whose thresholds are places of worship for the foreheads of the lovers [of Allåh], whose songs/love are professions of faith in the hearts of the knowers [of Allåh], whose treatises are keys for the hearts of those who believe in them, and whose stories are veils and artifices upon the ears of the deniers. He who is the leader of all people attained before them secretly (or, humbly), as ʿUkåsha1 did so openly in Heaven and on Earth, the triumph of most glorious happiness and the possession of greatest supremacy. This is because Allåh, blessed and exalted be He, gave him eternal kindness so that his belief in the righteousness of his saints was confirmed, his conscience was aligned with the loyalty of his intimates, his will to follow the pious was sincere, and

237

238

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

his affection for the desire of his friends/favourites was abundant, and his is the powerful, illustrious and great commander, the abstinent, the worshipper, the pious devotee of the faith, the righteous critic, the devout, the master of the servants, head of commanders and chamberlains, the close companion of his excellency, true friend of the kingdom, ambassador of the state, Jamål al-­DÈn Mubårak son of ʿAbdallåh, freed slave of the Great Íå˙ib, venerable minister Fakhr al-­DÈn ʿAlÈ son of Óusayn, may Allåh deliver his wishes to him in Heaven and Earth and reward him directly with the furthest edge of Sidrat al-Muntahå.2 May Allåh, exalted be He, grant the means for the honouring of [his] desire and a reward for himself as a way of praising his stages and steps,3 so that he remains well-­remembered on the pages of the days (that is, forever), and obtain abundant reward eternally in the courtyards [of Judgement] on the Day of Resurrection. And it is the condition that it (the manuscript) must not leave from the shrine unless the borrower [can provide] firm security and compensation. It is suitable [as it is] and it must not be altered, amended, gifted or transferred. However, one can recite it, make use of it, copy it, and read it. Mercy and forgiveness are prayed for the endower and may there be a curse and failure on its betrayer, as it is therefore a sin on whoever amends it after he has heard it. Indeed, Allåh, the All-­Hearing, the All-­ Knowing, in six hundred and seventy-­eight (1279–80).

Cat. 3 Title: al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya fÈ-l-UmËr al-ʿAlåʾiyya Author: Ibn BÈbÈ (d. after 1285) Language: Persian Genre: History Date: c. 1282 Place of production: Konya (probably) Artists: IbråhÈm ibn IsmåʿÈl ibn AbÈ Bakr al-­QayßarÈ (scribe) Patron: Kaykhusraw III (r. 1265–84, dedicatee); ʿA†å-Malik JuwaynÈ (d. 1283, commissioner) Later owners: Ma˙mËd I (r. 1730–54) Seals: Ma˙mËd I (fol. 1a); A˙mad Shaykhzåda, the waqf inspector of Mecca and Medina under Ma˙mËd I (fol. 1a) Folios: 372 Size: 325mm × 240mm Text block: 221mm × 166mm; mostly twenty-­ one lines in one column Script and ink: Naskh; dark brown; red rubrics Pigments: Gold, blue, green, bronze, white Description of paper: Light brownish cream; very smooth and slightly shiny with several inclusions; ten folios = 2mm approx. thickness Chain and laid lines: Twenty horizontal laid lines = 30mm Binding: Dark brown leather, embossed oval, no flap; brown paper doublures (sixteenth-­century Ottoman?) Quires: Quinions

appendix

Condition and later repairs: Cropped due to rebinding; minor repairs and tissue flyleaves Collection information: Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, Ayasofya 2985 Dedication (fol. 1a, see fig. 1.33) Bi-rasm khizånat al-sul†ån al-aʿΩam Ωill Allåh fÈ-l-ʿålam kahf al-umam ghiyåth al-dunyå wa-l-dÈn rukn al-Islåm wa-l-muslimÈn abË-l-fat˙ Kaykhusraw ibn Qilich Arslån ibn Kaykhusraw khallada Allåh mulkah wa-dawlatah [This book] is for the treasury of the supreme sultan, Allåh’s shadow on Earth, refuge of the people, aid of the state and the religion, supporter of Islam and Muslims, father of victory, Kaykhusraw son of Qilich Arslån son of Kaykhusraw, may Allåh make his reign and empire everlasting. Colophon (fol. 372b, see fig. A.4) Tamma al-kitåb bi-ʿawn Allåh wa-˙usn tawfÈqih wa-ßallå Allåh ʿalå sayyidinå Mu˙ammad wa-ålih ajmaʿÈn kutibat ʿalå yad al-ʿabd al-∂aʿÈf al-marjË ilå ra˙mat rabbih IbrahÈm [sic: IbråhÈm] ibn IsmaʿÈl [sic: IsmåʿÈl] ibn AbÈ Bakr al-QayßarÈ ghafara Allåh lah wa-li-wålidayh wa-li-ustådinå wa-ʿan jamåʿa al-muslimÈn ajmaʿÈn bi-ra˙matik yå ar˙am al-rå˙imÈn By the help of Allåh and the goodness of His guidance, the book has been finished, Allåh’s blessings upon our Lord Mu˙ammad and all of His family. It has been written by the hand of the weak servant, who hopes for the mercy of his Lord, IbråhÈm son of IsmåʿÈl son of AbÈ Bakr

Figure A.4 Colophon, al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya, Konya, c. 1282, SK, Ayasofya 2985, fol. 372b.

239

240

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

of Kayseri, may Allåh forgive him and his relations and our master and all Muslims, by Your mercy, O Most Merciful of those who possess mercy.

Manuscripts from Chapter Two Cat. 4 Title: al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya fÈ-l-Qawåʿid al-Burhåniyya wa-lKashfiyya Author: Badr al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad al-­TustarÈ (d. 1329–30) Language: Arabic Genre: Philosophy, astronomy and metaphysics Date: Middle of DhË-l-­Qaʿda 710 (April 1311) Place of production: Konya Artists: Badr al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad al-­TustarÈ (scribe) Patron: Mubåriz al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (r. c. 1302–26) Later owners: BåyazÈd II (r. 1481–1512), Ma˙mËd I (r. 1730–54) Seals: BåyazÈd II (fol. 1a and 56b); A˙mad Shaykhzåda, the waqf inspector of Mecca and Medina under Ma˙mËd I (fol. 1a); illegible seal (fol. 1a) Folios: 56 Size: 162mm × 120mm Text block: 102mm × 73mm; thirteen lines in one column Script and ink: Naskh; brown and somewhat watery Pigments: Gold, dark blue, light blue, green, red, light brown, white Description of paper: Light brownish cream with several inclusions; smooth and a little shiny; ten folios = 2mm approx. thickness Chain and laid lines: None visible Binding: Dark red and yellow plaid covers and doublures with brown leather frame, spine and flap (fifteenth- or sixteenth-­ century Ottoman) Quires: Quaternions Condition and later repairs: Cropped due to rebinding; flyleaves added later Collection information: Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, Ayasofya 2445 Dedication (fol. 2a, see fig. 2.2) Kitåb [al-]FußËl al-Ashrafiyya fÈ-l-Qawåʿid al-Burhåniyya wa-l-Kashfiyya tåʾlÈf al-faqÈr ilå Allåh taʿålå Mu˙ammad al-TustarÈ ʿafå Allåh ʿanh wa-waffaqah li-l-ßawåb bi-rasm khizånat al-mawlå al-muʿaΩΩam målik azimmat al-umaråʾ al-aʿåΩim ˙åmÈ al-a†råf wa-l-amåkin kahf al-warå m… al-dunyå wa-l-dÈn sayf al-… Sulaymån al-…

appendix

The book of al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya fÈ-l-Qawåʿid al-Burhåniyya wa-lKashfiyya (The Most Honourable Chapters of the Demonstrative and Revelatory Principles) is the work of one who is in need of Allåh, may He be exalted, Mu˙ammad of Shushtar, may Allåh forgive him and allow him to prosper on the correct path. [The book] is for the treasury of the great lord, the possessor of the reins [of power] of the greatest commanders, defender of borders and abodes, refuge of all people […] of the world and of religion, sword of […] Sulaymån […]. Colophon (fol. 56b, see fig. A.5) Wa-faragha min tabyÈ∂ihi mËʾallifuhu al-faqÈru ilå Allåhi taʿålÈ [sic: taʿålå] Mu˙ammad al-TustarÈ a˙sana Allåh shaʾnah wa-ßånah ʿammå shånahu awåsi† Dhay al-Qaʿda min sana ʿashara wa-sabʿ-miʾa bi-madÈnat QËniya The fair copy was finished by its author, one who is in need of Allåh, may He be exalted, Mu˙ammad of Shushtar, may Allåh improve his circumstances and protect him from whatever might disgrace him, in the middle of DhË-l-­Qaʿda in the year seven hundred and ten (April 1311) in the city of Konya.

Figure A.5 Colophon, al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya, Konya, 1311, SK, Ayasofya 2445, fol. 56b.

Cat. 5 Title: Qur’an Author: N/a Language: Arabic Genre: N/a Date: 714 (1314–15) Place of production: Konya Artists: IsmåʿÈl ibn YËsuf (scribe); YaʿqËb ibn GhåzÈ al-­QËnawÈ (illuminator) Patron: KhalÈl ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (d. 1340s)

241

242

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Later owners: Unknown Seals: None Folios: 415 (vol. 1); 401 (vol. 2) Size: 475mm × 335mm (vol. 1); 485mm × 335mm (vol. 2) Text block: 360mm × 200mm; seven lines in one column Script and ink: Mu˙aqqaq; black with some parts watery or scratchy Pigments: Gold, dark blue, light blue, dark green, light green, red, dark pink, light pink, bronze, white Description of paper: Light cream; smooth and quite shiny; ten folios = 1.5mm approx. thickness Chain and laid lines: Twenty horizontal laid lines = 25mm Binding: Dark brown leather stamped binding and doublures preserved on front and back of each volume; no flaps (later fourteenthor fifteenth-­century?) Quires: Quaternions Condition and later repairs: Cropped due to rebinding; first three folios repaired using later paper; flyleaves added later Collection information: Mevlana Müzesi, Konya, 12-­1 (vol. 1), 12-­2 (vol. 2) Illuminator’s inscription (12-­2, fol. 401b, see fig. 2.10) Dhahhabahu wa-raßßaʿahu YaʿqËb ibn GhåzÈ al-QËnawÈ waffaqahu Allåh taʿålå YaʿqËb son of GhåzÈ of Konya gilded and decorated it, may Allåh, may He be exalted, make him prosper. Colophon and dedication (12-­2, fol. 402a, see fig. 2.11) Hådhå al-muß˙af al-karÈm ʿaΩΩama Allåhu barakatahu wa-aʿlå burhånahu bi-rasmi qiråʾat al-amÈr al-muʿaΩΩami al-ʿålim al-ʿådil al-muʾayyad al-manßËr al-muΩaffar al-mujåhidi al-muråbi† nußrat al-mujåhidÈn qåmiʿ al-mutamarridÈn ʿawn al-ghuzå mubÈd al-†ughåta maljå [a]l-∂uʿafåʾ malådh al-masåkÈn murabbÈ al-ʿulamåʾ muʿÈn al-sålikÈn shujåʿ al-dawla wa-l-dÈn ghÈyåth al-Islåmi wa-l-muslimÈn akhÈ al-mulËk wa-l-salå†Èn [Persian] humåyËn-i ˙asÈb nasÈb-i jahån [Arabic] KhalÈl ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaramån [sic: Qaråmån] naßara Allåh alwÈyatahu wa-ayyada dawlatuhu katabahu al-ʿabd al-faqÈr IsmaʿÈl [sic: IsmåʿÈl] ibn YËsuf fÈ shuhËr sana arbaʿ ʿashara wa-sabʿ-miʾa bi-madÈnat QËniya This glorious Qur’an, may Allåh enhance its blessings and exalt its testimony, is for the reading of the great commander, the learned, the just, the one who strengthens, the victorious, the conqueror, the warrior, the defender of Islam, the one who gives victory to warriors, suppressor of rebels, supporter of holy warriors, destroyer of tyrants,

appendix

refuge for the weak, protector of the poor, instructor of scholars, supporter of Sufi devotees, hero of the state and the religion, helper of Islam and Muslims, brother of kings and sultans, the munificent prince, notable of the world, KhalÈl son of Ma˙mËd son of Qaråmån, may Allåh confer victory on his banners/brigades and sustain his empire. The poor servant, IsmåʿÈl son of YËsuf, wrote it in the months of the year seven hundred and fourteen in the city of Konya.

Cat. 6 Title: al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya Author: A˙mad ibn Saʿd ibn MahdÈ ibn ʿAbd al-Íamad al-­ZanjånÈ al-ʿUthmånÈ (fl. 13th c.) Language: Arabic Genre: Mirror for princes Date: DhË-l-­Qaʿda 625 (October 1228) Place of production: Alanya Artists: A˙mad ibn Saʿd ibn MahdÈ ibn ʿAbd al-Íamad al-­ZanjånÈ al-ʿUthmånÈ (scribe) Patron: ʿAlåʾ al-­DÈn Kayqubåd I (r. 1219–37) Later owners: Badr al-­DÈn IbråhÈm ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (d. after 1341); Mu߆afå ʿÅshir EfendÈ (1729–1804) Seals: Mu߆afå ʿÅshir EfendÈ (fol. 1a); illegible seal (fol. 1a) Folios: 106 Size: 227mm × 167mm Text block: 150mm × 110mm; eleven lines in one column Script and ink: Naskh; brown Pigments: Gold, bronze, red, blue, white (original); Gold, green, blue, red, white (later illumination) Description of paper: N/a Chain and laid lines: N/a Binding: Red velvet with brown leather frame and spine; dark red leather doublures (fifteenth- or sixteenth-­century Ottoman?) Quires: N/a Condition and later repairs: N/a Collection information: Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, A∞ir Efendi 316 Later reading note (fol. 106b, see fig. 2.20) Bi-rasm mu†ålaʿa al-amÈr al-kabÈr al-muqbil al-muʾayyad al-muΩaffar al-mujåhid al-muråbi† malik al-umaråʾ qudwat al-kubaråʾ qåʾid al-juyËsh såbiq al-ʿasåkir murabbÈ al-fu∂alåʾ abÈ al-mu˙årib badr al-dawla wa-l-dÈn waßÈyat al-Islåm wa-l-muslimÈn [al-]a˙aqq al-mulËk wa-l-salå†Èn IbrahÈm [sic: IbråhÈm] Bey ibn al-amÈr al-mar˙Ëm al-maghfËr Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån aʿazza Allåh anßårahu wa-naßr aʿwånih

243

244

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

For the reading of the great and fortunate commander, the one who strengthens, the conqueror, the warrior, the defender of Islam, head of the commanders, model of the eminent persons, leader of the armies, superior of the troops, instructor of virtuous people, father of the warrior, full moon of the state and the faith, testament of Islam and Muslims, most deserving of kings and emperors, IbråhÈm Bey, son of the deceased and forgiven commander, Ma˙mËd son of Qaråmån, may Allåh fortify his followers and the victory of his supporters.

Cat. 7 Title: Intihånåma Author: Sul†ån Walad (d. 1312) Language: Persian Genre: Taßawwuf Date: Sunday, 21 Shaʿbån 714 (1 December 1314) Place of production: Konya (probably) Artists: ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh (scribe) Patron: Unknown Later owners: Jean-­Adolphe Decourdemanche (1844–1916) Seals: None Folios: 222 Size: 235mm × 160mm Text block: 170mm × 110mm; nineteen lines in two columns Script and ink: Naskh; mostly solid black, but brownish in some places Pigments: Gold, bright blue, green, white Description of paper: Dark cream with very small inclusions; smooth but very little shine; ten folios = 2mm approx. thickness Chain and laid lines: Very faint horizontal laid lines Binding: Paper-­covered boards; no flap (eighteenth-­century Ottoman) Quires: Quaternions Condition and later repairs: Cropped due to rebinding; some large wormholes; later flyleaves Collection information: Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris, Supplément persan 1794 Colophon (fol. 221a, see fig. A.6) Tamma al-MathnawÈ al-MaʿnawÈ al-WaladÈ al-hådÈ ilå ßirå† al-sawÈy al-abadÈ ʿalå yaday al-ʿabd al-∂aʿÈf al-råjÈ ra˙mat rabbih al-la†Èf ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh ʿatÈq al-Walad nawwaranå Allåh bi-nËrihi al-muʾabbad laylat yawm al-a˙ad i˙då wa-ʿishrÈn min shahr Shaʿbån min shuhËr sana arbaʿ ʿashar wa-sabʿ-miʾa al-˙amdu li-llåhi wa˙dah The spiritual MasnavÈ of [Sul†ån] Walad, the guide to the straight and everlasting path, has been finished by the hands of the weak servant, who seeks the gentle mercy of his Lord, ʿUthmån son of ʿAbdallåh,

appendix

Figure A.6 Colophon, Intihånåma, Konya, 1314, BNF, Supplément persan 1794, fol. 221a.

freed slave of [Sul†ån] Walad, may Allåh illuminate us with his everlasting light, on the night of Sunday, the twenty-­first of the month of Shaʿbån from the months of the year seven hundred and fourteen (1 December 1314), praise be to Allåh alone.

Cat. 8 Title: MasnavÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (Book Three) Author: Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ (d. 1273) Language: Persian Genre: Taßawwuf Date: Friday, 24 RabÈʿ I 718 (26 May 1318) Place of production: Madrasa al-­Shamsiyya (Çifte Minareli Medrese), Sivas Artists: Tåj al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Ma˙mËd al-­ RåzÈ, also known as Ibn al-­NaqÈb al-­QËnawÈ al-­MawlawÈ (scribe) Patron: Unknown Later owners: Endowed to the Yenikapı Mevlevihanesi (established in 1597–8), and presumably held in the establishment’s Nafiz Pa∞a Library, founded by Ottoman finance minister ʿAbd al-Ra˙man Nåfiz- Påshå (d. 1853). Seals: Yenikapı Mevlevihanesi endowment (fols 1a, 4a) Folios: 158 Size: 235mm × 160mm Text block: 178mm × 112mm; seventeen lines in two columns

245

246

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Script and ink: Naskh; brown and quite watery Pigments: Gold, bright blue Description of paper: Cream with lots of visible inclusions; smooth but not shiny; ten folios = 2.5mm approx. thickness Chain and laid lines: Very faint horizontal laid lines Binding: Green fabric-­ covered boards with flap; yellow paper doublures Quires: Quinions Condition and later repairs: Cropped due to rebinding; later, watermarked flyleaves Collection information: Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, Nafiz Pa∞a 650 Colophon (fol. 158b, see fig. A.7) Ittafaqa al-farågh yawm al-jumʿa al-råbiʿ wa-l-ʿishrÈn min RabÈʿ al-Awwal sana thamån ʿashar wa-sabʿ-miʾa ˙åmidan wa-mußallÈyan bi-ma˙rËsat SÈwås fÈ-l-madrasa al-shamsiyya ʿammarahå Allåh wa-ra˙ima bånÈhå ʿalå yad al-ʿabd al-råjÈ Mu˙ammad ibn al-NaqÈb al-MawlawÈ al-mulaqqab bi-Tåj ghafara Allåh lahu wa-li-wålidayhi wa-li-jamÈʿ al-muslimÈn wa-razaqahu ʿilm al-yaqÈn One who praises and prays/preaches completed [this book] on Friday the twenty-­fourth of RabÈʿ I in the year seven hundred and eighteen (26 May 1318), in the protected city of Sivas in Madrasa al-­Shamsiyya (today, the Çifte Minareli Medrese), may Allåh cause it (the madrasa) to thrive and have mercy upon its builder, by the hand of the hopeful servant, Mu˙ammad son of the chief, the Mevlevi, nicknamed Tåj, may Allåh forgive him, his parents and all Muslims, and may He bless him with the knowledge of certainty.

Figure A.7 Colophon, MasnavÈ (Book Three), Sivas, 1318, SK, Nafiz Pa∞a 650, fol. 158b.

Cat. 9 Title: MasnavÈ-i MaʿnavÈ Author: Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ (d. 1273) Language: Persian Genre: Taßawwuf

247

appendix

Date: Wednesday, 25 Rama∂ån 723 (28 September 1323) Place of production: Madrasa and tomb of Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ, Konya Artists: ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh (scribe); Necmeddin Okyay (1883– 1976; binder) Patron: Unknown Later owners: ʿUmmån ibn Mu˙ammad al-­MawlawÈ (d. after 1545) Seals: Oval taʿlÈq seals (perhaps seventeenth- or eighteenth-­century) designating the manuscript as an endowment to the Mevlevi shrine (‘vaqf-i kitåbkhåna-yi dargåh-i ha‰rat Mawlånå qaddasa [Allåh] sirrahu al-aʿlå’) on later flyleaf Folios: 320 Size: 310mm × 240mm Text block: 252mm × 184mm; twenty-­five lines in four columns Script and ink: Naskh; solid black, a bit watery in places Pigments: Gold, blue, red, green, orange Description of paper: Light brownish cream with lots of small inclusions; smooth and a little shiny; ten folios = 1.5mm approx. thickness Chain and laid lines: Twenty vertical laid lines measure 33mm Binding: Black stamped leather; no flap (twentieth century, Turkish) Quires: Quaternions Condition and later repairs: Cropped due to rebinding; later, watermarked flyleaves Collection information: Mevlana Müzesi, Konya, 1177

Figure A.8 Calligrapher’s note, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 49a.

248

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Calligrapher’s note (fol. 49a, see fig. A.8) Tamma al-mujallad al-awwal min mujalladåt al-MathnawÈ al-MaʿnawÈ al-MawlawÈ bi-ʿawn Allåh wa-˙usn tawfÈqihi fÈ råbiʿ ʿashar min shahri RabÈʿ al-Awwal min shuhËr thalath wa-ʿishrÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa ʿalå yad al-ʿabd al-faqÈr al-mu˙tåj ra˙mati [ra]bbihi al-qadÈr ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh ʿatÈq Mawlånå ibn Mawlånå al-maʿrËf bi-l-Walad nawwaranå Allåh bi-nËrih al-muʾabbad åmÈn yå rabb al-ʿålamÈn wa-l-˙amdu li-llåh wa˙dah wa-sallam By the help of Allåh and the goodness of His guidance, the first volume of the volumes of the spiritual Mevlevi MasnavÈ, has been finished on the fourteenth of RabÈʿ I in the months of [the year] seven hundred and twenty-­three (22 March 1323) by the hand of the poor servant, who needs the mercy of his Almighty Lord, ʿUthmån son of ʿAbdallåh, freed slave of Mawlånå son of Mawlånå well-­known as [Sul†ån] Walad, may Allåh illuminate us with his everlasting light. Amen, O Lord of all that exists, praise be to Allåh alone, may He grant salvation. Calligrapher’s note (fol. 85b, see fig A.9) Tamåm shud rËz-i shanba chahårum-i måh-i RabÈʿ al-Åkhir [Arabic] sana thalath [sic: thalåth] wa-ʿishrÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa It [Book Two] was finished on Saturday the fourth of RabÈʿ II in the year seven hundred and twenty-­three (12 April 1323).4

Figure A.9  Calligrapher’s note, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 85b. Calligrapher’s note (fol. 192b, see fig A.10) Tamåm shud rËz-i panj-shanba nËzdahum-i måh-i Jumådå al-Avval [Arabic] sana thalath [sic: thalåth] wa-ʿishrÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa [Persian] dar turba-yi mu†ahhar-i munavvar-i ˙a‰rat-i khudåvandigår mavlånå

249

appendix

Figure A.10  Calligrapher’s note, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 192b. [Arabic] qaddasanå Allåh bi-sirrihi al-ʿazÈz It [Book Four] was finished on Thursday the nineteenth of the month of Jumådå I in the year seven hundred and twenty-­three (26 May 1323) in the pure, illuminated tomb of his lordship, our lord, (Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ), may Allåh hallow us with His glorious secret. Calligrapher’s note (fol. 249b, see fig A.11) Tamåm shud daftar-i panjum az daftar-hå-yi maʿnavÈ dar turba-yi mu†ahhar-i ˙a‰rat-i khudåvandigår qaddasanå Allåh bi-sirrihi rËz-i panj-shanba shånzdahum-i måh-i Rajab [Arabic] sana thalath [sic: thalåth] wa-ʿishrÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa wa-l-˙amdu li-llåhi wa˙dahu The fifth Book of the spiritual books has been finished in the pure tomb of his lordship (Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ), may Allåh hallow us with His secret, on Thursday the sixteenth of the month of Rajab in the year seven hundred and twenty-­three (21 July 1323), praise be to Allåh alone.

Figure A.11  Calligrapher’s note, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 249b.

Colophon (fol. 317b, see fig A.12) Allåhumma ighfir li-man tålaʿa minhu wa-daʿå li-kåtibih Tamma al-Mathnawiyyåt al-Maʿnawiyyåtu bi-ʿawn Allåhi wa-˙usn tawfÈqih ʿalå yad aqall ʿibåd Allåh wa-a˙qarihim ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh ʿatÈq Sul†ån Walad nawwaranå Allåh bi-nËrihi al-muʾabbad åmÈn rabb al-ʿålamÈn

250

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure A.12 Colophon, MasnavÈ, Konya, 1323, MMK, 1177, fol. 317b. yawm al-arbaʿåʾ waqta ßalåti al-ʿaßri khåmis wa-l-ʿishrÈn min Rama∂ån al-mubårak sana thalath [sic: thalåth] wa-ʿishrÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa wa-l-˙amdu li-llåhi wa˙dah fÈ madÈnat QËniya ˙arasahå Allåh taʿålå fÈ madrasat mawlånå qaddasanå Allåh bi-sirrihi al-ʿazÈz Al-kha†† yabqå zamånanå baʿd kåtibihi wa-kåtib al-kha†† ta˙t al-turab madfËn O Allåh, forgive those who read from it (this book) and pray for its scribe. By the help of Allåh and the goodness of His guidance, the spiritual MasnavÈ has been finished by the hand of the most inferior of the servants of Allåh and the most wretched one of them, ʿUthmån son of ʿAbdallåh, freed slave of Sul†ån Walad, may Allåh illuminate us with his everlasting light. Amen, Lord of all that exists. On Wednesday at the time of afternoon prayer on the twenty-­ fifth of blessed Rama∂ån, in the year seven hundred and twenty-­three (28 September 1323), praise be to Allåh alone, in the city of Konya, Allåh, may He be exalted, protect it, in the madrasa of our lord (Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ), may Allåh hallow us with His glorious secret. May the calligraphy remain beyond our time after its scribe [has died], when the scribe of the calligraphy is buried under the ground.

appendix

Cat. 10 Title: MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ Author: Sul†ån Walad (d. 1312) Language: Persian Genre: Taßawwuf Date: 21–30 Shawwål 732 (16–25 July 1332) Place of production: Konya (probably) Artists: A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad al-­Kåtib, also known as Ibn al-­Nassåj al-­MawlawÈ al-­A˙adÈ (scribe) Patron: ʿUthmån ibn AbÈ Bakr al-­WaladÈ Later owners: None Seals: None Folios: 315 Size: 460mm × 314mm Text block: 336mm × 236mm; twenty-­five lines in four columns Script and ink: Naskh; solid black Pigments: Gold, bright blue, dark blue, purple, bronze, red, green, white Description of paper: Two types of paper, both light cream with few inclusions; smoothish but not shiny; ten folios = 3mm approx. thickness Chain and laid lines: None visible (paper type 1); twenty horizontal laid lines = 20mm; groups of three vertical chain lines measure 10–15mm between lines and 20–25mm between groups (paper type 2) Binding: Dark red leather with gold stamped medallion and corner ornaments; no flap (seventeenth-­century Ottoman) Quires: Quinions Condition and later repairs: Cropped due to rebinding; first few folios poorly repaired with later watermarked paper; later watermarked flyleaves Collection information: Mevlana Müzesi, Konya, 74 Waqf note (fol. 315b, see fig A.13) Waqafa hådhå al-kitåb al-sharÈf wa-l-khi†åb al-munÈf ʿalå al-mashhad al-mufakhkham wa-l-marqad al-mukarram li-ha∂rat mawlånå sirr Allåh al-aʿlå ma˙ram gharåʾib al-najwå kåshif ghawåmi∂ al-asrår mishkËt [sic: mishkåt] ˙aqåʾiq al-anwår Jalål al-Óaqq wa-l-Milla wa-l-DÈn qaddasanå Allåh bi-sirrihi al-matÈn al-mubÈn wa-l-kitåb mansËb ilå ha∂rat waladihi sul†ån al-mu˙aqqiqÈn burhån Allåh ʿalå al-mu˙iqqÈn mawlånå Bahåʾ al-Óaqq wa-l-DÈn al-Walad qaddasanå Allåh bi-nËrihi al-muʾayyad [sic: muʾabbad] åmÈn yå rabb al-ʿålamÈn al-ʿabd al-muwaffaq min ʿind Allåh ʿUthmån ibn AbÈ Bakr

251

252

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure A.13  Waqf note, MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ, Konya, before 1332, MMK, 74, fol. 315b.

al-WaladÈ waffaqahu Allåh taʿålå wa-taqabbala minhu wa-ra∂iya ʿammå ßadara ʿan hu wa-ittafaqa hådhå al-waqf fÈ-l-ʿashar al-åkhir min Shawwål li-sana ithnå wa-thalathÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa takhaßßaßa bi-kitåbat hådhihi al-asrår al-a˙adiyya wa-lmathnawiyyåt al-Waladiyya al-ʿabd al-faqÈr al-råjÈ ra˙mat rabbihi al-qadÈr A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad al-Kåtib a˙sana Allåh ʿawåqib umËrih This eminent book and exalted treatise was endowed to the honoured shrine and revered resting place of the our revered lord (Jalål al-­DÈn

appendix

RËmÈ), the supreme secret of Allåh, the secluded place of the wonders of intimate discourse, the discloser of hidden secrets, the niche of the truths of divine light, Jalål al-Óaqq wa-­l-Milla wa-­l-DÈn (glory of truth, the people and religion), may Allåh hallow us with his everlasting and unambiguous secret, the book being by his (RËmÈ’s) revered son, sultan of the truth-­seekers, the testimony of Allåh upon those who know the truth, our lord Bahåʾ al-Óaqq wa-­l-DÈn (magnificence of truth and religion) al-­Walad (Sul†ån Walad), may Allåh hallow us with His everlasting ­light – ­Amen, Lord of all that e­ xists – ­by the servant whose success is granted by Allåh, ʿUthmån son of AbÈ Bakr, follower of the Walad (Sul†ån Walad), may Allåh, the exalted, make him prosper, and may He accept it (the book) and be pleased with where it came from. This endowment occurred in the last ten days of Shawwål in the year seven hundred and thirty-­two (16–25 July 1332). The poor servant who hopes for the mercy of his Almighty Lord, A˙mad son of Mu˙ammad the scribe, specialised in the writing of these unified secrets and the rhyming couplets of [Sul†ån] Walad, may Allåh improve the outcomes of his (the calligrapher’s) affairs.

Manuscripts from Chapter Three Cat. 11 Title: Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd min al-Mabdåʾ ilå-l-Maʿåd Author: Najm al-­DÈn RåzÈ Dåya (d. 1256) Language: Persian Genre: Taßawwuf/mirror for princes Date: End of Mu˙arram 750 (mid-­April 1349) Place of production: Òstanos (probably) Artists: Ra˙matallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Muqarrab (scribe) Patron: ʿÏså ibn Zakariyyåʾ (d. after 1354–5) Later owners: Ma˙mËd I (r. 1730–54) Seals: Ma˙mËd I (fol. 1a); DarwÈsh Mu߆afå, the waqf inspector of Mecca and Medina under Ma˙mËd I (fol. 1a) Folios: 173 Size: 255mm × 175mm Text block: 197mm × 114mm; twenty-­one lines in one column Script and ink: Naskh; dark brown and a little watery Pigments: Gold, red, dark blue, white, brown Description of paper: Light cream with a few inclusions; smooth and a little shiny; ten folios = 2mm approx. thickness (several pages also feature blue and red sewn-­in thread page markers) Chain and laid lines: Groups of two horizontal chain lines measure 10mm between lines and 45mm between groups; twenty vertical laid lines measure 36mm Binding: Red leather covers with central tooled medallion and brown spine and flap; stamped brown leather doublures (fifteenth-­century Ottoman) Quires: Quaternions

253

254

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Condition and later repairs: Does not appear to have been cropped; flyleaves at front quite damaged Collection information: Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, Fatih 2841 Dedication (fol. 1a, see fig. 3.1) Qad katabnåhu bi-rasm mu†ålaʿa al-amÈr al-kabÈr sulålat al-akåbir wa-l-aʿåΩim dhÈ al-˙asab al-Ωåfir wa-l-nasab al-fåkhir mujammiʿ al-akhlåf al-malakiyya muΩahhir [a]l-[a]l†åf al-ålihÈ manbaʿ al-jËd wa-l-karam ßå˙ib al-sayf wa-l-qalam amÈr ʿÏså Bey ibn al-mar˙Ëm al-saʿÈd Zakariyyåʾ Bey anåra Allåh ∂arÈ˙ al-salaf wa-∂åʿafa jalål al-khalaf warazaqahu ʿilaman yurashshadahu wa-ʿamalan yußaʿʿadahu åmÈn rabb al-ʿålamÈn wa-l-˙amdu li-llåh awwalan wa-åkhiran Indeed, we wrote it (the book) for the reading of the great commander, descendant of eminent and outstanding men, possessed of noble and triumphant descent, and superior ancestry, accumulator of regal descendants, manifestation of the divine graces, fountainhead of bounty and generosity, possessor of the sword and the pen, the commander ʿÏså Bey son of the late, fortunate Zakariyyåʾ Bey, may Allåh illuminate the tomb of the father and increase the glory of the son, and bestow upon him knowledge that will guide him well and deeds that will make him exalted. Amen, O Lord of all that exists, praise be to Allåh, simply and solely. Colophon (fol. 176a, see fig 3.2) Faragha min tanmÈqihi bi-ʿawn Allåh wa-˙usn tawfÈqihi al-ʿabd al-faqÈr al-mu˙tåj ilå ra˙mat Allåh Ra˙matallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Muqarrab fÈ åkhir Mu˙arram al-mukarram sana khamsÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa By the help of Allåh and the goodness of His guidance, its (the book’s) elegant composition has been finished [by] the poor servant, who is in need of the mercy of his Almighty Lord, Ra˙matallåh son of Mu˙ammad son of Muqarrab at the end of the venerable Mu˙arram, the year seven hundred and fifty (mid-­April 1349).

Cat. 12 Title: Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd min al-Mabdåʾ ilå-l-Maʿåd Author: Najm al-­DÈn RåzÈ Dåya (d. 1256) Language: Persian Genre: Taßawwuf/mirror for princes Date: Monday, 23 Jumådå I 752 (18 July 1351) Place of production: Òstanos Artists: Ra˙matallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Muqarrab (scribe) Patron: GhÈyåth al-­DÈn ʿAbd al-­Ra˙Èm ibn YËnus

appendix

Later owners: WalÈ ÓåjjÈ Bey al-­MawlawÈ al-­BurhånÈ (d. after 1404); BåyazÈd II (r. 1481–1512); Ma˙mËd I (r. 1730–54) Seals: BåyazÈd II (fols 1a, 202a); Ma˙mËd I (fol. ib); A˙mad Shaykhzåda, the waqf inspector of Mecca and Medina under Ma˙mËd I (fol. ib) Folios: 200 Size: 250mm × 170mm Text block: 170mm × 102mm; nineteen lines in one column Script and ink: Naskh; black with some red and green, a little watery in places Pigments: Gold, red, dark blue, green, white, brown Description of paper (1): Dark yellowy cream; smooth with minimal shine; ten folios = 2mm approx. thickness Description of paper (2): Used intermittently from fols 152–200; pale cream; very smooth and shiny; fourteenth-­century European watermark present (see fig. 3.4); unable to measure thickness Chain and laid lines (1): Groups of two horizontal chain lines measure 10mm between lines and 35mm between groups Chain and laid lines (2): Twenty laid lines measure 50mm Binding: Boards and flap covered in blue and pink marbled paper with tan leather spine; peach/pink paper doublures Quires: Quaternions Condition and later repairs: Possibly slightly cropped Collection information: Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi, Istanbul, Ayasofya 2067 Dedication (fol. 1a, see fig. 3.3) Qad katabnå hådhå al-kitåb wa-athbatnå hådhå al-khi†åb bi-rasm al-amÈr al-kabÈr sulålat al-aʿåΩim wa-l-akåbir jåmiʿ al-maʾåthir wa-l-mafåkhir karÈm al-†arafayn sharÈf al-jånibayn zayn al-˙åjj [sic: ˙ajj] wa-l-˙aramayn ghiyåth al-dawla wa-l-dÈn mughÈth al-Islåm wa-l-muslimÈn amÈr ʿAbd al-Ra˙Èm ibn al-ßadr al-saʿÈd al-shahÈd YËnus Bey anåra Allåh ∂arÈ˙ al-salaf wa-∂åʿafa jalål al-khalaf Indeed, we did write this book and we assert this treatise as authentic/ correct, for the great commander, descendant of outstanding and eminent men, collector of glorious deeds and exploits, a nobleman from both sides of his parents, leader of the pilgrimage to the Two Holy Places, aid of the state and the religion, saviour of Islam and Muslims, the commander ʿAbd al-­Ra˙Èm son of the fortunate, martyred leader YËnus Bey, may Allåh illuminate the tomb of the father and increase the glory of the son. Colophon and later inscription (fol. 200b, see fig A.14) Tamma al-kitåb bi-ʿawn al-malik al-wahhåb yawm al-ithnayn al-thålith wa-l-ʿishrÈn min Jumådå al-Awwal sanat ithnå wa-khamsÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa

255

256

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure A.14  Colophon and later inscription, Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd, Òstanos, 1351, SK, Ayasofya 2067, fol. 200b. ʿalå yad al-ʿabd al-faqÈr al-mu˙tåj ilå ra˙mat Allåh Ra˙matallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Muqarrab bi-ma˙rËsa ÏstanËs [Persian] MavlËd-i banda-yi ‰aʿÈf [Arabic] al-mu˙tåj ilå ra˙mat Allåh taʿålå WalÈ ÓåjjÈ Bey al-MawlawÈ al-BurhånÈ bi-sana ithnayn wa-sittÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa [Persian] MavlËd-i farzand Mu˙ammad sana khamsa va samåni-miʾa MavlËd-i farzand A˙mad dåma baqåhu dar vaqt-i alyal? … shab-i shanba bÈst [u] chahårum-i Rama‰ån sana sitt va samåni-miʾa By the help of the Provider [Allåh], the book has been finished on Monday the twenty-­third of Jumådå I, the year seven hundred and fifty-­ two (18 July 1351), by the hand of the poor servant, who is in need of the mercy of his Almighty Lord, Ra˙matallåh son of Mu˙ammad son of Muqarrab, in the protected city of Òstanos. The weak slave who is in need of the mercy of his Almighty Lord, exalted be He, WalÈ ÓåjjÈ Bey the Mevlevi al-­BurhånÈ was born in the year seven hundred and sixty-­two (1360–1). The son Mu˙ammad was born [in the] year eight hundred and five (1402–3). The son A˙mad, may he survive, was born in the time of a very dark night […] on the evening of Saturday, the twenty-­fourth of Rama∂ån [in the] year eight hundred and six (5 April 1404).

Manuscripts from Chapter Four Cat. 13 Title: MasnavÈ-i ValadÈ (Rabåbnåma and Intihånåma) Author: Sul†ån Walad (d. 1312) Language: Persian Genre: Taßawwuf Date: 10 DhË-l-Óijjah 767 (18 August 1366) Place of production: Erzincan (probably)

appendix

Artists: Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-­MawlawÈ (scribe) Patron: Sharaf al-­ DÈn SåtÈ ibn Óusåm al-­DÈn Óasan al-­MawlawÈ (d. 1386) Later owners: Shaykh ʿAlÈ MËså Ri∂å (inscription on later watermarked paper, fol. 1a) Seals: None Folios: 159 Size: 345mm × 280mm Text block: 395mm × 239mm; thirty-­three lines in four columns Script and ink: Naskh; solid black; red and blue rubrics Pigments: Gold, silver, blue, light blue green, bronze white, black, red, purple, pink Description of paper: Light brown; soft, somewhat like felt, not shiny; ten folios = 3mm approx. thickness Chain and laid lines: Single vertical chain lines = 35mm between lines; twenty horizontal laid lines = 29mm Binding: Bright red leather with gold stamped decoration and envelope flap (103mm at widest point) (nineteenth-­century Ottoman) Quires: Irregular Condition and later repairs: Cropped due to rebinding; first few folios in poor condition and heavily stained; staining on several folios throughout manuscript Collection information: Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna, Cod.Mixt.1594 Dedication (fol. 1a, see fig. 4.5) [Persian] Bi-rasm-i mu†ålaʿa-i ßå˙ib-i aʿΩam dastËr-i muʿaΩΩam zubda-yi dasåtÈr al-ʿarab va al-ʿajam ʿumda-yi vuzaråʾ al-umam usva-yi arbåb al-qalam qudva-yi aß˙åb al-jËd va al-niʿam så˙it [sic: så˙ib]-i azyål al-majd va al-karam mu˙riz-i maʿålÈ al-khayr va al-himam mustajmaʿ-i makårim al-akhlåq va ma˙åsin al-shiyam kåfil-i maßåli˙-i banÈ Ådam Khwåja Sharaf al-Milla va al-Davla va al-DÈn abË-l-maʿålÈ amÈr SåtÈ al-MavlavÈ [Arabic] adåma Allåh tawfÈqahu wa-jaʿala al-rushda rafÈqahu ibn al-mar˙Ëm al-maghfËr Óusåm al-DÈn Óasan †åba tharåhu fÈ ʿåshar Dhay-l-Óijja ˙ijja sana sabʿ wa-sittÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa Commissioned to be read by the one possessing greatness, the venerable minister, the best (literally, cream) of the Arab and Persian ministers, support of the viziers of the nations, model of the lords of the pen, exemplar to the possessors of generosity and favours, the one who drags the skirts of nobility and magnanimity, the one who has achieved the heights of charity and ambition, the one in whom deeds of good character and the merits of innate qualities are united, provider

257

258

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

of benefits to mankind, the lord, glory of the people, the state, and the religion, father of glorious deeds, commander SåtÈ, the Mevlevi, may Allåh prolong his success and make rectitude his companion, son of the deceased sword of religion, Óasan, may he rest in peace, on the tenth of DhË-l-Óijja, [of the] pilgrimage, the year seven hundred and sixty-­seven (18 August 1366). Colophon (fol. 75a, see fig. 4.8) Tamma al-kitåb al-MathnawÈ al-WaladÈ ʿalå yad al-ʿabd al-∂aʿÈf al-mu˙tåj ra˙mat Allåh taʿålå Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-MawlawÈ fÈ awåkhir Jumådå al-Åkhir li-sana sabʿ wa-sittÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa ghafara Allåh la hu wa-li-jamÈʿ al-muslimÈn ajmaʿÈn amÈn yå rabb al-ʿålamÈn The book of the MasnavÈ of [Sul†ån] Walad has been finished by the hand of the weak, poor servant, Óasan son of ʿUthmån the Mevlevi, who is in need of the mercy of his Almighty Lord, exalted be He, in the last ten days of Jumådå II in the year seven hundred and sixty-­seven (5–14 March 1366), may Allåh forgive him and all Muslims entirely, Amen, O Lord of all things.

Cat. 14 Title: DÈvån-i KabÈr Author: Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ (d. 1273) Language: Persian Genre: Taßawwuf Date: 1 RabÈʿ II 770 (12 November 1368) Place of production: Erzincan (probably) Artists: Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-­MawlawÈ (scribe); AbË Bakr al-­ MujallidÈ al-­MawlawÈ al-ÓamawÈ (binder of vol. 2) Patron: Sharaf al-­ DÈn SåtÈ ibn Óusåm al-­DÈn Óasan al-­MawlawÈ (d. 1386) Later owners: Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ al-­MawlawÈ al-­ArzinjånÈ (d. 1409–17?) Seals: Several oval taʿlÈq seals (perhaps seventeenth- or eighteenth-­ century) designating the manuscript as an endowment to the Mevlevi shrine (‘vaqf-i kitåbkhåna-yi dargåh-i ha‰rat Mawlånå qaddasa [Allåh] sirrahu al-aʿlå’) Folios: 153 (vol. 1); 172 (vol. 2) Size: 460mm × 330mm (vol. 1); 470mm × 325mm (vol. 2) Text block: 390mm × 270mm (vol. 1); 470mm × 325mm (vol. 2); thirty-­three lines in four columns Script and ink: Naskh; black; red and blue rubrics Pigments: Gold, silver, blue, light blue, green, white, black, bronze, red, purple, pink Description of paper: Two papers used interchangeably throughout both volumes:

appendix

259

(1) Cream; smooth and slightly shiny; (2) Light brownish-­orange; smooth and slightly shiny; very few inclusions; ten folios = 3mm approx. thickness Chain and laid lines (1): Vertical triple chain lines = 15mm between lines, 40mm between groups; twenty horizontal laid lines = 30mm Chain and laid lines (2): Vertical triple chain lines = 16mm between lines, 55mm between groups; twenty horizontal laid lines = 28mm Binding (1): Dark brown leather with gold stamped decorations; detached envelope flap measure 129mm at widest point (nineteenth- or twentieth-­century Ottoman) Binding (2): Dark brown stamped and gold-­tooled leather with envelope flap (165mm at widest point); stamped brown leather doublures (fourteenth- or fifteenth-­century?) Quires: Quinions Condition and later repairs: Both vols cropped with small amounts of later repairs Collection information: Mevlana Müzesi, Konya, 68 (vol. 1), 69 (vol. 2) Calligrapher’s note (fol. 130b, see fig 4.26) Tammat al-ghazaliyyåt yawm al-jumʿa awåkhir Mu˙arram al-mukarram sana sabʿÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa ˙åmidan li-låh wa-mußalÈyan ʿalå nabÈyh The ghazals have been finished on the last Friday (the twenty-­fourth) of the venerable Mu˙arram in the year seven hundred and seventy (8 September 1368). Praising Allåh and praying for His Prophet. Colophon (fol. 147a, see fig A.15) Ibtidåʾ-i Èn nuskha-yi dÈvån-i muqaddas az sånÈ Shavvål sana samån va sittÈn va sabʿ-miʾa va tamåm shudan va muqåbala kardan bi-ʿawn Allåhi ʿazza shaʾnuhu va ba-ßi˙˙at rasånÈdan ba-kitåbat-i banda-yi ‰aʿÈf-i na˙Èf al-mu˙tåj ilå ra˙mat Allåhi taʿålå Óasan ibn ʿUsmån al-MavlavÈ dar ghurra-yi RabÈʿ al-Åkhir li-sana sabʿÈn va sabʿ-miʾa The commencement of this copy of the sacred DÈvån [began] from the second of Shawwål of the year seven hundred and sixty-­eight (1 June 1367), and it was completed, collated and corrected by the aid of Allåh, may His power be glorified, by the writing of the weak and feeble

Figure A.15 Colophon, DÈvån-i KabÈr, Erzincan (probably), 1368, MMK, 69, fol. 147a.

260

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

servant who is in need of the mercy of Allåh, exalted be He, Óasan son of ʿUthmån the Mevlevi on the first day of RabÈʿ II of the year seven hundred and seventy (12 November 1368). Dedication (fol. 147b, see fig 4.1) [Persian] Bi-rasm-i mu†ålaʿa-i ßå˙ib-i aʿΩam dastËr-i muʿaΩΩam zubda-yi dasåtÈr al-ʿarab va al-ʿajam ʿumda-yi vuzaråʾ al-umam usva-yi arbåb al-qalam qudva-yi aß˙åb al-jËd va al-niʿam så˙it [sic: så˙ib]-i azyål al-majd va al-karam mu˙riz-i maʿålÈ al-khayr va al-himam mustajmaʿ-i makårim al-akhlåq va ma˙åsin al-shiyam kåfil-i maßåli˙-i banÈ Ådam Khwåja Sharaf al-Milla va al-DÈn abË-l-maʿålÈ amÈr SåtÈ al-MavlavÈ [Arabic] adåma Allåh tawfÈqahu wa-jaʿala al-rushda rafÈqahu ibn al-mar˙Ëm al-maghfËr Óusåm al-DÈn Óasan †åba tharåhu fÈ ghurrat RabÈʿ al-Åkhir li-sana sabʿÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa ˙åmidan li-låhi wa-mußalÈyan ʿalå nabÈyhi Commissioned to be read by the one possessing greatness, the venerable minister, the best (literally, cream) of the Arab and Persian ministers, support of the viziers of the nations, model of the lords of the pen, exemplar to the possessors of generosity and favours, the one who drags the skirts of nobility and magnanimity, the one who has achieved the heights of charity and ambition, the one in whom deeds of good character and merits of innate qualities are united, provider of benefits to mankind, the lord, glory of the people and the religion, father of glorious deeds, commander SåtÈ, the Mevlevi, may Allåh prolong his success and make rectitude his companion, son of the deceased sword of religion, Óasan, may he rest in peace, on the first day of RabÈʿ II in the year seven hundred and seventy (12 November 1368), praising Allåh and praying for His Prophet. Waqf note (fol. 147b, see fig. 4.1) [Persian] Ïn dÈvån al-ʿushshåq bar sabÈl-i irs ba banda-yi ΩaʿÈf-i na˙Èf Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ al-MavlavÈ al-ArzinjånÈ a˙mada [sic: a˙sana] Allåh khåtimatahu uftåd chËn dar ha‰rat-i turba-yi mu†ahhar-i munavvar-i muqaddas-i khudåvandigår qaddasanå Allåh bi-sirrihi al-ʿazÈz dÈvån-i mukammal nabËd Èn dÈvån-rå ba-ha‰rat-i turba-yi mazkËra irådat-i vaqf nahåda shud ki ʿåshiqån va ßådiqån dar ha‰rat-i turba-yi mu†ahhar-i mazkËra mu†ålaʿa farmËda istifåda yåband va ba-khayr yåd kunand ammå ba-jå-yi dÈgar naql nakunand va ha‰rat-i chalabÈyån va shaykh-i zåviya ba-jå-yi dÈgar naql nakunand va nÈz ba-dÈgarÈ nabakhshand va nadahand va Èn dÈvån-rå vaqf-i ha‰rat-i turba dånista az åyat-i tawbÈkh [Arabic] fa-man baddalahu baʿd-må samiʿahu fa-innamå ithmuhu

appendix

ʿalå alladhÈna yubaddilËnahu inna Allåha samÈʿun wa-ʿalÈmun [Persian] mu˙tariz va mujtanib båshand va tabdÈl nakunand ta˙rÈran [Arabic] fÈ ghurra Mu˙arram al-mukarram li-sana ithnatå ʿashar wa-thamåni-miʾa al-hijriyya This DÈvån of lovers was inherited by the weak and feeble servant, Mustanjid son of SåtÈ the Mevlevi of Erzincan, may Allåh make his end good. Because there was no complete DÈvån at the honourable, pure, illuminated, holy tomb of his lordship (Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ), may Allåh hallow us with His glorious secret, this DÈvån has been placed in the aforementioned sainted tomb with the purpose of endowment, so that lovers and truth-­seekers in the aforementioned sainted pure tomb derive benefit from studying [it] and remember [him] well. However, they should not take it to another place. Also, the honourable chalabÈs and the shaykh of the dervish lodge [also] should not take it to another place, or gift or give it to another. Knowing this DÈvån as endowment to the sainted tomb, they should be wary and abstaining on the basis of this reprimanding Qur’anic verse: ‘Then whoever alters the bequest after he has heard it, the sin is only upon those who have altered it. Indeed, Allah is All-­Hearing and All-­Knowing’ (Q 2:181). They should thus not alter [it]. Written on the first day of the venerable Mu˙arram in the year eight hundred and twelve Hijra (17 May 1409). Note by SåtÈ about paper and artists (fol. 147b, see fig 4.1) Kåghaz-i Èn kitåbat-i asrår va maʿånÈ banda-yi ‰aʿÈf SåtÈ ibn al-Óasan al-MavlavÈ az Dimashq dåda-ast qaßdan åvard(?) va shish hazår diram [sic: dirham] ba-rusËm-i kåtib va tazhÈb ba-maßårif rasånida tå chËn ßå˙ib dilån va ʿåshiqån ba-mu†ålaʿa musharraf shavand ba-duʿåʾ-yi khayr yåd åvarand inshåʾ Allåh taʿålå Navad-u-panj †abaq kåghaz-i qa†ʿ-i buzurg jihat-i kitåbat-i MasnavÈ-i MaʿnavÈ … dar sånÈ ʿishrÈn Jumådå al-Avval … The weak servant SåtÈ son of Óasan the Mevlevi had the paper for this book of secrets and mystical meanings brought specially from Damascus and paid expenses of six thousand dirhams for the fees of the scribe and the application of gold, so that when the people of the heart and lovers (that is, dervishes) have the honour of reading [it], they call Him to mind with a favourable prayer, Allåh willing, exalted be He. Ninety-­five large-­sized sheets of paper for the purpose of copying the spiritual MasnavÈ […] On the twenty-­second of Jumådå I […]

Cat. 15 Title: MasnavÈ-i MaʿnavÈ Author: Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ (d. 1273) Language: Persian Genre: Taßawwuf

261

262

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Date: Middle of Rajab 773 (January 1372) Place of production: Erzincan (probably) Artists: Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-­MawlawÈ (scribe) Patron: Sharaf al-­ DÈn SåtÈ ibn Óusåm al-­DÈn Óasan al-­MawlawÈ (d. 1386) Later owners: Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ al-­MawlawÈ al-­ArzinjånÈ (d. 1409–17?) Seals: None Folios: 197 Size: 562mm × 400mm Text block: 492mm × 305mm; thirty-­nine lines in four columns Script and ink: Naskh; black; red, blue and occasionally green rubrics Pigments: Gold, blue, light blue, green, white, black, red, purple, bronze Description of paper (1): Cream; smooth and slightly shiny; ten folios = 2mm approx. thickness Description of paper (2): Light brownish-­orange; very smooth and shiny; ten folios = 2mm approx. thickness Chain and laid lines (1): Twenty horizontal laid lines = 30mm Chain and laid lines (2): Vertical double chain lines = 15mm between lines, 55mm between groups; twenty horizontal laid lines = 27mm Binding: Binding covered for restoration (not contemporary to manuscript’s production) Quires: Quinions (probably) Condition and later repairs: Cropped due to rebinding; relatively good condition with some creasing and wear on several illuminations Collection information: Mevlana Müzesi, Konya, 1113 Dedication (fol. 188b, see fig 4.34) [Persian] Bi-rasm-i mu†ålaʿa-i dastËr-i muʿaΩΩam ßå˙ib-i aʿΩam zubda-yi dasåtÈr al-ʿarab va al-ʿajam ʿumda-yi vuzaråʾ al-umam usvå-yi arbåb al-qalam qudva-yi aß˙åb al-jËd va al-niʿam så˙it [sic: så˙ib]-i azyål al-majd va al-karam mu˙riz-i maʿålÈ al-khayr va al-himam mustajmaʿ-i makårim al-akhlåq va ma˙åsin al-shiyam kåfil-i maßåli˙-i banÈ Ådam Khwåja Sharaf al-Milla va al-Dunyå va al-DÈn abË-l-maʿålÈ amÈr SåtÈ al-MavlavÈ [Arabic] adåma Allåh tawfÈqahu wa-jaʿala al-rushda rafÈqahu ibn al-mar˙Ëm al-maghfËr Óusåm al-DÈn Óasan †åba tharåhu fÈ ghurrat Rajab al-aßamm sana thalåth wa-sabʿÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa ˙åmidan li-låhi wa-mußalÈyan ʿalå nabÈyhi Mu˙ammad wa-ålihi Commissioned to be read by the venerable minister, the one possessing greatness, the best (literally, cream) of the Arab and Persian ministers, support of the viziers of the nations, model of the lords of the pen, exemplar to the possessors of generosity and favours, the one who

appendix

drags the skirts of nobility and magnanimity, the one who has achieved the heights of charity and ambition, the one in whom deeds of good character and merits of innate qualities are united, provider of benefits to mankind, the lord, glory of the people, the world, and the religion, father of glorious deeds, commander SåtÈ, the Mevlevi, may Allåh prolong his success and make rectitude his companion, son of the deceased sword of religion, Óasan, may he rest in peace, on the first day of Rajab the silent in the year seven hundred and seventy-­three (8 January 1372), praising Allåh and praying for His Prophet, Mu˙ammad, and His family. Colophon (fol. 195a, see fig A.16) Tamma al-kitåb bi-ʿawn Allåh al-malik al-wahhåb wa-ßallå Allåh ʿalå sayyidnå Mu˙ammadin wa-ålihi ajmaʿÈn ʿalå yaday al-ʿabd al-∂aʿÈf al-faqÈr ilå rabbihi al-qawÈ al-kabÈr Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-MawlawÈ a˙sana Allåh khåtimatah wa-li-jamÈʿ al-muslimÈn ajmaʿÈn fÈ awåsi† Rajab al-aßamm li-sana thalåth wa-sabʿÈn wa-sabʿ-miʾa By the help of Allåh the Provider, Allåh’s blessing on our Lord Mu˙ammad and His entire family, the book has been finished by the hands of the weak, poor servant for his powerful, great lord, Óasan son of ʿUthmån the Mevlevi, may Allåh make his end good and [the same prayer goes] to all Muslims entirely, in the middle of Rajab the silent in the year seven hundred and seventy-­three (late January 1372).

Figure A.16 Colophon, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 195a.

263

264

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Figure A.17  Mustanjid’s note, MasnavÈ, Erzincan (probably), 1372, MMK, 1113, fol. 195b. Note by Mustanjid about his travels (fol. 195b, see fig A.17) Vafåt-i amÈr TÈmËr Bey dar maqåm-i Utrår shab-i chahår shanba såbiʿ ʿashar Shaʿbån al-muʿaΩΩam li-sana sabʿ wa-samåni-miʾa va kåtib al-ʿabd Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ al-MavlavÈ dar ◊trår bar-gashta darÈn ˙ål ham bËd va nishastan bi-sal†anat dar Samarqand-i ˙a‰rat-i KhalÈl Sul†ån MÈrzå va bazl-i kunËz va khazåʾin ki amÈr TÈmËr nihåda bËd dar måh-i Rama‰ån sana al-mazkËra va ijåzat-i kåtib al-ʿabd az Samarqand ba-jånib-i RËm va Arzinjån dar måh-i Shavvål-i sana al-mazkËra va guzashtan-i åb-i ÅmË ham darÈn måh va rasÈdan ba-Khuråsån va åmadan ba-Arzinjån maw†in-i måʾlËf-i khËd dar måh-i Rajab al-murajjab sana samån [u] samåni-miʾa Commander TÈmËr Bey died in the place of Otrar, on Wednesday night, the seventeenth of Shaʿbån the exalted in the year eight hundred and seven (18 February 1405). The writer, the servant Mustanjid son of SåtÈ the Mevlevi, was also in Otrar during the development of this situation, having returned there. The accession of the honourable KhalÈl Sul†ån MÈrzå (r. 1405–9) to the throne in Samarkand, and the distribution of the treasures which Commander TÈmËr had left behind

appendix

occurred in the month of Rama∂ån of the aforementioned year (March 1405). Permission [was given] for the writer, the servant, [to go] from Samarkand towards RËm and Erzincan in the month of Shawwål of the aforementioned year (April 1405). [His] crossing of the Amu Darya occurred in the same month. His arrival in Khurasan, and then in Erzincan – [the writer’s] customary ­domicile – ­occurred in the month of the honourable Rajab, the year eight hundred and eight (December 1405–January 1406).

Notes Many thanks to Ismail Jalili, Muzahim Al-­ Jalili, Salma Bargaoui, James White and Mohammed Alluhaybi for their corrections and suggestions. 1. Refers to ʿUkåsha ibn Mi˙san, a follower of the Prophet. 2. The lote tree marking the end of the seventh Heaven, mentioned several times in the Qur’an. 3. ‘MaråqÈ’ only appears in Persian with this meaning as the plural of marqåt (Steingass 1892: 1207). Arabic meanings of ‘maråqÈ’ make no sense in this context. 4. RabÈʿ II 723 was apparently a Tuesday, not a Saturday.

265

Bibliography

Published primary sources AflåkÈ, Shams al-­DÈn (1961), Manå˚ib al-ʿårifÈn: metin, ed. Tahsin Yazıcı, 2 vols, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. AflåkÈ, Shams al-­DÈn (2002), The Feats of the Knowers of God (Manåqeb al-ʿarefÈn), ed. and trans. John O’Kane, Leiden: Brill. Anonymous (1952), Anadolu Selçukluları devleti tarihi, ed. and trans. Feridun Nâfiz Uzluk, Ankara: Çaphane-­ye Kemal. Anonymous (1999), TårÈkh-i Ål-i SaljËq dar Ånå†ËlÈ, ed. Nådirah JalålÈ, Tehran: Daftar-­i Nashr-­i MÈrås-­i MaktËb, Åyinah-ʾi MÈrås. al-­AqsaråyÈ, KarÈm al-­DÈn Ma˙mËd (1944), Musåmarat al-akhbår va musåyarat al-akhyår, ed. Osman Turan, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. al-­AstaråbådÈ, ʿAzÈz ibn ArdashÈr (1928), Bazm va razm, ed. Mehmed Fuad Köprülü, Istanbul: Avkaf Matbaası. Bahådur, AbË-l-­GhåzÈ (1871), Histoire des Mogols et des Tatares, ed. and trans. Jean Jacques Pierre Desmaisons, 2 vols, Saint Petersburg: Imprimerie de l’Académie impériale des sciences. Combe, Étienne, Jean Sauvaget and Gaston Wiet (eds) (1931–96), Répertoire chronologique d’épigraphie arabe, 18 vols, Cairo: Imprimerie de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale. al-ÓamawÈ, YåqËt ibn ʿAbdallåh (1869), Jacut’s Geographisches Wörterbuch: aus den Handschriften zu Berlin, St. Petersburg, Paris, London und Oxford, Vol. 4, ed. Ferdinand Wüstenfeld, Leipzig: In Commission bei F. A. Brockhaus. Ibn Ba††Ë†a, AbË ʿAbdallåh Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­LawåtÈ alÊanjÈ (1854), Voyages d’Ibn Batoutah, Texte Arabe, Accompangé d’une Traduction, Tome Second, ed. and trans. C. Defrémery and B. R. Sanguinetti, Paris: L’Imprimerie Impériale. Ibn Ba††Ë†a, AbË ʿAbdallåh Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAbdallåh al-­LawåtÈ al-ÊanjÈ (1962), The Travels of Ibn Battuta, a.d. 1325–1354, Vol. II., ed. and trans. H. A. R. Gibb, Cambridge: Hakluyt Society. Ibn BÈbÈ, al-Óusayn ibn Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAlÈ al-­JaʿfarÈ al-­RughadÈ (1956), Kitåb-i al-avåmir al-ʿalå’iyah fÈ al-umËr al-ʿalå’iyah, ed. Adnan Sadık Erzi, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi.

bibliography

al-­Mala†yawÈ, Mu˙ammad ibn GhåzÈ (1972–3), BarÈd al-saʿådah, ed. Mu˙ammad ShÈrvånÈ, Tehran: Dånishgåh-­i Tihrån. al-­Mala†yawÈ, Mu˙ammad ibn GhåzÈ (2004–5), Rawzat al-ʿuqËl, ed. AbË-l-­ Qåsim JalÈl’pËr and Mu˙ammad Rawshan, Tehran: Åsår. al-­MåzandarånÈ, ʿAbdallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Kiyå (1952), Die Resalä-ye Falakiyyä des ʿAbdollah ibn Mo˙ammad ibn Kiyå al-MåzandarånÈ; ein persischer Leitfaden des staatlichen Rechnungswesens (um 1363), ed. Walther Hinz, Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Mevlânâ Müzesi (1992), MasnavÈ-i maʿnavÈ: chåp-i ʿaksÈ az rË-yi nuskhah’i kha††È-i QËnyah (MËzah-’i Mawlånå): tårÈkh-i kitåbat 677 HijrÈ-i QamarÈ, Tehran: Markaz-­i Nashr-­i DånishgåhÈ. Mu߆afå ʿÅlÈ (2011), Mustafa ʿÂli’s Epic Deeds of Artists: A Critical Edition  of  the Earliest Ottoman Text about the Calligraphers and Painters of the Islamic World, ed. and trans. Esra Akın-­Kıvanç, Leiden; Boston: Brill. NiΩåm al-­DÈn (Ya˙yå ibn Íåʿid ibn A˙mad) (1982), ‘Óadåʾiq al-­siyar fÈ adab al-­mulËk’, ed. ʿAbbås ÍadrÈ, Farhang-i Ïrån ZamÈn, 25: 240–371. Pegolotti, Francesco Balducci (1936), La pratica della mercatura, ed. Allan Evans, Cambridge, MA: The Mediaeval Academy of America. Piloti, Emanuele (1950), L’Égypte au commencement du quinzième siècle, d’après le traité d’Emmanuel Piloti de Crète, incipit 1420, ed. and trans. Pierre-­Herman Dopp, Cairo: Imp. Université Fouad 1er. Polo, Marco (1871), The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian: Concerning the Kingdoms and Marvels of the East, ed. and trans. Henry Yule, 2 vols, London: John Murray. QåniʿÈ, A˙mad ibn Ma˙mËd-­i ÊËsÈ (1979), KalÈla wa-Dimna-i manΩËm, ed. M. Todua, Tehran: Intishåråt-­i Bunyåd-­i Farhang-­i Ïrån. al-­QazwÈnÈ, Óamdallåh al-­MustawfÈ (1919), The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat al-QulËb, ed. and trans. Guy Le Strange, London: Luzac. RåwandÈ, AbË Bakr Najm al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAlÈ (1921), Rå˙at al-ßudËr wa åyat al-surËr, being a history of the SaljËqs, ed. Mu˙ammad Iqbål, London: Luzac. RåzÈ (Dåya), Najm al-­DÈn [1352] (1933–4), Mirßåd al-ʿibåd, ed. Mu˙ammad AmÈn Riyå˙È, Tehran: Shirkat-­i Intishåråt-­i ʿIlmÈ va FarhangÈ. RåzÈ (Dåya), Najm al-­DÈn (1982), The Path of God’s Bondsmen from Origin to Return = (Merßåd al-ʿebåd men al-mabdåʾ elå’l-maʿåd): A Sufi Compendium, ed. and trans. Hamid Algar, Delmar, NY: Caravan Books. RËmÈ, Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (1925–40), The Mathnawí of Jalálu’ddín Rúmí, ed. and trans. Reynold Alleyne Nicholson, 8 vols, London: Luzac. RËmÈ, Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (1957–66), Kulliyåt-i Shams, ed. Badiozzaman Forouzanfar, 10 vols, Tehran: Intishåråt-i Dånishgåh-i Tihrån. RËmÈ, Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (1981–4), Mesnevî: tercemesi ve ∞erhi, ed. and trans. Abdülbâki Gölpınarlı, 6 vols, Istanbul: Ònkılâp ve Aka. RËmÈ, Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (1981–95), MasnavÈ, ed. Mu˙ammad IstiʿlåmÈ, 7 vols, Tehran: Zavvår. RËmÈ, Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (1992), MaktËbåt-i Mawlånå Jalål al-DÈn RËmÈ, ed. TawfÈq Sub˙ånÈ, Tehran: Markaz-­i Nashr-­i DånishgåhÈ. RËmÈ, Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (1994), MasnavÈ-i MaʿnavÈ, ed. TawfÈq Sub˙ånÈ, Tehran: Såzmån-­i Chåp va Intishåråt, Vizårat-­ i Farhang va Irshåd-­i IslåmÈ. RËmÈ, Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad [1377] (1998–9), MasnavÈ-i maʿnavÈ: bar asås-i nuskhah-i QËniyah, ed. ʿAbd al-­KarÈm SurËsh, 2 vols, Tehran: Shirkat-­i Intishåråt-­i ʿIlmÈ va FarhangÈ.

267

268

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

RËmÈ, Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (2004–17), The Masnavi, ed. and trans. Jawid Mojaddedi, 4 vols, Oxford: Oxford University Press. RËmÈ, Jalål al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (2006), Spiritual Verses: The First Book of the Masnavi-ye Maʿnavi, ed. and trans. Alan Williams, London: Penguin. Sanjian, Avedis K. (ed.) (1969), Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts, 1301– 1480: A Source for Middle Eastern History, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schiltberger, Johannes (1879), The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, a Native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396–1427, trans. J. Buchan Telfer, London: Hakluyt Society. ShikårÈ, A˙mad (1946), S¸ikârî’nin Karamano©ulları Tarihi, ed. M. Mesut Koman, Konya: Konya Halkevi Dil, Tarih ve Müze Komites. ShikårÈ, A˙mad (2005), S¸ikârî Karamannâme: Zamanın Kahramanı Karamanîler’in Tarihi, ed. Metin Sözen and Necdet Sakao©lu, Istanbul: Karaman Valili©i, Karaman Belediyesi. Sipahsålår, FarÈdËn ibn A˙mad (2007), Risålah-’i Sipahsålår dar manåqib-i ˙aΩrat khudåvandgår, ed. Mu˙ammad AfshÈn VafåyÈ, Tehran: Sukhan. Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (1936), Valad’nåmah: masnavÈ-i ValadÈ, ed. Jalål al-­DÈn Humå’È, Tehran: KitåbfurËshÈ va Chåpkhånah-­i Iqbål. Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (1976), Òbtidâ-nâme, ed. and trans. Abdülbâki Gölpınarlı, Konya: Konya Turizm Derne©i. Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (1980), Rabåb’nåmah, ed. ʿAlÈ Sul†ånÈ Gird FaråmarzÈ, Tehran: Dånishgåh-­i Tihrån; Montreal: Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University. Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (1988), La parole secrete: l’enseignement du maître soufi Rûmî, ed. and trans. Djamchid Mortazavi and Eva de Vitray-­Meyerovitch, Monaco: Le Rocher. Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-­DÈn Mu˙ammad (1997–8), Intihå’nåmah, ed. Mu˙ammad ʿAlÈ Khazånahdår’lË, Tehran: Intishåråt-­i Rawzanah. al-ʿUmarÈ, A˙mad ibn Ya˙yå ibn Fa∂lallåh (1929), al-Båb al-khåmis fÈ mamlakat al-Atråk bi-al-RËm min al-nawʿ al-thånÈ min al-qism al-awwal min kitåb Masålik al-abßår fÈ mamålik al-amßår, ed. Franz Taeschner, Leipzig: Harrassowitz. al-­UrmawÈ, Siråj al-­DÈn (1972), La†åʾif al-˙ikma, ed. Ghulåm Óusayn YËsufÈ, Tehran: Intishåråt-­i Bunyåd-­i Farhang-­i Ïrån. William of Rubruck (1900), The Journey of William of Rubruck to the Eastern Parts of the World, 1253–55, ed. William Woodville Rockhill, London: Hakluyt Society. al-­ZanjånÈ, A˙mad ibn Saʿd ibn MahdÈ ibn ʿAbd al-Íamad (2005), Sultana Ö©ütler: Alaeddin Keykubata Sunulan Siyasetname, ed. and trans. H. Hüseyin Adalıo©lu, Istanbul: Yeditepe Yayınevi. Secondary sources Adamova, Adel and Manijeh Bayani (2015), Persian Painting: The Arts of the Book and Portraiture, London: Thames and Hudson. Aga-­ Oglu, Mehmet (1938), ‘Unpublished Wooden Doors of the Seljuk Period’, Parnassus, 10, 1: 24–5. Akın, Himmet (1968), Aydıno©ulları Tarihi Hakkında Bir Ara∞tırma, Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi. Algaç, Seyda (2000), ‘Anadolu Selçukluları ve Beylikleri Dönemi Tezhip Sanatı (XIII.–XV. Yüzyıllar)’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Òstanbul Üniversitesi.

bibliography

Algaç, Seyda (2006), ‘Òstanos (Korkuteli)’da 1349–1351 (750–752) Tarihleri Arasında Hazırlanmı∞ Tezhipli Òki Yazma’, Atatürk Üniversitesi Güzel Sanatlar Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17: 1–14. Algar, Hamid (2012), ‘Dåya RåzÈ’, EI3, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Allan, James (1978), ‘From TabrÈz to Siirt: Relocation of a 13th Century Metalworking School’, Iran, 16: 182–3. Amitai-­ Preiss, Reuven (1995), Mongols and Mamluks: The MamlukÏlkhånid War, 1260–1281, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Amitai-­Preiss, Reuven (1999), ‘Sufis and Shamans: Some Remarks on the Islamization of the Mongols in the Ilkhanate’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 42, 1: 27–46. Arberry, Arthur J. (1955–66), The Chester Beatty Library: A Handlist of Arabic Manuscripts, 8 vols, Dublin: Hodges, Figgis & Co. Arıtan, Ahmet Saim and Fatma Seyma Boydak (2016), ‘Karamano©ulları Kitap San’atları: Cild ve Tezhîb’, in Mehmet Seker, Mehmet Mercan, Yakup Kaya and Cem Uncu (eds), Karamano©ulları Beyli©i, Konya: Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi, pp. 558–606. Arnold, Thomas Walker and Adolf Grohmann (1929), The Islamic Book; A Contribution to its Art and History from the VII–XVIII Century, Paris: Pegasus Press. Aslanapa, Oktay (1971), Turkish Art and Architecture, London: Faber and Faber. Atalay Varol, S¸ennur (2016), ‘Konya Mevlânâ Müzesi’nde Bulunan “12” Envanter Numaralı Kur’an-­ ı Kerim’in Tezhip Açısından De©erlendirilmesi’, Kalemi∞i, 4, 8: 107–40. Aumer, Joseph (1866), Die persischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München, Munich: In Commission der palm’schen Hofbuchhandlung. Ayalon, Yaron (2015), Natural Disasters in the Ottoman Empire: Plague, Famine, and Other Misfortunes, New York: Cambridge University Press. Bacqué-­ Grammont, J.-L. (2012), ‘al-­ A˚saråyÈ’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Baker, Colin F. (2007), Qur’an Manuscripts: Calligraphy, Illumination, Design, London: British Library. Barrucand, Marianne (1991), ‘The Miniatures of the Daqå’iq al-˙aqå’iq (Bibliothèque nationale Pers. 174): A Testimony to the Cultural Diversity of Medieval Anatolia’, Islamic Art, 4: 113–42. Bashir, Shahzad (2011), Sufi Bodies: Religion and Society in Medieval Islam, New York: Columbia University Press. Bayram, Sadi and Ahmet Hamdi Karabacak (1981), ‘Sahib Ata Fahrü’d-­Din Ali’nin Konya, Òmaret ve Sivas Gökmedrese Vakfiyeleri’, Vakıflar Dergisi, 13: 31–69. Baysal, Ali Fuat (2017), Akseki Ye©en Mehmet Pa∞a Kütüphanesi Tezhipli Kitaplar Albümü, Konya: Palet Yayınları. Behrens-­ Abouseif, Doris (2018), The Book in Mamluk Egypt and Syria (1250–1517): Scribes, Libraries and Market, Leiden: Brill. Ben Azzouna, Nourane (2018), Aux origins du classicisme: Calligraphes et bibliophiles au temps des dynasties mongoles (Les Ilkhanides et les Djalayirides, 656–814 / 1258–1411), Leiden; Boston: Brill. Benouniche, Leïla (1995), Le Kalila et Dimna de Genève: histoire d’un recueil de fables illustré, Geneva: Slatkine.

269

270

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Biesterfeldt, Hans Hinrich (2016), ‘Ibn HindË’, EI3, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Binba∞, Òlker Evrim (2005), ‘Music and Samå‘ of the Mavlaviyya in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries: Origins, Ritual and Formation’, in Anders Hammarlund, Tord Olsson and Elisabeth Özdalga (eds), Sufism, Music and Society in Turkey and the Middle East: Papers Read at a Conference Held at the Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, November 27–29, 1997, Istanbul: Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, pp. 58–71. Birnbaum, Eleazar (1990), ‘On Some Turkish Interlinear Translations of the Koran’, Journal of Turkish Studies, 14: 113–38. Blair, Sheila (2000), ‘Color and Gold: The Decorated Papers Used in Manuscripts in Later Islamic Times’, Muqarnas, 17: 24–36. Blair, Sheila (2006), Islamic Calligraphy, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Blair, Sheila (2015), ‘The Ilkhanid Quran: An Example from Maragha’, Journal of Islamic Manuscripts, 6: 174–95. Blair, Sheila (2016), ‘Invoking the Prophet Through Word, Sound, and Image’, Religion and the Arts, 20, 1–2: 29–58. Blair, Sheila and Jonathan Bloom (1994), The Art and Architecture of Islam, 1250–1800, New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Blessing, Patricia (2014), Rebuilding Anatolia after the Mongol Conquest: Islamic Architecture in the Lands of RËm, 1240–1330, Farnham: Ashgate. Blessing, Patricia (2017), ‘All Quiet on the Eastern Frontier? The Contemporaries of Early Ottoman Architecture in Eastern Anatolia’, in Patricia Blessing and Rachel Goshgarian (eds), Architecture and Landscape in Medieval Anatolia, 1100–1500, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 200–23. Blochet, Edgar (1912), Catalogue des Manuscrits Persans, Tome Deuxième, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Blochet, Edgar (1928), Catalogue des Manuscrits Persans, Tome Troisième, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Blochet, Edgar (1929), Musulman Painting, XIIth–XVIIth Century, trans. Cicely M. Binyon, London: Methuen. Blochet, Edgar (1934), Catalogue des Manuscrits Persans, Tome Quatrième, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Bloom, Jonathan (2001), Paper before Print: The History and Impact of Paper in the Islamic World, New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Borbone, Pier Giorgio (2017), ‘Marågha Mdittå Arškitå: Syriac Christians in Marågha under Mongol Rule’, Egitto e Vicino Oriente, 40: 109–43. Bosworth, C. E. and J.  D.  Latham (2012), ‘al-­ThughËr’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Bozer, Rüstem (2007), ‘The Kundekari Technique in Middle Age Anatolian Turkish Woodwork Art’, Prilozi Za Orijentalnu Filologiju, 57: 187–204. Briquet, C. -M. (1907), Les filigranes: dictionnaire historique des marques du papier dès leur apparition vers 1282 jusqu’en 1600, 4 vols, Paris: A. Picard et fils. Bryer, A. M. (1981), ‘Greek Historians on the Turks: The Case of the First Byzantine-­Ottoman Marriage’, in R.  H.  C. Davis, J.  M.  Wallace-­Hadrill, J. I. Catto and Maurice Keen (eds), The Writing of History in the Middle Ages: Essays Presented to Richard William Southern, Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 471–93.

bibliography

Bulliet, Richard W. (1972), The Patricians of Nishapur: A Study in Medieval Islamic Social History, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ça©aptay, Suna (2018), ‘On the Wings of the Double-­Headed Eagle: Spolia in Re and Appropriation in Medieval Anatolia and Beyond’, in Ivana Jevtic´ and Suzan Yalman (eds), Spolia Reincarnated: Afterlives of Objects, Materials, and Spaces in Anatolia from Antiquity to the Ottoman Era, Istanbul: Koç University Research Center for Anatolian Civilizations, pp. 309–40. Ça©man, Filiz and Zeren Tanındı (2005), ‘Illustration and the Art of the Book in the Sufi Orders of the Ottoman Empire’, in Ahmet Ya∞ar Ocak (ed.), Sufism and Sufis in Ottoman Society: Sources, Doctrine, Rituals, Turuq, Architecture, Literature and Fine Arts, Modernism, Ankara: Atatürk Supreme Council for Culture, Language and History, pp. 501–27. Ça©man, Filiz and Zeren Tanındı (2011), ‘Selections from Jalayirid Books in the Libraries of Istanbul’, Muqarnas, 28: 221–64. Cahen, Claude (1968), Pre-Ottoman Turkey: A General Survey of the Material and Spiritual Culture and History C. 1071–1330, London: Sidgwick & Jackson. Cahen, Claude (1988), La Turquie pré-ottomane, Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes d’Istanbul; Dıvıt Matbaacılık ve Yayıncılık. Cahen, Claude (2012a), ‘BåbåʾÈ’, EI2, (last accessed 10 April 2019). Cahen, Claude (2012b), ‘Eretna’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Calverley, E. E. and I.  R.  Netton (2012), ‘Nafs’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Canby, Sheila, Deniz Beyazit, Martina Rugiadi and A. C. S. Peacock (2016), Court and Cosmos: The Great Age of the Seljuqs, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Cantone, Valentina (2011), ‘Iconografia mariana e culto popolare nel codice Siriaco 341 di Parigi’, Rivista di storia della miniatura, 15: 17–25. Carboni, Stefano and Linda Komaroff (eds) (2002), The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256–1353, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Carr, Annemarie (1982), ‘Gospel Frontispieces from the Comnenian Period’, Gesta, 21, 1: 3–20. Çaycı, Ahmet (2004), ‘Korkuteli (Òstanoz) Tarihi ve Korkuteli Alaaddin Camii Üzerine Bir Ara∞tırma’, Selçuk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Ara∞tırmaları Dergisi, 16: 107–28. Çelebi, Òlyas (1998), ‘Hindî’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Celli, Gaia (2017–18), ‘The Manuscript Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Ayasofya 2442: A Thirteenth Century Copy of the Kitåb al-­Šifå’ with Syriac and Greek Marginalia’, Mélanges de l’Université Saint Joseph, 67: 305–26. Çetin, Nihad M. (1961), ‘Matnawi’nin Konya Kütüphanelerindeki Eski Yazmaları’, S¸arkiyat Mecmuası, 4: 97–118. Chaigne, Frantz (2012), ‘Le décor enluminé sous les Ïl-­khånides: Entre assimilation et innovation, de l’Iraq à la Chine’, Beiträge zur Islamischen Kunst und Archäologie, herausgegeben von der Ernst-Herzfeld-Gesellschaft, 3: 253–65. Cheikh, Nadia el- and C. E. Bosworth (2012), ‘RËm’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019).

271

272

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Chittick, William (1978), ‘The Last Will and Testament of Ibn ‘Arabi’s Foremost Disciple, Sadr al-­ Din Qunawi’, The Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi Society, (last accessed 27 February 2019). Coffey, Heather (2009) ‘Between Amulet and Devotion: Islamic Miniature Books in the Lilly Library’, in Christiane Gruber (ed.), The Islamic Manuscript Tradition: Ten Centuries of Book Arts in Indiana University Collections, Bloomington, IN: Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 78–115. Co∞an, M. Esad (1981), ‘XV. Asır Türk Yazarlarından Muslihu’d-­Din Hamid-­ O©ulları ve Hızır Bey’, Vakıflar Dergisi, 13: 101–12. Coulie, Bernard (2004), ‘Armenian Manuscripts and Scriptoria of Sebastia’, in R. G. Hovannisian (ed.), Armenian Sebastia/Sivas and Lesser Armenia, Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, pp. 171–206. Cowe, S. Peter (2015), ‘Patterns of Armeno-­ Muslim Interchange on the Armenian Plateau in the Interstice between Byzantine and Ottoman Hegemony’, in A.  C.  S. Peacock, Bruno De Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız (eds), Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 77–105. Crane, Howard (1993), ‘Notes on SaldjËq Architectural Patronage in Thirteenth Century Anatolia’, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 36, 1: 1–57. Dadoyan, Seta B. (2011–13), The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World: Paradigms of Interaction, Seventh to Fourteenth Centuries, 3 vols, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Danielyan, Gagik (2016), ‘Hayocʿ xalifan. Hr˙omklayi katʿołikosakan atʿor˙i patmutʿyan arabakan skzbnałbyurnerə’, in A. A. Bozoyan, R. M. Shukurov, V.  A.  Ter-­Ghevondian and G.  G.  Danielyan (eds), Cilician Armenia in the Perceptions of Adjacent Political Entities (Historical-Philological Essays), Yerevan: Institute of Oriental Studies; National Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, pp. 200–87. Darling, Linda (2004), ‘Persianate Sources on Anatolia and the Early History of the Ottomans’, Studies on Persianate Societies, 2: 126–44. DeJong, Frederick (1989), ‘The Iconography of Bektashiism: A Survey of Themes and Symbolism in Clerical Costume, Liturgical Objects and Pictorial Art’, Manuscripts of the Middle East, 4: 7–29. Demircan Aksoy, Zeynep (2011), ‘XIV. Yüzyıl Anadolu Türk Tezhip Sanatı Tasarımları’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Mimar Sinan Güzel Sanatlar Üniversitesi. Demircan Aksoy, Zeynep (2014), ‘Òlhanlı ve Memlûk Etkile∞iminde XIV. Yüzyıl Anadolu Türk Tezhip Sanatı’, Uluslararası Sosyal Ara∞tırmalar Dergisi, 7, 29: 265–80. Demirel, Ömer (2009), ‘Sivas’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Demiriz, Yıldız (1979), Osmanlı Mimarisi’nde Süsleme I: Erken Devir (1300–1453), Istanbul: Kültür Bakanlı©ı. De Nicola, Bruno (2014), ‘The Ladies of RËm: A Hagiographic View of Women in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-­Century Anatolia’, Journal of Sufi Studies, 3: 132–56. De Nicola, Bruno (2016), ‘The Fus†å† al-ʿAdåla: A Unique Manuscript on the Religious Landscape of Medieval Anatolia’, in A.  C.  S.  Peacock and Sara  Nur Yıldız (eds), Islamic Literature and Intellectual Life in

bibliography

Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Anatolia, Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, pp. 49–72. De Nicola, Bruno (2017), Women in Mongol Iran: The KhåtËns, 1206–1335, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Derman, M. U©ur (2005), ‘Sufi Order Sages in Ottoman Calligraphy’, in Ahmet Ya∞ar Ocak (ed.), Sufism and Sufis in Ottoman Society: Sources, Doctrine, Rituals, Turuq, Architecture, Literature and Fine Arts, Modernism, Ankara: Atatürk Supreme Council for Culture, Language and History, pp. 497–500. Der Nersessian, Sirarpie (1993), Miniature Painting in the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia from the Twelfth to the Fourteenth Century, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Déroche, François (1978), Catalogue des manuscrits arabes. Deuxième partie: Manuscrits musulmans, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Déroche, François (1992), The Abbasid Tradition: Qur’ans of the 8th to the 10th Centuries ad, London: The Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press. Déroche, François (2005), Islamic Codicology: An Introduction to the Study of Manuscripts in Arabic Script, London: Al-­ Furqån Islamic Heritage Foundation. Dilçimen, Kazım (1940), Canik Beyleri, Samsun: Ahali Matbaası. Dols, Michael W. (1977), The Black Death in the Middle East, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Dressler, Markus (2010), ‘How to Conceptualize Inner-­ Islamic Plurality/ Difference: “Heterodoxy” and “Syncretism” in the Writings of Mehmet F. Köprülü (1890–1966)’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 37, 3: 241–60. Dressler, Markus (2013), Writing Religion: The Making of Turkish Alevi Islam, New York: Oxford University Press. Duda, Dorothea (1983), Islamische Handschriften, Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Duda, H. W. (2012), ‘Ibn BÈbÈ’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Durak, Koray (2010), ‘Who are the Romans? The Definition of Bilåd al-RËm (Land of the Romans) in Medieval Islamic Geographies’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 31, 3: 285–98. Durocher, Maxime (2018), ‘Zåwiya et soufis dans le Pont intérieur, des Mongols aux Ottomans: Contribution à l’étude des processus d’islamisation en Anatolie médiévale (XIIIe–XVe siècles)’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Sorbonne Université. Durukan, Aynur (1999), ‘A Medieval Anatolian Architect: Keluk’, in François Déroche, Antoinette Harri and Alison Ohta (eds), Art Turc: 10e Congrès international d’art turc: Genève, 17–23 Septembre 1995: actes = Turkish Art: 10th International Congress of Turkish Art: Geneva, 17–23 September 1995: Proceedings, Geneva: Fondation Max van Berchem, pp. 277–85. Eastmond, Antony (2007), ‘Art and Frontiers Between Byzantium and the Caucasus’, in Sarah T. Brooks (ed.), Byzantium: Faith and Power (1261–1557): Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture, New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art; New Haven; London: Yale University Press, pp. 154–69. Ed. (2012), ‘Ism’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019).

273

274

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Edhem [Eldem], Halil (1926), Garbî Anadolu’da Selçukluların Vârisleri Tavâif-i Mülük, Istanbul: Âmire Matbaası. Emami, Alireza (2011), ‘VizhagÈhå-yi zabån-­i AnÈs al-­QulËb’, Farhang-navÈsÈ, 4: 65–113. Emecen, Feridun (1991), ‘Antalya’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Eser, Mevlüt and Yusuf Küçükda© (2013), ‘Ermenek Mevlevihanesi/ Karamano©lu Halil Bey Tekkesi’, in Hasan Bahar, Mustafa Toker, M. Ali Hacıgökmen and H. Gül Küçükbezci (eds), Tarihçili©e Adanmı∞ Bir Ömür Prof. Dr. Nejat Göyünç’e Arma©an, Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi, pp. 302–9. Ettinghausen, Richard, Oleg Grabar and Marilyn Jenkins-­ Madina (2001), Islamic Art and Architecture, 650–1250, New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Farhad, Massumeh and Simon Rettig (eds) (2016), The Art of the Qurʾan: Treasures from the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts, Washington, DC: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution. Faroqhi, Suraiya (2012), ‘SÈwås’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Fathi, Jean (2016), ‘YË˙annå ibn al-≈urayr, Passeur de la Tradition Syriaque et Arabe Chrétienne au XVIIe Siècle’, Journal of Eastern Christian Studies, 68, 1–2: 81–209. Fazlıo©lu, Òhsan (1997), ‘Sultân I. Alâuddîn Keykudâd’a Sunulan Siyâsetnâme: el-­Letâifu’l-­Alâiyye Fî’l-­Fedâili’S-­Seniyye’, Dîvân Òlmî Ara∞tırmalar Dergisi, 1, 3: 225–39. Fetvacı, Emine (2013), Picturing History at the Ottoman Court, Bloomington; Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press. Fleet, Kate (1999), European and Islamic Trade in the Early Ottoman State: The Merchants of Genoa and Turkey, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleet, Kate (2009), ‘The Turkish Economy, 1071–1453’, in Kate Fleet and Suraiya Faroqhi (eds), The Cambridge History of Turkey, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 227–65. Flemming, Barbara (1964), Landschaftsgeschichte von Pamphylien, Pisidien Und Lykien im Spätmittelalter, Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Flood, Finbarr Barry and Gülru Necipo©lu (2017), ‘Frameworks of Islamic Art and Architectural History: Concepts, Approaches, and Historiographies’, in Finbarr Barry Flood and Gülru Necipo©lu (eds), A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture, Vol. 1, 2 vols, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 2–56. Forster, Regula (2016), ‘Alchemy’, EI3, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Gacek, Adam (2009), Arabic Manuscripts: A Vademecum for Readers, Leiden; Boston: Brill. Gacek, Adam (2011a), ‘Nasx’, in Lutz Edzard and Rudolf de Jong (eds), Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, (last accessed 27 February 2019). Gacek, Adam (2011b), ‘NastaʿlÈq’, in Lutz Edzard and Rudolf de Jong (eds), Encyclopedia of Arabic Language and Linguistics, (last accessed 27 February 2019). Galavaris, George (1981), The Icon in the Life of the Church: Doctrine, Liturgy, Devotion, Leiden: Brill.

bibliography

Géhin, Paul (2015), ‘L’Étonnant Destin d’Un Psautier Jacobite du XIIIe Siècle: Sinaï Syr.  43 + Vatican Syr.  647, ff. 24–26’, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, 18, 1: 53–65. George, Alain (2010), The Rise of Islamic Calligraphy, London and Berkeley: Saqi Books. Ghazarian, Armen and Robert Ousterhout (2001), ‘A Muqarnas Drawing from Thirteenth-­Century Armenia and the Use of Architectural Drawings during the Middle Ages’, Muqarnas, 18: 141–54. Göde, Kemal (1994), Eratnalılar (1327–1381), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Gökalp, Mehmed Ziya (1923), Türkçülü©ün Esasları, Ankara: Matbua‘t ve istihbarat matbaası. Gökalp, Mehmed Ziya (1926), Türk Medeniyet Tarihi, Istanbul: Matbaa-­yi Âmire. Golden, P. B. (2012), ‘Êarkhån’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Gölpınarlı, Abdülbâki (1953), Mevlânâ’dan Sonra Mevlevilik, Istanbul: Ònkılâp ve Aka Kitabevleri. Gölpınarlı, Abdülbâki (1963), Mevlevi: Âdâb ve Erkânı, Istanbul: Ònkılâp ve Aka Kitabevleri. Gölpınarlı, Abdülbâki (1971), Mevlânâ Müzesi Yazmalar Katalo©u, II, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Gölpınarlı, Abdülbâki (1972), Mevlânâ Müzesi Yazmalar Katalo©u, III, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Gölpınarlı, Abdülbâki (2003), Mevlânâ Müzesi Müzelik Yazma Kitaplar Katalo©u, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Goshgarian, Rachel (2007), ‘Beyond the Social and the Spiritual: Redefining the Urban Confraternities of Late Medieval Anatolia’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Goshgarian, Rachel (2012), ‘Futuwwa in Thirteenth-­ Century RËm and Armenia: Reform Movements and the Managing of Multiple Allegiances on the Seljuk Periphery’, in A. C. S. Peacock and Sara Nur Yıldız (eds), The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, London: I. B. Tauris, pp. 227–63. Goshgarian, Rachel (2013), ‘Opening and Closing: Coexistence and Competition in Associations Based on Futuwwa in Late Medieval Anatolian Cities’, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 40, 1: 36–52. Grabar, André (1955), ‘The Virgin in a Mandorla of Light’, in Kurt Weitzmann (ed.), Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr., Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 305–11. Grabar, André (1968), Christian Iconography: A Study of its Origins, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Grabar, Oleg (2006), Islamic Visual Culture, 1100–1800, Vol. 2, Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum. Grabar, Oleg and Sheila Blair (1980), Epic Images and Contemporary History: The Illustrations of the Great Mongol Shahnama, Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press. Gruber, Christiane (2009), ‘Between Logos (kalima) and Light (nËr): Representations of the Prophet Muhammad in Islamic Painting’, Muqarnas, 26: 229–62. Hagstrom, Aurelie A. (1998), ‘The Symbol of the Mandorla in Christian Art: Recovery of a Feminine Archetype’, Arts: The Arts in Religious and Theological Studies, 10, 2: 25–9.

275

276

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Hamidullah, Muhammed (1964), ‘Kur’an-­ ı Kerim’in Türkçe Yazma Tercümeleri’, Türkiyat Mecmuası, 14: 65–80. Haq, Syed Nomanul (1994), Names, Natures, and Things: The Alchemist Jåbir ibn Óayyån and his Kitåb al-A˙jår (Book of Stones), Dordrecht; London: Kluwer Academic. Heinz, Wilhelm and Wilhelm Eilers (1968), Persische Handschriften, Wiesbaden: F. Steiner. Heywood, Colin (1999), ‘The Frontier in Ottoman History: Old Ideas and New Myths’, in Daniel Power and Naomi Standen (eds), Frontiers in Question: Eurasian Borderlands, 700–1700, Basingstoke: Macmillan, pp. 228–50. Hillenbrand, Robert (2004), Shahnama: The Visual Language of the Persian Book of Kings, Aldershot: Ashgate. Hillenbrand, Robert (2010), ‘Western Scholarship on Persian Painting Before 1914: Collectors, Exhibitions and Franco-­ German Rivalry’, in Andrea Lermer and Avinoam Shalem (eds), After One Hundred Years: The 1910 Exhibition ‘Meisterwerke Muhammedanischer Kunst’ Reconsidered, Leiden; Boston: Brill, pp. 201–30. Hirschler, Konrad (2012), The Written Word in the Medieval Arabic Lands: A Social and Cultural History of Reading Practices, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Honigmann, E. and C. E. Bosworth (2012), ‘RËm alʿesi’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Hopwood, Keith (1993), ‘People, Territories and States: The Formation of the Be©liks of Pre-­Ottoman Turkey’, in Caesar E. Farah (ed.), Decision Making and Change in the Ottoman Empire, Kirksville: Thomas Jefferson University Press at Northeast Missouri State University, pp. 129–38. Huart, Clément (1908), Les calligraphes et les miniaturistes de l’Orient musulman, Paris: E. Leroux. Hunt, Lucy-­ Anne (2009), ‘A Christian Arab Gospel Book: Cairo, Coptic Museum MS Bibl. 90 in its Mamluk Context’, MamlËk Studies Review, 13, 2: 105–32. Imber, Colin (2000), ‘What Does Ghazi Actually Mean?’, in Çi©dem Balim-­ Harding and Colin Imber (eds), The Balance of Truth: Essays in Honour of Professor Geoffrey Lewis, Istanbul: Isis Press, pp. 165–78. Ònalcık, Halil (2012), ‘BåyazÈd’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Òz, Fahir (2012), ‘ʿÅshı˚ Pasha’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Jackson, Cailah (2017a), ‘AnÈs al-QulËb (MS Ayasofya 2984, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Istanbul): An Illuminated Manuscript of Early Fourteenth-­ Century Konya?’, Journal of Islamic Manuscripts, 8, 1: 85–122. Jackson, Cailah (2017b), ‘Patrons and Artists at the Crossroads: The Islamic Arts of the Book in the Lands of RËm, 1270s–1370s’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Oxford. Jackson, Cailah (2019), ‘The Illuminations of Mukhlis ibn ʿAbdallah al-­ Hindi: Identifying Manuscripts from Late Medieval Konya’, Muqarnas, 36: 41–60. Jackson, Cailah (forthcoming-­a), ‘Illuminated Qurʾan Manuscripts of Late Medieval RËm (13th–14th Centuries)’, in Simon Rettig and Sana Mirza (eds), The Word Illuminated: Form and Function of Qur’anic Manuscripts, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press.

bibliography

Jackson, Cailah (forthcoming-­b), ‘The 1373 MasnavÈ of Tåj al-­DÈn Shaykh Óusayn Bey’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. James, David (1982), ‘The Development of Qur’anic Calligraphy and Illumination under the Mamlukes, 1300–1376, and in Iraq and Iran in the Same Period’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Durham. James, David (1992a), The Master Scribes: Qur’ans of the 10th to 14th centuries ad, London: The Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press. James, David (1992b), After Timur: Qur’ans of the 15th and 16th Centuries, London: The Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press. James, David (1999), Manuscripts of the Holy Qur’an from the Mamluk Era, Riyadh: Alexandria Press in London. [originally published as (1988) Qurʾåns of the MamlËks, London: Alexandria Press] James, William (1902), The Varieties of Religious Experience: A Study in Human Nature, London; New York: Longmans, Green & Co. Janssens, Jules L. (1991), An Annotated Bibliography on Ibn Sînâ (1970– 1989): Including Arabic and Persian Publications and Turkish and Russian References, Leuven: Leuven University Press. Jennings, R. C. (1986), ‘Some Thoughts on the Gazi-­ Thesis’, Wiener Zeitschrift Für Die Kunde Des Morgenlandes, 76: 151–61. Kadoi, Yuka (2009), Islamic Chinoiserie: The Art of Mongol Iran, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Kafadar, Cemal (1995), Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State, Berkeley: University of California Press. Kafadar, Cemal (2007), ‘Introduction: A Rome of One’s Own: Reflections on Cultural Geography and Identity in the Lands of Rum’, Muqarnas, 24: 7–25. Ka©ıtçı, Mehmed Ali (1976), Historical Study of Paper Industry in Turkey, Istanbul: Grafik Sanatlar Matbaası. Karabacek, Joseph von [1991] (2001), Arab Paper, trans. Don Baker and Suzy Dittmar, London: Archetype. Karakaya-­ Stump, Ayfer (2013), ‘The Vefå’iyye, the Bektashiyye and Genealogies of “Heterodox” Islam in Anatolia: Rethinking the Köprülü Paradigm’, Turcica, 44: 279–300. Karame, Alya (2016), ‘Qur’ans from the Eastern Islamic World between the 4th/10th and 6th/12th Centuries’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh. Karamustafa, Ahmet (1993), ‘Early Sufism in Eastern Anatolia’, in Leonard Lewisohn (ed.), Classical Persian Sufism: From Its Origins to Rumi, London: Khaniqahi Nimatullahi, pp. 175–98. Karata∞, Hasan (2011), ‘The City as a Historical Actor: The Urbanization and Ottomanization of the Halvetiye Sufi Order by the City of Amasya in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Kehr, Georg Jakob (1724), Monarchiæ Asiatico-Saracenicæ status: qualis VIII. et IX. post Christum natum seculo fuit, ex nummis argenteis prisca Arabum scriptura kufica, a monarchis Arabicis Al-Mansor, Harun Raschid, Al-Mamon, aliisque in metropolibus Chaldææ, Persiæ, Transoxanæque cusis, et nuper in littore maris balthici prope gedanum effossis, illustratus, Leipzig: Jakob Schuster. al-­Kha†Èb, Mu˙ammad ʿUthmån (2013), al-Awqåf al-Islåmiyya fÈ Filas†Èn fÈ al-ʿAßr al-MamlËkÈ, Irbid: Dår al-­Kitåb al-­ThaqåfÈ. Koca, Salim (2002), ‘Anatolian Turkish Beyliks’, in Hasan Celâl Güzel,

277

278

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

C. Cem O©uz and Osman Karatay (eds), The Turks, vol. 2, Ankara: Yeni Türkiye, pp. 507–53. Kofo©lu, Sait (1995), ‘Emîr Sinâneddin Medresesi’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Kofo©lu, Sait (1997), ‘Hamîdo©ulları’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Kofo©lu, Sait (2006), Hamido©ulları Beyli©i, Ankara: Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu. Kofo©lu, Sait (2011), ‘Tekeo©ulları’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Konyalı, Òbrahim Hakkı (1967), Âbideleri ve kitâbeleri ile Karaman tarihi: Ermenek ve Mut âbideleri, Istanbul: Baha Maatbası. Konyalı, Òbrahim Hakkı (1968), ‘Bir Hüccet Òki Vakfiye’, Vakıflar Dergisi, 7: 91–110. Köprülü, Mehmed Fuad (1928), ‘Anadolu Beylikleri Tarihine Ait Notlar’, Türkiyat Mecmuası, 2: 1–32. Köprülü, Mehmed Fuad (1929), Influence du chamanisme turco-mongol sur les ordres mystiques musulmans, Istanbul: Imp. Zellitch frères. Köprülü, Mehmed Fuad (2006), Early Mystics in Turkish Literature, ed. and trans. Gary Leiser with foreword by Devin DeWeese, London: Routledge. Korkhmazian, Emma, Irina Drampian and Gravard Hakopian (1984), Armenian Miniatures of the 13th and 14th Centuries, from the Matenadaran Collection, Yerevan, trans. Ashkhen Mikoyan, Saint Petersburg: Aurora Art Publishers. Korobeinikov, Dimitri (2014), Byzantium and the Turks in the Thirteenth Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kouymjian, Dickran (2006), ‘Chinese Motifs in Thirteenth-­ Century Armenian Art: The Mongol Connection’, in Linda Komaroff (ed.), Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, Leiden: Brill, pp. 303–24. Kraemer, Joel L. (1986), Philosophy in the Renaissance of Islam: AbË Sulaymån al-SijistånÈ and His Circle, Leiden: Brill. Kruk, Remke (2017), ‘Ibn AbÈ l-­Ashʿath’, EI3, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Küçük, Hülya (2007), ‘Dervishes Make a City: The Sufi Culture in Konya’, Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies, 16, 3: 241–53. Küçükhüseyin, Sevket (2013), ‘Some Reflections on Hagiology with Reference to the Early MawlawÈ-Christian Relations in the Light of the Manåqib al-ʿårifÈn’, Al-Masåq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean, 25, 2: 240–51. Kuehn, Sara (2011), The Dragon in Medieval East Christian and Islamic Art, Leiden: Brill. Lambton, Ann K. S. (1988), Continuity and Change in Medieval Persia: Aspects of Administrative, Economic and Social History, 11th–14th Century, Albany, NY: Persian Heritage Foundation. Langermann, Y. Tzvi (2010), ‘Bakr al-­MawßilÈ’, EI3, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Leiser, Gary (2012), ‘Teke-­Oghulları’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Lemerle, Paul (1957), L’emirat d’Aydin. Byzance et l’Occident: recherches sur ‘La geste d’Umur pacha’, Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Lewis, Franklin (2008), Rumi: Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teaching and Poetry of Jalâl Al-Din Rumi, London: Oneworld.

bibliography

Lifchez, Raymond (ed.) (1992), The Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art, and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey, Berkeley: University of California Press. Lindner, Rudi Paul (1999), ‘How Mongol were the Early Ottomans?’, in Reuven Amitai-­Preiss and David Morgan (eds), The Mongol Empire and its Legacy, Leiden: Brill, pp. 282–9. Lings, Martin (1976), The Quranic Art of Calligraphy and Illumination, London: World of Islam Festival Trust. Lings, Martin (2005), Splendours of Qur’an Calligraphy & Illumination, Vaduz: Thesaurus Islamicus Foundation. Loveday, Helen (2001), Islamic Paper: A Study of the Ancient Craft, London: Don Baker Memorial Fund. Lowry, Glenn D. and Milo Cleveland Beach, with Roya Marefat and Wheeler M. Thackston (1988), An Annotated and Illustrated Checklist of the Vever Collection, Washington, DC: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery; Seattle: University of Washington Press. Lowry, Heath (2003), The Nature of the Early Ottoman State, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. MaʿånÈ, A˙mad GulchÈn (1975 [1354]), ‘Shåhkårhåyi-­i hunarÈ-i shigift-­i angÈzÈ az qarn-­i panjum hijrÈ va sar-guz-asht-­i ˙ayrat åvar-i ån’, Hunar Va Mardum, 157: 45–65. Mahir, Banu and Netice Yıldız (2013), ‘An Illuminated Mathnawi al-Maʾnawi of Jalaladdin al-­Rumi Kept in the National Archive of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’, in Frédéric Hitzel (ed.), 14th International Congress of Turkish Art: Proceedings, Ankara: Republic of Turkey Ministry of Culture and Tourism, pp. 423–9. Makdisi, George (1973), ‘The Sunni Revival’, in D. S. Richards (ed.), Islamic Civilisation, 950–1150, Oxford: Cassirer, pp. 155–67. Mango, Cyril (1993–4), ‘The Chalkoprateia Annunciation and the Pre-­Eternal Logos’, Deltíon Tís Christianikís Archaiologikís Etaireías, 17: 165–70. Marlow, Louise (2007), ‘Advice and Advice Literature’, EI3, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Martin, Fredrik Robert (1912), The Miniature Painting and Painters of Persia, India and Turkey from the 8th to the 18th Century, London: Bernard Quaritch. Masters, Bruce (2009), ‘Mevlevi Order (Mevlevi Order of Dervishes)’, in Gábor Ágoston and Bruce Masters (eds), Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, New York: Facts On File, pp. 377–8. Mathews, Thomas F. and Avedis K. Sanjian (1991), Armenian Gospel Iconography: The Tradition of the Glajor Gospel, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Melikian-­ Chirvani, Assadullah Souren (1970), ‘Le Roman de Varqe et Golšâh’, Arts Asiatiques, 22: 1–264. Melikian-­Chirvani, Assadullah Souren (1982), Islamic Metalwork from the Iranian World: 8th–18th Centuries, London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Melikian-­Chirvani, Assadullah Souren (1985), ‘Anatolian Candlesticks: The Eastern Element and the Konya School’, Rivista Degli Studi Orientali, 59, 1–4: 225–66. Melville, Charles (1997), ‘AbË SaʿÈd and the Revolt of the Amirs in 1319’, in Denise Aigle (ed.), L’Iran Face à la Domination Mongole, Tehran: Institut français de recherche en Iran, pp. 89–120. Melville, Charles (2006), ‘The Early Persian Historiography of Anatolia’, in Judith Pfeiffer and Sholeh A. Quinn (eds), History and Historiography of

279

280

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Post-Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East: Studies in Honor of John E. Woods, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 135–66. Melville, Charles (2009), ‘Anatolia under the Mongols’, in Kate Fleet (ed.), The Cambridge History of Turkey, Vol. 1: Byzantium to Turkey, 1071– 1453, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 51–101. Melville, Charles (2010), ‘Genealogy and Exemplary Rulership in the Tarikh-i Chingiz Khan’, in Yasir Suleiman (ed.), Living Islamic History: Studies in Honour of Professor Carole Hillenbrand, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 129–50. Meredith-­Owens, G. M. (1968), Handlist of Persian Manuscripts, 1895–1966, London: British Museum. Miro©lu, Òsmet (1995), ‘Erzincan’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Mordtmann, J. H. (2012), ‘Isfendiyår Oghlu’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Mordtmann, J. H. and X. de Planhol (2012), ‘arå Óißår’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Muqtadir, Maulavi Abdul (1908) Catalogue of the Arabic and Persian Manuscripts in the Oriental Public Library at Bankipore: Vol. 1, Persian Poets, Firdausi to Hafiz, Calcutta: The Bengal Secretariat Book Depot. Narkiss, Bezalel (ed.) with Michael E. Stone (1980), Armenian Art Treasures of Jerusalem, Oxford: Phaidon. Nebes, Norbert (ed.) (1997), Orientalische Buchkunst in Gotha: Ausstellung zum 350jährigen Jubiläum der Forschungs- und Landesbibliothek Gotha: Spiegelsaal 11. September 1997 bis 14. Dezember 1997, Gotha: Forschungs- und Landesbibliothek. Necipo©lu, Gülru (2007), ‘Creation of a National Genius: Sinan and the Historiography of “Classical” Ottoman Architecture’, Muqarnas, 24: 140–83. Necipo©lu, Gülru (2012), ‘The Concept of Islamic Art: Inherited Discourses and New Approaches’, Journal of Art Historiography, 6: 1–26. Necipo©lu, Gülru and Sibel Bozdo©an (2007), ‘Entangled Discourses: Scrutinizing Orientalist and Nationalist Legacies in the Architectural Historiography of the “Lands of Rum”’, Muqarnas, 24: 1–6. Niazi, Kaveh (2011), ‘A Comparative Study of Qu†b al-­DÈn ShÈråzÈ’s Texts and Models on the Configuration of the Heavens’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Columbia University. Niebuhr, Carsten (1772), Beschreibung von Arabien: Aus eigenen Beobachtungen und im Lande selbst gesammleten Nachrichten, Copenhagen: Nicolaus Møller. Ocak, Ahmet Ya∞ar (2015), ‘Babai’, EI3, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Öden, Zerrin Günal (1999), Karası Beyli©i, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Ohta, Alison (2012), ‘Covering the Book: Bindings of the Mamluk Period, 1250–1516 CE’, unpublished PhD dissertation, School of Oriental and African Studies. O’Kane, Bernard (1999–2000), ‘The Bihbihani Anthology and its Antecedents’, Oriental Art, 45, 4: 9–18. Okuyan, Mehmet (2006), ‘Necmeddîn-­i Dâye’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Ölçer, Nazan (2005), ‘The Seljuks and Artuqids of Medieval Anatolia’, in

bibliography

David J. Roxburgh (ed.), Turks: A Journey of a Thousand Years, 600–1600, London: Royal Academy of Arts, pp. 104–45. Önder, Mehmet (1968), ‘XV. Yüzyıl Sonuna Kadar En Eski Mesnevi Nüshaları’, in Necati Lugal Arma©ani, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, pp. 517–26. Önder, Mehmet (1998), Mevlâna ve Mevlevilik, Istanbul: Aksoy Yayıncılık. Öney, Gönül (1969), ‘Anadolu Selçuk Sanatında Ejder Figürleri’, Belleten, 33: 171–92. Öney, Gönül (1978), Anadolu Selçuklu mimarisinde süsleme ve el sanatları, Ankara: Türkiye Ò∞ Bankası Kültür Yayınları. Öney, Gönül (1989), Beylikler devri sanatı: XIV.–XV. yüzyıl (1300–1453), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Önge, Mustafa (2007), ‘Caravanserais as Symbols of Power in Seljuk Anatolia’, in Jonathan Osmond and Ausma Cimdina (eds), Power and Culture: Identity, Ideology, Representation, Pisa: Edizioni PLUS-­ Pisa University Press, pp. 49–69. Oral, M. Zeki (1956), ‘Dura©an ve Bafra’da iki Türbe’, Belleten, 20: 385–410. Orhonlu, Cengiz, G. Baer and Ed. (2012), ‘Ketkhudå’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Ousterhout, Robert (1987), The Architecture of the Kariye Camii in Istanbul, Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Özbek, Yıldıray (2002), Osmanlı Beyli©i Mimarisinde Ta∞ Süsleme, Ankara: T. C. Kültür Bakanlı©ı. Özen, Mine Esiner (2003), Türk tezhip sanatı. Turkish Art of Illumination, trans. Abdullah Sen, Istanbul: Gözen Kitap ve Yayın Evi. Özergin, M. Kemal (1970), ‘Selçuklu Sanatçısı Nakka∞ ʿAbdü’l-­Mü’min El-­ Hoyî Hakkında’, Belleten, 34: 219–29. Özkan, Mustafa (2008), ‘Eski Anadolu Türkçesi Döneminde Ortaya Konan Kuran Tercümeleri ­Üzerine – I­ ’, Òstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Türk Dili ve Edebiyatı Dergisi, 39: 115–59. Özkan, Mustafa (2010), ‘Eski Anadolu Türkçesi Döneminde Yapılmı∞ Kur’an Tercümeleri’, in Bilal Gökkır, Necdet Yılmaz, Ömer Kara, Muhammed Abay and Necmettin Gökkır (eds), Tarihten Günümüze Kur’an’a Yakla∞ımlar, Istanbul: Òlim Yayma Vakfı Kur’an ve Tefsir Akademisi, pp. 516–68. Özönder, Hasan (1994), ‘Karaman (Lârende) Mevlevî-­ hânesi’, Osmanlı Ara∞tırmaları, 14: 143–52. Pamuk, Sevket (2000), A Monetary History of the Ottoman Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pancaro©lu, Oya (2004), ‘The Itinerant Dragon-­Slayer: Forging Paths of Image and Identity in Medieval Anatolia’, Gesta, 43, 2: 151–64. Pancaro©lu, Oya (2007), ‘Formalism and the Academic Foundation of Turkish Art in the Early Twentieth Century’, Muqarnas, 24: 67–78. Parlak, Sevgi and S. Barihüda Tanrıkorur (2003), ‘Kütahya Mevlevîhanesî’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Pa∞a, Ahmet Vefik (1876), Lehce-i OsmanÈ, 2 vols, Istanbul: Cemiyet-­ i Tedrisiyyed-­i Osmaniye. Paul, Jürgen (2011), ‘Mongol Aristocrats and Beyliks in Anatolia. A Study of AstaråbådÈ’s Bazm va Razm’, Eurasian Studies, 9: 105–58. Paul, Jürgen (2013), ‘A Landscape of Fortresses: Central Anatolia in AstaråbådÈ’s Bazm Wa Razm’, in David Durand-­ Guédy (ed.), TurkoMongol Rulers, Cities and City Life, Leiden; Boston: Brill, pp. 317–46.

281

282

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Peacock, A. C. S. (2004a), ‘A˙mad of NiÌde’s “Al-­Walad Al-­ShafÈq” and the Seljuk Past’, Anatolian Studies, 54: 95–107. Peacock, A.  C.  S. (2004b), ‘Local Identity and Medieval Anatolian Historiography: Anavi’s Anis Al-­Qolub and Ahmad of Ni©de’s Al-­Walad Al-­Shafiq’, Studies on Persianate Societies, 2: 115–63. Peacock, A. C. S. (2006), ‘Georgia and the Anatolian Turks in the 12th and 13th Centuries’, Anatolian Studies, 56: 127–46. Peacock, A. C. S. (2010), Early SeljËq History: A New Interpretation, London; New York: Routledge. Peacock, A.  C.  S. (2012), ‘Sufis and the Seljuk Court in Mongol Anatolia: Politics and Patronage in the Works of Jalål Al-­DÈn RËmÈ and Sul†ån Walad’, in A.  C.  S.  Peacock and Sara Nur Yıldız (eds), The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, London: I. B. Tauris, pp. 206–26. Peacock, A. C. S. (2014), ‘The Seljuk Sultanate of RËm and the Turkmen of the Byzantine Frontier, 1206–1279’, Al-Masåq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean, 26, 3: 267–87. Peacock, A.  C.  S. (2015a), ‘An Interfaith Polemic of Medieval Anatolia: Qadi Burhan al-­Din al-­Anawi on the Armenians and their Heresies’, in  A.  C.  S.  Peacock, Bruno De Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız (eds), Islam and  Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 233–62. Peacock, A.  C.  S. (2015b), ‘Advice for the Sultans of Rum: The “Mirrors for Princes” of Early Thirteenth-­ Century Anatolia’, in Bill Hickman, Gary Leiser and A.  C.  S.  Peacock (eds), Turkish Language, Literature, and History: Travelers’ Tales, Sultans, and Scholars Since the Eighth Century, London: Routledge, pp. 276–307. Peacock, A.  C.  S. (2018), ‘Islamisation in the Golden Horde and Anatolia: Some Remarks on Travelling Scholars and Texts’, Revue  des  mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée, 143: 167–80. Peacock, A. C. S. (2019), Islam, Literature and Society in Mongol Anatolia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peacock, A. C. S. (2020), ‘A Seljuk Occult Manuscript and its World: MS. Paris persan 174’, in Sheila Canby, Deniz Beyazit and Martina Rugiadi (eds), The Seljuqs and their Successors: Art, Culture and History, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 163–79. Peacock, A.  C.  S. (forthcoming), ‘Two Royal Almanacs from Late Fourteenth-­Century Anatolia’, in Melanie Gibson and Ali Ansari (eds), Fruit of Knowledge, Wheel of Fate: Essays in Honour of Professor Carole Hillenbrand, London: Gingko Library. Peker, Ali Uzay (1999), ‘The Origins of the Seljukid Double-­Headed Eagle as a Cosmological Symbol’, in François Déroche, Antoinette Harri and Alison Ohta (eds), Art Turc: 10e Congrès international d’art turc: Genève, 17–23 Septembre 1995: actes = Turkish Art: 10th International Congress of Turkish Art: Geneva, 17–23 September 1995: Proceedings, Geneva: Fondation Max van Berchem, pp. 559–66. Pertsch, Wilhelm (1888), Verzeichniss der persischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, Berlin: A. Asher & Co. Pfeiffer, Judith (2015), ‘Mevlevi-­Bektashi Rivalries and the Islamisation of the Public Space in Late Seljuq Anatolia’, in A. C. S. Peacock, Bruno De Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız (eds), Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 311–27. Piemontese, Angelo Michele (1980), ‘Nuova luce su FirdawsÈ: Uno “Šåhnåma”

bibliography

datato 614 H./1217 a Firenze’, Annali dell’Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, 40 (n.s.), 30: 1–38. Planhol, X. de (2012), ‘ÓamÈd, or ÓamÈd Oghulları’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Pourjavady, Nasrollah (2009), ‘Aw˙ad al-­DÈn al-­RåzÈ’, EI3, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Preiser-­Kapeller, Johannes (2015), ‘Liquid Frontiers: A Relational Analysis of Maritime Asia Minor as a Religious Contact Zone in the Thirteenth-­ Fifteenth Centuries’, in A. C. S. Peacock, Bruno De Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız (eds), Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 117–45. Raby, Julian and Zeren Tanındı (1993), Turkish Bookbinding in the 15th Century: The Foundation of an Ottoman Court Style, ed. Tim Stanley, London: Azimuth Editions on behalf of l’Association Internationale de Bibliophilie. Redford, Scott (2005), ‘A Grammar of RËm Seljuk Ornament’, Mésogeios, 25–6: 283–310. Redford, Scott (2013a), ‘The Curtseying Courtier’, unpublished paper presented to A Conference and Workshop in Honour of Gerhard Wolf, Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florenz, Florence, 18 April 2013. Redford, Scott (2013b), ‘Mamålik and MamålÈk: Decorative and Epigraphic Programs of Anatolia Seljuk Citadels’, in Scott Redford and Nina Ergin (eds), Cities and Citadels in Turkey: From the Iron Age to the Seljuks, Leuven; Paris; Walpole, MA: Peeters, pp. 305–46. Redford, Scott (2015), ‘The Rape of Anatolia’, in A.  C.  S.  Peacock, Bruno De Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız (eds), Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 107–16. Redford, Scott and Gary Leiser (2008), Ta∞a yazılan zafer: Antalya içkale surlarındaki Selçuklu feti˙nåmesi = Victory Inscribed: The Seljuk feti˙nåme on the Citadel Walls of Antalya, Turkey, Antalya: Suna-Ònan Kiraç Akdeniz Medeniyetleri Ara∞tırma Enstitüsü. Remler, Philip (1980), ‘Ottoman, Isfendiyarid, and Eretnid Coinage: A Currency Community in Fourteenth-­Century Anatolia’, The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes, 25: 167–88. Remler, Philip (1985), ‘New Light on Economic History from Ilkhanid Accounting Manuals’, Studia Iranica, 14, 2: 157–77. Rice, D. S. (1955), ‘Studies in Islamic ­Metalwork – ­V’, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 17, 2: 206–31. Richard, Francis (1989), Catalogue des manuscrits Persans, I, Ancien Fonds, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Richard, Francis (1997), Splendeurs Persanes: manuscrits du XIIe au XVIIe siècle, Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Ridgeon, Lloyd (2014), ‘Mysticism in Medieval Sufism’, in Lloyd Ridgeon (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Sufism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125–49. Riefstahl, Rudolf M. (1933), ‘A Seljuq Koran Stand with Lacquer Painted Decoration in the Museum of Konya’, The Art Bulletin, 15, 4: 361–73. Rieu, Charles (1895), Supplement to the Catalogue of Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum, London: British Museum. Rogers, J. M. (1976), ‘Waqf and Patronage in Seljuk Anatolia: The Epigraphic Evidence’, Anatolian Studies, 26: 69–103. Rogers, J. M. (2010), The Arts of Islam: Masterpieces from the Khalili Collection, London: Thames and Hudson.

283

284

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Rogers, J. M., Filiz Ça©man and Zeren Tanındı (1986), The Topkapı Saray Museum. The Albums and Illustrated Manuscripts, London: Thames and Hudson. Rosenthal, Franz (1948), ‘AbË Óaiyån al-­Taw˙ÈdÈ on Penmanship’, Ars Islamica, 13: 1–30. Roxburgh, David J. (1998), ‘Disorderly Conduct?: F.  R.  Martin and the Bahram Mirza Album’, Muqarnas, 15: 32–57. Roxburgh, David J. (2000a), ‘The Study of Painting and the Arts of the Book’, Muqarnas, 17: 1–16. Roxburgh, David J. (2000b), ‘Au Bonheur des Amateurs: Collecting and Exhibiting Islamic Art, ca. 1880–1910’, Ars Orientalis, 30: 9–38. Roxburgh, David J. (2005a), The Persian Album, 1400–1600: From Dispersal to Collection, New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Roxburgh, David J. (ed.) (2005b), Turks: A Journey of a Thousand Years, 600–1600, London: Royal Academy of Arts. Safi, Omid (2000), ‘Bargaining with Baraka: Persian Sufism, “Mysticism,” and Pre‐modern Politics’, The Muslim World, 90, 3–4: 259–88. Safwat, Nabil F. (1996), The Art of the Pen: Calligraphy of the 14th to 20th Centuries, London: Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press. Sahin, Tahir Erdo©an (1998), ‘Erzincan’da Mevlevîlik Hareketleri’, in 9. Millî Mevlâna Kongresi, Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi Basımevi, pp. 123– 42. Saliba, George (1987), ‘The Rôle of Maragha in the Development of Islamic Astronomy: A Scientific Revolution before the Renaissance’, Revue de Synthèse, 108, 3: 361–73. Schamiloglu, Uli (2004), ‘The Rise of the Ottoman Empire: The Black Death in Medieval Anatolia and its Impact on Turkish Civilization’, in Neguin Yavari, Lawrence G. Potter and Jean-­Marc Ran Oppenheim (eds), Views from the Edge: Essays in Honor of Richard W. Bulliet, New York: Columbia University Press for the Middle East Institute, Columbia University, pp. 255–79. Scheper, Karin (2015), The Technique of Islamic Bookbinding: Methods, Materials and Regional Varieties, Leiden: Brill. Schick, Òrvin Cemil (2008), ‘The Iconicity of Islamic Calligraphy in Turkey’, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 53–4: 211–24. Schimmel, Annemarie (1989), Islamic Names, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Schimmel, Annemarie (1990), Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, London: I. B. Tauris. Schimmel, Annemarie (1992), ‘Calligraphy and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey’, in Raymond Lifchez (ed.), The Dervish Lodge: Architecture, Art, and Sufism in Ottoman Turkey, Berkeley; Oxford: University of California Press, pp. 242–52. Schmitz, Barbara (1992), Islamic Manuscripts in the New York Public Library, New York: New York Public Library; Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schubert, Gudrun (2012), ‘Sul†ån Walad’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Shukurov, Rustam (1994), ‘Between Peace and Hostility: Trebizond and the Pontic Turkish Periphery in the Fourteenth Century’, Mediterranean Historical Review, 9, 1: 20–72. Shukurov, Rustam (2012), ‘Harem Christianity: The Byzantine Identity of

bibliography

Seljuk Princes’, in A. C. S. Peacock and Sara Nur Yıldız (eds), The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, London: I. B. Tauris, pp. 115–50. Shukurov, Rustam (2016), The Byzantine Turks, 1204–1461, Leiden: Brill. S¸im∞ekler, Nuri (1998), ‘S¸âhidî Òbrâhîm Dede’nin Gül∞en-­i Esrâr’ı, Tenkitli Metin-­Tahlil’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Selçuk Üniversitesi. Sinclair, Thomas A. (2016), ‘Erzurum’, EI3, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Soucek, Priscilla (1998), ‘Armenian and Islamic Manuscript Painting: A Visual Dialogue’, in Thomas F. Mathews and Roger S. Wieck (eds), Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Art, Religion, and Society, New York: Pierpont Morgan Library, pp. 115–31. Soucek, Priscilla (2001), ‘Walter Pater, Bernard Berenson, and the Reception of Persian Manuscript Illustration’, RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, 40: 112–28. Sprenger, Aloys (1854), A Catalogue of the Arabic, Persian and Hindustany Manuscripts of the Libraries of the King of Oudh, Calcutta: J. Thomas at the Baptist Mission Press. Steingass, Francis Joseph (1892), A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary, Including the Arabic Words and Phrases to be met with in Persian Literature, London: Routledge & K. Paul. Sümer, Faruk (1969), ‘Anadolu’da Mo©ollar’, Selçuklu Ara∞tırmalar Dergisi, 1: 1–147. Sümer, Faruk (2001), ‘Karamano©ulları’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Sümer, Faruk (2012), ‘aråmån-­Oghulları’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Tabbaa, Yasser (2001), The Transformation of Islamic Art During the Sunni Revival, Seattle: University of Washington Press. Taheri, Zahra (2013), ‘Women in Rumi’s Spiritual Circle’, The La Trobe Journal, 91: 46–55. Takahashi, Hidemi (2001), ‘Simeon of Qalʿa Rumaita, Patriarch Philoxenus Nemrod and Bar ʿEbroyo’, Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies, 4, 1: 45–91. Takahashi, Hidemi (2014), ‘Barhebraeus’, EI3, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Tanındı, Zeren (1990a), ‘1278 Tarihli En Eski Mesnevi’nin Tezhipleri’, Kültür ve Sanat, 8: 17–22. Tanındı, Zeren (1990b), ‘Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi’nde Ortaça© Òslam Ciltleri’, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Yıllık, 4: 102–49. Tanındı, Zeren (1991), ‘Konya Mevlâna Müzesi’nde 677 ve 665 Yıllık Kur’an’lar Karamanlı Beyli©i’nde Kitap Sanatı’, Kültür ve Sanat, 12: 42–4. Tanındı, Zeren (2000), ‘Seçkin Bir Mevlevî’nin Tezhipli Kitapları’, in Òrvin Cemil Schick (ed.), M. U©ur Derman Arma©anı: Altmı∞be∞inci Ya∞ı Münasebetiyle Sunulmu∞ Tebli©ler = M. U©ur Derman Festschrift: Papers Presented on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, Istanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi Yayınları, pp. 513–36. Tanındı, Zeren (2001), ‘Anadolu Selçuklu Sanatında Tezhip: Müzehhip Muhlis b. Abdullah el-­Hindî ve Halefleri’, in M. Baha Tanman and U∞un Tükel (eds), Arkeoloji ve sanat tarihi ara∞tırmaları: Yıldız Demiriz’e arma©an, Istanbul: Simurg, pp. 141–50. Tanındı, Zeren (2004), ‘Bibliophile Aghas (Eunuchs) at Topkapi Saray’, Muqarnas, 21: 333–43.

285

286

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Tanındı, Zeren (2007), ‘Mevlâna Celâleddin Rûmî’nin ve Sultan Veled’in Konya Mevlâna Müzesindeki Eserlerinin Tezhipli Òlk Örnekleri’, in Mehmed Bayyi©it (ed.), Mevlâna Oca©ı, Konya: Kombassen Vakfı Yayınları, pp. 162–77. Tanındı, Zeren (2012), ‘The Arts of the Book: Patrons and Interactions in Erzincan between 1365 and 1410’, in Deniz Beyazıt (ed. and trans.), At the Crossroads of Empires: 14th–15th Century Eastern Anatolia: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held in Istanbul, 4th–6th May 2007, Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes, pp. 221–38. Tanman, M. Baha and Samih Rifat (2001), Alâeddin’in lambası: Anadolu’da Selçuklu ça©ı sanatı ve Alâeddin Keykubâd, Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık. Tanrıkorur, S. Barihüda (2001a), ‘Karahisar Mevlevîhânesi’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 Feb­ ruary 2019). Tanrıkorur, S. Barihüda (2001b), ‘Karaman Mevlevîhânesi’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 Feb­ ruary 2019). Tekinalp, V. Macit (2009), ‘Palace Churches of the Anatolian Seljuks: Tolerance or Necessity?’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 33, 2: 148–67. Tekinda©, M. Sehabettin (1947), ‘XIII–XV. Asırlarda Cenûbî Anadolu Tarihine Ait Bir Tetkik: Karaman Beyli©i’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Òstanbul Üniversitesi. Tekinda©, M. Sehabettin (1963), ‘Son Osmanlı-­ Karamanlı Münasebetleri Hakkında Ara∞tırmalar’, Tarih Dergisi, 13, 17–18: 43–76. Tekinda©, M. Sehabettin (1979), ‘Konya ve Karaman Kütüphanelerinde Mevcut Karamano©ulları ile Òlgili Yazmalar Üzerinde Çalı∞malar’, Tarih Dergisi, 32: 117–36. Temir, Ahmet (1959), Kır∞ehir emiri Caca O©lu Nur el-Din’in 1272 tarihli Arapça-Mo©olca vakfiyesi, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Tevhid, Ahmed (1910), ‘Rum Selçûkî Devleti’nin Ònkirâzıyla Te∞ekkül Eden Tavâif-­i Mülûk’, Tarih-i Osmani Encümeni Mecmuası, 1, 1: 35–40; 3: 191–9. Tezcan, Baki (2013), ‘The Memory of the Mongols in Early Ottoman Historiography’, in Emine Fetvacı and H. Erdem Çıpa (eds), Writing History at the Ottoman Court: Editing the Past, Fashioning the Future, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 23–38. Thierry, Jean Michel and Patrick Donabédian (1989), Armenian Art, trans. Célestine Dars, New York: H. N. Abrams in association with Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America. Todorova, Rostislava (2013), ‘Visualizing the Divine: Mandorla as a Vision of God in Byzantine Iconography’, IKON Journal of Iconographic Studies, 6: 287–96. Todorova, Rostislava (2016), ‘The Aureole and the Mandorla: Aspects of the Symbol of the Sacral from Ancient Cultures to Christianity’, in Ivo Topalilov and Biser Georgiev (eds), Transition from Late Paganism to Early Christianity in the Architecture and Art in the Balkans, Shumen: Shumen University Press, pp. 199–223. Togan, Zeki Velidi (1941), ‘Die Vorfahren der Osmanen in Mittelasien’, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 95: 367–73. Togan, Zeki Velidi (1964), ‘The Earliest Translation of the Qurʾan into Turkish’, Òslam Tetkikleri Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4, 1: 1–19.

bibliography

Togan, Zeki Velidi (1991), ‘Economic Conditions in Anatolia in the Mongol Period’, trans. Gary Leiser, Annales Islamologiques, 25: 203–40 (originally published in 1941). Trimingham, J. Spencer (1998), The Sufi Orders in Islam, 2nd edn, New York: Oxford University Press. Tulum, Mertol (2000), Tarihî metin çalı∞malarında usul: Menâkıbu’lKudsiyye üzerinde bir deneme, Istanbul: Deniz Kitabevi. Turan, Osman (1947), ‘Semseddin Altun-­Aba Vakfiyyesi ve Hayatı’, Belleten, 11: 197–235. Turan, Osman (1951), ‘Selçuklular zamanında Sivas ∞ehri’, Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Ço©rafya Fakültesi Dergisi, 11, 4: 447–57. Turan, Osman (1958), Türkiye Selçukluları hakkında resmî vesikalar, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Turan, Osman (1977), ‘Anatolia in the Period of the Seljuks and the Beyliks’, in P. M. Holt, Ann K. S. Lambton and Bernard Lewis (eds), The Cambridge History of Islam, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231–62. Turan, Osman (1984), Òstanbul’un fethinden önce yazılmı∞ tarihî takvimler, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Ullmann, M. (2012), ‘al-­ KÈmiyåʾ’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Ünver, A. Süheyl (1948), ‘Selçuklular Zamanında Kütüphaneler Üzerine Yeni Örnekler ve Bazı Mülahazalar’, in III. Türk Tarih Kongresi: Ankara, 15–20 Kasım 1943: Kongreye Sunulan Tebli©ler, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, pp. 642–6. Ünver, A. Süheyl (1970), ‘Anadolu Selçukluları Zamanında Umumi ve Hususi Kütüphaneler’, in Atatürk Konferansları II (1964–1968), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, pp. 3–27. Ünver, A. Süheyl (1975), ‘Anadolu Selçuklu Kitap Süsleri ve Resimleri’, in Atatürk Konferansları V (1971–1972), Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, pp. 75–89. Uyar, Tolga (2015), ‘Thirteenth-­Century “Byzantine” Art in Cappadocia and the Question of Greek Painters at the Seljuq Court’, in A. C. S. Peacock, Bruno De Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız (eds), Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 215–31. Uzluk, Sahabettin (1957), Mevlevilikte Resim, Resimde Mevleviler, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Uzunçar∞ılı, Òsmail Hakkı (1937), Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu Devletleri. Siyasî, idarî fıkrî, iktisadî, hayat; ilmî ve ictimaî muesseseler; halk ve toprak, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Uzunçar∞ılı, Òsmail Hakkı (1947), Osmanlı Tarihi, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Uzunçar∞ılı, Òsmail Hakkı (1984), Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu Devletleri, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Uzunçar∞ılı, Òsmail Hakkı (2012), ‘Ashraf Oghulları’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Varlık, Mustafa Çetin (1974), Germiyan-o©ulları tarihi (1300–1429), Ankara: Atatürk Üniversitesi Yayınları. Varlık, Nükhet (2015), Plague and Empire in the Early Modern Mediterranean World: The Ottoman Experience, 1347–1600, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vernoit, Stephen (1989), ‘Collectors and Connoisseurs of Islamic Calligraphy and Painting: A Study of Acquisition and the Formation of Cultural Identities through Art’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Oxford.

287

288

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Vernoit, Stephen (2000), ‘Islamic Art and Architecture: An Overview of Scholarship and Collecting, c.  1850–c.  1950’, in Stephen Vernoit (ed.), Discovering Islamic Art: Scholars, Collectors, and Collections: 1850– 1950, London: I. B. Tauris, pp. 1–61. Vryonis, Speros (1971), The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century, Berkeley; London: University of California Press. Waley, Muhammad Isa (2015), ‘The Inevitable Journey: Text, Translation, and Notes on the Seventeenth TarjÈʿ-band of Jalål al-­DÈn RËmÈ’, Mawlana Rumi Review, 6: 67–82. Walker, Paul Ernest (1993), Early Philosophical Shiism: The Ismaili Neoplatonism of AbË YaʿqËb al-SijistånÈ, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weisweiler, Max (1962), Der islamische Bucheinband des Mittelalters: nach Handschriften aus deutschen, holländischen und türkischen Bibliotheken, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Wensinck, A. J. (2012), ‘Khådim’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Wing, Patrick (2016), The Jalayirids: Dynastic State Formation in the Mongol Middle East, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Wittek, Paul (1934), Das Fürstentum Mentesche: Studie zur Geschichte Westkleinasiens im 13.–15. Jh, Istanbul: Universum druckerei. Wittek, Paul (1936), ‘Deux chapitres de l’histoire des Turcs de Roum’, Byzantion, 11, 1: 285–319. Wolper, Ethel Sara (2000), ‘Princess Safwat al-­Dunyå wa al-­DÈn and the Production of Sufi Buildings and Hagiographics in Pre-­Ottoman Anatolia’, in D. Fairchild Ruggles (ed.), Women, Patronage, and Self-Representation in Islamic Societies, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, pp. 35–52. Wolper, Ethel Sara (2003), Cities and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Space in Medieval Anatolia, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Wright, Elaine (2006), ‘Patronage of the Arts of the Book under the Injuids of Shiraz’, in Linda Komaroff (ed.), Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, Leiden: Brill, pp. 248–68. Wright, Elaine (2009), Islam: Faith, Art, Culture: Manuscripts of the Chester Beatty Library, London: Scala. Wright, Elaine (2012), The Look of the Book: Manuscript Production in Shiraz, 1303–1452, Washington, DC: The Freer Gallery of Art; University of Washington Press; Chester Beatty Library. Yalman, Suzan (2011), ‘Building the Sultanate of Rum: Memory, Urbanism, and Mysticism in the Architectural Patronage of ʿAla al-­Din Kaykubad (r. 1220–1237)’, unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University. Yalman, Suzan (2012), ‘ʿAla al-­Din Kaykubad Illuminated: A Rum Seljuq Sultan as Cosmic Ruler’, Muqarnas, 29: 151–86. Yıldız, Sara Nur (2006), ‘Mongol Rule in Thirteenth-­Century Seljuk Anatolia: The Politics of Conquest and History Writing, 1243–1282’, unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Yıldız, Sara Nur (2010), ‘Sikârî’, TDVIA, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Yıldız, Sara Nur (2011), ‘Manuel Komnenos Mavrozomes and His Descendants at the Seljuk Court: The Formation of a Christian Seljuk-­ Komnenian Elite’, in Stefan Leder (ed.), Crossroads between Latin Europe

bibliography

and the Near East: Corollaries of the Frankish Presence in the Eastern Mediterranean (12th–14th Centuries), Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, pp. 55–77. Yıldız, Sara Nur (2012a), ‘Karamano©lu Mehmed Bey: Medieval Anatolian Warlord or Kemalist Language Reformer? Nationalist Historiography, Language Politics and the Celebration of the Language Festival in Karaman, Turkey, 1961–2008’, in Jorgen Nielsen (ed.), Religion, Ethnicity and Contested Nationhood in the Former Ottoman Space, Leiden: Brill, pp. 147–72. Yıldız, Sara Nur (2012b), ‘Post-­Mongol Pastoral Polities in Eastern Anatolia in the Late Middle Ages’, in Deniz Beyazıt (ed.), At the Crossroads of Empires: 14th–15th Century Eastern Anatolia: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held in Istanbul, 4th–6th May 2007, Istanbul: Institut français d’études anatoliennes, pp. 27–48. Yıldız, Sara Nur (2013), ‘The Rise and Fall of a Tyrant in Seljuq Anatolia: Sa‘d al-­ Din Köpek’s Reign of Terror, 1237–8’, in Robert Hillenbrand, A.  C.  S.  Peacock and Firuza Abdullaeva (eds), Ferdowsi, the Mongols and the History of Iran: Art, Literature and Culture from Early Islam to Qajar Persia: Studies in Honour of Charles Melville, London: I. B. Tauris, pp. 92–101. Yıldız, Sara Nur (2016), ‘Aydınid Court Literature in the Formation of an Islamic Identity in Fourteenth-­ Century Western Anatolia’, in A.  C.  S.  Peacock and Sara Nur Yıldız (eds), Islamic Literature and Intellectual Life in Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Anatolia, Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, pp. 197–242. Yinanç, Refet (1989), Dulkadir Beyli©i, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Yücel, Ya∞ar (1980), XIII–XV. yüzyıllar kuzey-batı Anadolu tarihi Çobano©ulları, Candar-o©ulları beylikleri, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Yücel, Ya∞ar (1989), Anadolu beylikleri hakkında ara∞tırmalar: Eretna devleti, Kadı Burhaneddin Ahmed ve devleti, Mutahharten ve Erzincan emirli©i, Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi. Yürekli, Zeynep (2012), Architecture and Hagiography in the Ottoman Empire: The Politics of Bektashi Shrines in the Classical Age, Farnham: Ashgate. Yürekli, Zeynep (2017), ‘Architectural Patronage and the Rise of the Ottomans’, in Finbarr Barry Flood and Gülru Necipo©lu (eds), A Companion to Islamic Art and Architecture, Vol. 1, 2 vols, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 733–54. Yürekli-­ Görkay, Zeynep (2011), ‘Afyonkarahisar’, EI3, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Zachariadou, Elizabeth A. (2012), ‘Udj’, EI2, (last accessed 28 February 2019). Zavagno, Luca and Humberto De Luigi (2019), ‘“Rota Fortunae”: 13th–14th Century Venetian Interactions with the Seljuk Sultanate, the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and the Aegean Beyliks’, in Filiz Yeni∞ehirlio©lu (ed.), Cultural Encounters in Anatolia in the Medieval Period: The Italians in Anatolia during 12th–15th Centuries, Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi Yayınları, pp. 153–66.

289

Illustration Acknowledgements

Maps 1–3 Edinburgh University Press. 1.1, 1.3, 1.8–1.20, 1.32, 2.4–2.13, 2.16–2.18, 2.23–2.24, 2.26–2.40, 4.1–4.4, 4.12–4.34, 4.40–4.41, A.3, A.8–A.13, A.15–A.17 Cailah Jackson, with permission from the Mevlana Müzesi, Konya. 1.2, 1.4–1.7, 1.25, A.1–A.2 © The Trustees of the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. 1.21, 4.36 The Nasser D. Khalili Collection of Islamic Art. 1.22–1.23, 2.15 Topkapı Palace Museum, Istanbul. 1.24, 3.4, 3.7, 4.37, 4.42 Cailah Jackson. 1.26–1.27 Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC: Purchase – Smithsonian Unrestricted Trust Funds, Smithsonian Collections Acquisition Program, and Dr. Arthur M. Sackler. 1.28 The Morgan Library & Museum, New York.

illustration acknowledgements

1.29–1.30, 1.33–1.35, 2.1–2.3, 2.19–2.20, 2.41–2.42, 3.1–3.3, 3.5–3.6, 4.39, 4.43–4.44, A.4–A.5, A.7, A.14 Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Ba∞kanlı©ı, Süleymaniye Yazma Eser Kütüphanesi. 1.31 Mevlana Müzesi, Konya. 1.36, 2.21–2.22, 2.25, A.6 Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. 2.14 Cailah Jackson, with permission from the Ònce Minareli Medrese Ta∞ ve Ah∞ap Eserleri Müzesi, Konya. 2.43 Courtesy of Sam Fogg, London. 4.4–4.11 Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Vienna. 4.35 Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC: Lent by Mr and Mrs Farhad Ebrahimi. 4.38  Universitaire Bibliotheken Leiden (used under the Creative Commons CC-BY licence).

291

Index

Note: Individuals usually referred to in the text, or known in scholarship, by their nisbas (e.g. JuwaynÈ) or nasabs (e.g. Ibn BÈbÈ) are listed thusly in the index. Other medieval names are listed according to kunya (e.g. Shams al-DÈn) or ism (e.g. Mu˙ammad). Page numbers in italics refer to figures. Abaqa (Ilkhanid ruler), 23–4, 57, 59 ʿAbd al-Muʾmin ibn Mu˙ammad al-Naqqåsh al-KhËyÈ (painter), 21n75 ʿAbd al-Salåm ibn Turkmån ibn ÊËghånshåh al-QËnawÈ (scribe), 129, 160 AbË al-Ma˙åmid Mu˙ammad ibn Ma˙mËd ibn al-ÓåjjÈ also known as ÓamÈd al-MukhlißÈ al-BukhårÈ (scribe), 166n52 AbË Bakr al-MujallidÈ al-MawlawÈ al-ÓamawÈ (binder), 174, 175, 210, 258; see also DÈvån-i KabÈr (1368) AbË ÓamÈd/Óåmid ibn Mu˙ammad ibn al-NaqÈb al-MawlawÈ (scribe), 143n66 AbË SaʿÈd (Ilkhanid ruler), 4, 17, 83, 128, 169, 219n4, 223n95 advice literature, 1, 136, 150, 158, 163, 228; see also mirrors for princes AflåkÈ, Shams al-DÈn A˙mad (hagiographer), 7, 15, 53, 64–8, 79n132, 84, 125–6, 128–9, 133–5, 137, 150, 160, 212; see also Manåqib al-ʿÅrifÈn Afyonkarahisar, 5, 23, 63, 84, 140n2 A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad al-Kåtib also known as Ibn al-Nassåj al-MawlawÈ al-A˙adÈ (scribe), 106,

130–1, 228, 251–2, 252; see also Mas-navÈ-i ValadÈ (pre-1332) A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad al-Mutafaqqih (scribe), 208 A˙mad ibn ʿUthmån (scribe), 165n24 A˙mad ibn WalÈ al-ShÈråzÈ (scribe), 20n46 AkhÈ Mu߆afå (official), 83, 134 akhÈs, 7, 16, 18n24, 149, 162, 169–70, 219n17 AkhÈ YËsuf (manuscript owner), 219n17 Aksaray, 14, 23, 70, 130, 160, 169 Ak∞ehir, 23, 63, 73n21, 162 ʿAlåʾ al-DÈn ʿAlÈ (Eretnid ruler), 169–70 ʿAlåʾ al-DÈn ibn KhalÈl (Qaramanid patron), 22n94, 168n91, 169, 206, 207 Alanya, 5, 82, 86, 102, 243 alchemy, 65, 86 ʿAlÈ ibn Mu˙ammad al-ÓåfiΩ al-AqsaråyÈ al-MawlawÈ (scribe), 145n100 ʿAlÈ ibn MËså al-SulaymånÈ (scribe), 129 almanacs see taqwÈms Amasya, 5, 84, 160, 169–70, 227 al-ÅmidÈ, IbråhÈm (illuminator), 47, 227 AmÈn al-DÈn MåniyËl (scribe), 69, 81n172

293

index

AmÈn al-DÈn MÈkåʾÈl (Seljuk official), 23–4, 68, 212 AnÈs al-QulËb, 12 Ankara, 18n2, 142n54, 160, 169, 219n17 Antalya, 5, 130, 148–9, 153, 156, 158–9, 161–4, 165n36, 167n77, 168n92 al-AqsaråyÈ, KarÈm al-DÈn Ma˙mËd ibn Mu˙ammad (historian), 15, 64, 159; see also Musåmarat al-Akhbår va Musåyarat al-Akhyår ʿArab NËyan (Ilkhanid official), 66, 84, 128 architects, 67, 68, 141n23, 210; see also individually listed architects architecture, 2, 8, 11, 13, 19n35, 56, 73n20, 78n128, 137, 170 patronage of, 52, 57, 77n87, 135 surface decoration of, 46, 46, 203 Armenians, 5, 6, 68, 80n167, 81n173, 160, 161, 170, 217, 229 architecture in RËm, 210 Cilician Armenia, 4–5, 169, 221n53 manuscripts/manuscript production, 16, 52, 177, 208, 210, 218, 220n36 see also KalËk ibn ʿAbdallåh (architect) Arnold, Thomas Walker, 13 ʿÅshiq Påshå (poet), 8, 166 Ashrafids, 24–5, 82–6, 134, 136, 140n2, 159, 229; see also Bey∞ehir; E∞refo©lu Camii (Bey∞ehir); al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya fÈ-l-Qawåʿid al-Burhåniyya wa-lKashfiyya (1311); Mubåriz al-DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn Sulaymån (Ashrafid patron) Aslanapa, Oktay, 11 al-AstaråbådÈ, ʿAzÈz ibn ArdashÈr (historian), 15 astrologers (munajjims)/astrology, 14, 58, 70, 213 astronomers (falakÈs)/astronomy, 10, 81n176, 85, 240 al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya fÈ-l-UmËr al-ʿAlåʾiyya (c. 1282), 14, 16, 25, 57–8, 61–3, 66, 71, 238–9 calligraphy, 59, 238, 239 codicology, 238–9 illumination, 59, 60, 61–2, 61, 238 see also Ibn BÈbÈ (historian); IbråhÈm ibn IsmåʿÈl ibn AbÈ Bakr al-QayßarÈ (scribe); JuwaynÈ, ʿAlåʾ al-DÈn ʿA†å-Malik (Ilkhanid

official); Kaykhusraw III, Ghiyåth al-DÈn (Seljuk ruler) Aydinids, 66, 148, 161 ʿAyn al-Dawla al-RËmÈ (painter), 10, 67–8, 80 BåbåʾÈ revolt, 1, 23 båbås, 8, 159 Badr al-DÈn IbråhÈm ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (Qaramanid patron), 86, 104, 105, 135, 136, 243; see also al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya (1228) Badr al-DÈn-i Gawhar Tåsh-i Dizdår (Seljuk official), 64 Badr al-DÈn-i TabrÈzÈ (architect), 67 Badr al-DÈn Mu˙ammad al-TustarÈ (scholar/scribe), 85, 131, 240; see also al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya fÈ-lQawåʿid al-Burhåniyya wa-lKashfiyya (1311) Badr al-DÈn Yawåsh-i Naqqåsh al-MawlawÈ (painter), 67 Baghdad, 3, 14, 25, 57, 62–3, 64, 71, 78n99, 133, 150, 162, 210, 211, 213, 215–16, 218, 224n113 manuscripts/manuscript production, 50, 99, 100, 133, 196, 203, 228 Bahåʾ al-DÈn Walad (father of Jalål al-DÈn RËmÈ), 6–7, 64 Barhebraeus (Syriac scholar), 69, 81n176, 81n178 BåyazÈd I (Ottoman ruler), 1, 219n5 BåyazÈd II (Ottoman ruler), 240, 255 Baybars (Mamluk ruler), 23–4 Bayburt, 169, 215, 218 Bazm u Razm, 15, 212, 224n96; see also al-AstaråbådÈ, ʿAzÈz ibn ArdashÈr (historian) Bey∞ehir, 23, 24, 85, 92, 129–30, 134, 146n105, 229; see also Ashrafids; E∞refo©lu Camii (Bey∞ehir) beyliks, 2, 11, 137–9, 217, 229; see also Turcomans Bibles, 50, 51, 210 birds, 117, 125; see also doubleheaded eagles Black Death see plague Black Sea, 5, 130, 161 trade routes, 83, 128, 162 Blessing, Patricia, 6, 25, 64 bookbinders, 100, 130, 132, 174, 210, 247, 258; see also individually listed binders bookbindings, 12, 13, 101–2, 103, 104, 142n50, 172, 174, 175, 223n90,

294

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

bookbindings (cont.) 231, 234, 238–40, 242–7, 251, 253–5, 257–9, 262 book stand, 53, 55, 56, 66, 77n89, 133 Bost (Lashkargah), 59, 141n39, 194 bubonic plague see plague Bursa, 5, 130, 148, 227 Byzantines, 3–4, 5, 50–2, 68, 70, 80n165, 83, 161, 169; see also Trebizond Cairo, 6, 63, 64, 84 manuscripts/manuscript production, 3, 47, 50, 74n40, 79n132, 99, 100, 131, 133, 145n95, 196, 203 calligraphers see scribes calligraphy, 3, 13, 19n35, 21n67, 21n68, 27–9, 42–5, 49, 54, 60, 61, 62, 69, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97–100, 99, 102, 105, 107, 108–10, 109, 112, 114, 115, 117, 123, 124, 127, 130, 130, 131, 133, 151, 152, 154, 173, 176, 178, 180, 181, 183–92, 194, 195, 197–205, 207, 209, 214, 227, 232, 233, 235, 239, 241, 245–50, 250; see also individually listed scribes and scripts caravanserais, 5–6, 25, 73n20, 161, 210 cartouches, inscribed, 54, 60, 188, 192, 194, 195, 203, 205, 207, 209, 214 multilobed, 29, 43, 43, 48, 49, 59, 61, 71, 94, 97, 180, 187, 198–202 pointed oval, 44, 45, 188, 232 Chinese art and materials, 26, 12, 196 ChingÈz Khån/Chingizids, 213, 215–16, 218 Christians/Christianity, 4, 9, 17, 25, 62, 64, 67–8, 80n150, 80n158, 81n173, 162, 167n67, 226, 229 art, 50–2, 70, 71–2 see also Armenians; Byzantines; Coptic manuscripts; Greek; Italians; monks and monasteries; Syriac Christians ChËbån Suldus (Ilkhanid official), 15, 82, 83, 85, 134 Çifte Minareli Medrese (Sivas), 57, 59, 125, 128, 143n65, 245, 246 circle-and-pointed-oval borders, 30, 37, 43, 47, 48, 49, 71, 117, 121, 132, 227 codicology, 12, 226, 231–65

coins/coinage, 5, 13, 24, 56, 63, 128, 148, 169, 170, 174, 211, 219n9, 222n77, 251 colophons, 12, 16, 63, 69, 74n28, 77n86, 81n173, 90, 98, 99, 128, 136, 143n63, 145n101, 151, 153, 155, 177, 181, 191, 232, 232, 234, 235, 239, 239, 241, 241, 242, 244, 245, 246, 246, 249, 250, 250, 254, 255, 256, 258, 259, 259, 263, 263 Constantinople, 5, 68, 162; see also Istanbul Coptic manuscripts, 145n95, 196, 220n36 craftsmen networks, 3, 101, 132, 135, 149, 218, 227, 230; see also Konya – ‘school’ of illumination nisbas, 57, 71, 131, 132, 133, 174, 228 see also individually listed craftsmen; mobility of craftsmen and scholars; workshops Crimea, 5, 84, 141n26, 162 Cyprus, 4, 161, 162, 168n92 Damascus, 6, 7, 16, 24, 58, 63, 84, 133, 144n74, 162, 171, 172, 174, 220n26, 261 Danishmandids, 4, 5, 82 Daqåʾiq al-Óaqåʾiq, 14, 70, 70; see also NåßirÈ (occultist) dedications, illuminated, 53, 59, 60, 62, 66, 69, 69, 86, 88, 89, 90, 98, 99, 150, 151, 152, 155, 158, 172, 173, 177, 178, 189, 204, 207, 210, 211, 215, 233, 233, 239, 240–1, 242–3, 254, 255–6, 257–8, 260, 262–3 Denizli see Ladik dervishes, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 19n26, 25, 63, 65, 66, 80n150, 149, 170, 211, 230; see also Mevlevis; Qalandars; Sufis dhikr see Mevlevis – samåʿ DÈvån-i ValadÈ, 143n63, 208, 209, 213, 220n34, 221n62; see also Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi leader) DÈvån-i KabÈr, 20n46, 129, 130, 131, 136, 144n87, 144n94, 146n102; see also RËmÈ, Jalål al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi patron saint) DÈvån-i KabÈr (1368), 17, 171, 210–11, 217–18, 220n27 binding (vol. 2), 172, 174, 174, 175, 259

295

index

calligraphy, 174–5, 176, 187, 258, 259 codicology, 171–2, 258–9 illumination, 173, 175, 177, 185–95, 189, 191, 193–4, 196, 203–4, 206, 208 see also AbË Bakr al-MujallidÈ al-MawlawÈ al-ÓamawÈ (binder); Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-MawlawÈ (scribe); Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1372); Mas-navÈ-i ValadÈ (1366); Sharaf al-DÈn SåtÈ ibn Óusåm al-DÈn Óasan al-MawlawÈ (patron) double-headed eagles, 56, 56, 77n91, 77n93; see also birds E©irdir, 5, 148–9, 156, 159 Elbistan, 5, 24 Emir Sinaneddin Medresesi (Òstanos), 158, 168n91; see also Sinån al-DÈn Khi∂r ibn YËnus (Hamidid prince) Eretna (ruler in eastern RËm), 83, 148, 169, 219n4, 224n104 Eretnids, 4, 15, 169, 170, 212, 215, 219n1 Ermenek, 84, 135–6, 141n21 Erzincan, 5, 17, 150, 160, 165n24, 169–72, 206, 208, 210–11, 213, 215–18, 220n31, 223n94, 224n96, 256, 258, 261, 262, 265 Armenians, 64, 177, 208, 210 Mevlevis, 208, 223n90; see also Sharaf al-DÈn SåtÈ ibn Óusåm al-DÈn Óasan al-MawlawÈ (patron) E∞refids see Ashrafids E∞refo©lu Camii (Bey∞ehir), 85, 92, 101 eunuchs see khådims Fakhr al-DÈn ʿAlÈ (Seljuk official), 23, 57, 63, 67, 82, 135, 140n2 architectural patronage, 68, 73n21, 210 manuscript patronage, 53, 54, 77n86 retinue/slaves, 25, 52–3, 62, 66, 71–2, 76n85, 229, 233, 237–8 Falak al-DÈn Dundår (Hamidid prince), 83, 140n2, 156, 157 FarrËkh ibn ʿAbd al-La†Èf al-Kåtib al-YåqËtÈ al-MawlawÈ (scribe), 145n99 FÈhi Må FÈhi, 211, 213; see also RËmÈ, Jalål al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi patron saint) finispieces/frontispieces, full-page (without text), 29, 30, 30, 37–41, 44, 47, 48, 49, 65, 73n25, 74n41,

90, 92, 93, 96, 99, 112, 116–17, 121–2, 155, 177, 179, 186, 189, 197, 205, 207, 209 fiqh, 9, 85, 165n31, 208 frontier, 6, 16, 25, 64, 149, 155, 163, 167n67, 217, 226; see also Ëj historiography, 10–11, 90, 137, 139, 159–61 al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya fÈ-l-Qawåʿid al-Burhåniyya wa-l-Kashfiyya (1311), 17, 84–5, 90, 129–30, 131, 134, 136, 229, 240–1 calligraphy, 86, 88, 241 codicology, 240 illumination, 86, 87, 88, 99, 102, 112 see also Badr al-DÈn Mu˙ammad al-TustarÈ (scholar/scribe); Mubåriz al-DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn Sulaymån (Ashrafid patron) Garmiyanids, 25, 82, 135, 140n2, 160 Gawharshåd (scribe), 222n80, 223n90 geometric patterns and polygons, illuminated, 44, 92, 96, 120, 122, 177, 186, 189, 189–92, 193, 194, 196, 197, 209 Ghåzån (Ilkhanid ruler), 15, 83 Ghiyåth al-DÈn ʿAbd al-Ra˙Èm ibn YËnus (Hamidid patron), 150, 152, 156, 157, 254; see also Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd min al-Mabdåʾ ilå-l-Maʿåd (1351) Ghiyåth al-DÈn AkhÈ Ayna Bey (ruler in eastern RËm), 215, 224n96 Gök Medrese (Sivas), 68, 73n21, 144n79 Gök Medrese (Tokat), 126, 128 Gorgorum, 23, 85, 140n2 Greek, 102 Christians, 5, 6, 10, 19n43, 57, 68, 81n172, 170, 217, 229 language, 5, 106 GurjÈ KhåtËn (noblewoman), 66, 67–8, 80n157, 80n158, 128 Hamidids, 83, 140n2, 148–9, 156, 157, 160, 164n3 manuscript patronage, 17, 149–50, 158–9 see also individually listed princes; Antalya; E©irdir; Emir Sinaneddin Medresesi (Òstanos); Òstanos (Korkuteli) ÓanafÈs, 6, 7, 25, 85, 211, 237; see also madhhab Harput, 68, 129

296

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Óasan ibn ʿAlÈ al-MawlawÈ (metalworker), 57 Óasan ibn ChËbån ibn ʿAbdallåh al-QËnawÈ (scribe), 26, 52, 57, 231, 232; see also Qur’an (1278) Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-MawlawÈ (scribe), 143n63, 174, 181, 210, 220n32, 257–8, 259, 262–3, 263; see also DÈvån-i KabÈr (1368); Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1372); Mas-navÈ-i ValadÈ (1366) Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-WaladÈ al-MawlawÈ al-QËnawÈ (scribe), 143n63, 220n34 headpieces/tailpieces, 26–7, 30, 43, 45, 54, 59, 60, 61, 61, 69, 69, 74n41, 77n86, 90, 99, 112, 116, 117, 126, 127, 130, 155, 177, 188, 189, 192, 203, 209, 213, 214, 221n49; see also sËra headings; upper and lower panels, illuminated Óusåm al-DÈn ChalabÈ (Mevlevi leader), 7, 19n27, 26, 106, 141n24, 223n85, 236 Óusåm al-DÈn Óusayn al-MawlawÈ (Mevlevi disciple), 213 Óusayn ibn Óasan also known as Óusåm al-FaqÈr al-MawlawÈ (scribe), 219n17 al-Óusayn ibn Mu˙ammad al-ÓusaynÈ (scribe), 221n57 Óusayn ibn ʿUthmån al-MawlawÈ (scribe), 143n63 ibn ʿAbdallåh patronymic, 53, 57, 106, 130 Ibn al-ʿArabÈ (scholar), 6, 68, 150 Ibn Ba††Ë†a (traveller), 5, 9, 16, 18n24, 66, 128, 135, 148–9, 156, 161–2, 167n79, 169–70, 219n4, 223n94 Ibn BÈbÈ (historian), 14, 16, 25, 57–9, 72, 149–50, 159, 161, 228, 238; see also al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya fÈ-l-UmËr al-ʿAlåʾiyya (c. 1282) Ibn SÈnå (scholar), 65, 68–9, 81n172, 81n176, 81n177, 85; see also Kitåb al-Shifåʾ IbråhÈm al-Mutaßawwif al-ShirwånÈ (scribe), 129 IbråhÈm ibn ʿIlaysh ibn [. . .]mad ibn al-Jumʿa al-Mustaʿßim al-BaghdådÈ also known as Ibn [. . .]åb Îiyåʾ al-ÓåfiΩ al-ShukrÈ alMustaʿßimÈ al-ʿAbbåsÈ (scribe), 131 IbråhÈm ibn IsmåʿÈl ibn AbÈ Bakr al-QayßarÈ (scribe), 59, 238–9, 239;

see also al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya fÈ-l-UmËr al-ʿAlåʾiyya (c. 1282) IbråhÈm ibn NazkarÈ (scribe), 146n105 IbråhÈm ibn Shaʿbån (scribe), 142n54 IbråhÈm ibn Sulaymån (Jandarid patron), 130, 136; see also Jandarids Ibtidånåma, 15, 63, 106, 145n101; see also Intihånåma; Mas-navÈ-i ValadÈ; Rabåbnåma; Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi leader) Ilkhanids, 58–9, 76n82, 81n173, 128, 135, 138, 140n7, 140n10, 215, 223n95 bookbinding, 101 calligraphy, 48, 50, 62, 74n32, 90, 99–100, 126, 175, 227 collapse and successor states, 4, 77n96, 78n113, 148, 161, 169, 218 conquest of and rule over RËm, 5, 10, 15, 16, 23–4, 52, 57, 72, 73n15, 82–3, 86, 148, 160, 170, 229 illumination, 47–8, 62, 71, 77n86, 99–100, 102, 112, 136, 139, 155, 163, 193 194, 196, 203, 204, 206 208, 217, 227 manuscript patronage, 14, 17, 25, 62–3, 71, 84, 132, 135, 147n127, 228 paper, 172 silver pigment, 220n36 see also individually listed Ilkhanid cities, rulers and officials illumination, 13, 14, 86, 90, 126, 142n50, 155, 177, 189, 193, 206, 208, 211, 216, 217–18, 221n62 execution, 29, 71, 112 Ilkhanid, 47–8, 62, 71, 77n86, 99–100, 102, 112, 136, 139, 155, 163, 193, 194, 196, 203, 204, 206, 208, 217, 227 Injuid, 59, 194, 196, 205, 208, 217 Jalayirid, 194, 196, 216 Konya, 3, 12, 17, 27–43, 29–30, 43–4, 46–8, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65–6, 71, 78n98, 84, 87, 88, 90, 91–100, 92, 99, 102, 104, 105, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113–25, 116–17, 130, 132–4, 138, 139, 159, 196, 217, 221n54, 227–8 Mamluk, 47, 47, 74n40, 99, 100, 112, 139, 155, 163, 193, 194, 196, 204, 205, 206, 208, 213, 217, 227

297

index

medieval Persian and Central Asian, 44, 44, 45, 46, 50, 59, 74n44, 141n39, 194, 204, 226 Muzaffarid, 194, 196 programmes, 52, 116, 133 Timurid, 194, 196 see also elements and motifs; pigments/palettes illuminators, 46, 131–2, 139, 229; see also individually listed artists illustrated manuscripts, 13, 21n67, 21n75, 50–1, 70, 100, 132, 215; see also Daqåʾiq al-Óaqåʾiq; taqwÈms; TårÈkh-i ChingÈz Khån; Varqa va Gulshåh Ònce Minareli Medrese (Konya), 46, 68, 73n21 Injuids, 4, 169 illumination, 59, 194, 196, 205, 208, 217 ink, 12, 20n59, 48, 90, 107, 109, 116, 126, 155, 172, 175, 231, 234, 238, 240, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 251, 253, 255, 257, 258, 262 intellectual circles, 2, 7, 9, 11, 17, 20n48, 25, 62, 63, 64, 67, 70, 83–4, 130, 136, 149, 150, 160, 170; see also Sufis; ʿulamåʾ Intihånåma, 106; see also Ibtidånåma; Mas-navÈ-i ValadÈ; Rabåbnåma; Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi leader) Intihånåma (1314), 17, 104, 106, 130, 133, 134, 138, 145n101, 220n32, 244–5 calligraphy, 107, 107, 109, 245 codicology, 244 illumination, 59, 108, 109, 111, 112, 134 see also Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1323); Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi leader); ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh (scribe) ʿÏså ibn Zakariyyåʾ (Hamidid patron), 150, 151, 156, 157, 166n38, 253–4; see also Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd min al-Mabdåʾ ilå-l-Maʿåd (1349) IsmåʿÈl ibn Sulaymån al-ÓåfiΩ al-QayßarÈ (scribe), 76n85 IsmåʿÈl ibn YËsuf (scribe), 77n86, 86, 98, 131, 241–3; see also Qur’an (1314–15) ʿIßmat al-DÈn Khwand(i)går KhåtËn bint AkhÈʿÈ Bey (Jalayirid princess), 215–16

Istanbul, 51, 63, 227; see also Constantinople Òstanos (Korkuteli), 1, 17, 149, 153, 156, 158, 161–4, 166n43, 168n91, 168n92, 227, 253, 254; see also Hamidids Italians, 16 merchants, 5, 16, 68, 161, 162, 167n79 watermarked paper, 153, 160–1, 164 Òznik (Nicaea), 10, 50, 83, 165 ʿIzz al-DÈn al-Kha††å† al-SåwajÈ (scribe), 142n50 Jalål al-DÈn ArghËn ChalabÈ (Mevlevi disciple), 141n25 Jalål al-DÈn Ma˙mËd-i MustawfÈ (Seljuk official), 212 Jalål al-DÈn Mu˙ammad-i Munajjim (Mevlevi disciple), 213 Jalål al-DÈn Qarå†åy (Seljuk official), 25, 66, 68 Jalayirids, 4, 148, 169 illumination, 194–5, 216, 221n41, 224n115 patronage of Sharaf al-DÈn SåtÈ ibn Óasan, 211, 216–18 see also ʿIßmat al-DÈn Khwand(i)går KhåtËn bint AkhÈʿÈ Bey (Jalayirid princess); Shaykh ʿAlÈ (Jalayirid prince); TårÈkh-i ChingÈz Khån Jamål al-DÈn Mubårak ibn ʿAbdallåh al-Íå˙ibÈ (patron), 52–3, 55, 57, 76n76, 133, 156, 234, 235, 237–8; see also Fakhr al-DÈn ʿAlÈ (Seljuk official); Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1278) Jåmiʿ al-TavårÈkh, 171, 215; see also RashÈd al-DÈn HamadånÈ (Ilkhanid official) Jandarids, 130, 136, 144n92, 215; see also IbråhÈm ibn Sulaymån (Jandarid patron); Kastamonu the Jazira (Diyår Bakr), 5, 59, 74n44, 160, 169 Jewish communities, 80n163, 161, 162, 167n79 JuwaynÈ, ʿAlåʾ al-DÈn ʿA†å-Malik (Ilkhanid official), 14, 25, 57–9, 63, 66, 71, 72, 125, 228, 229, 238; see also al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya fÈ-l-UmËr al-ʿAlåʾiyya (c. 1282) JuwaynÈ, Shams al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Ilkhanid official), 24, 57–9, 66, 125, 128, 228, 229; see also Çifte Minareli Medrese (Sivas) juzʾs see Qur’ans and Qur’an juzʾs

298

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

kadkhudå, 53, 76n82, 233 KalÈla wa-Dimna, 131–2, 158, 203 KalËk ibn ʿAbdallåh (architect), 68, 210 KålËyån, 67, 68, 80n168 Karaman see Larende Karamanids see Qaramanids Kastamonu, 5, 64, 75n63, 140n2, 160 KaykåwËs II, ʿIzz al-DÈn (Seljuk ruler), 18n23, 23, 66, 158 Kaykhusraw III, Ghiyåth al-DÈn (Seljuk ruler), 14, 24, 59, 60, 62, 66, 70, 238; see also al-Avåmir al-ʿAlåʾiyya fÈ-l-UmËr al-ʿAlåʾiyya (c. 1282); Daqåʾiq al-Óaqåʾiq Kayqubåd I, ʿAlåʾ al-DÈn (Seljuk ruler), 14, 26, 56, 58, 64, 89 legacy, 66, 136, 159, 163, 228 illuminated manuscripts, 86, 89, 102, 135 scholarship dedicated to, 86, 102, 135, 149–50, 158 see also al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya (1228) Kayseri, 5, 14, 24, 59, 70, 71, 73n21, 78n97, 80n170, 82, 129, 150, 160, 165n30, 169, 170, 212, 224n104, 240 khådims, 53, 56 KhalÈl Bahådur (Turcoman prince), 82, 135 KhalÈl ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (Qaramanid patron), 86, 98, 135, 136–7, 141n21, 136, 229, 241–3; see also Qur’an (1314–15) khånqåhs, 7, 63, 129 Kır∞ehir, 76n77, 84 Kitåb al-Shifåʾ, 68, 69, 81n178; see also Ibn SÈnå (scholar) knotwork, 29, 30, 31, 34, 37, 38, 40, 41, 43–4, 46, 48, 49, 54, 118, 119, 121, 122, 124, 177, 180, 187, 188, 189, 204, 206, 208, 217; see also strapwork Konya, 4, 5, 15, 21n75, 23–5, 53, 58, 62, 63, 64, 68, 72, 73n21, 76n82, 78n123, 80n163, 82–3, 125, 128, 135, 145n97, 160, 165n32, 167n63, 169–70, 203 intellectual, urban centre, 6, 10, 25, 64, 67 manuscript production, 1, 5, 12, 14, 16–17, 23–68, 71–2, 84–125, 128–39, 142n50, 143n63, 143n66, 145n95, 145n101, 149, 155, 156, 158, 161, 163, 174, 177, 194, 196,

203–4, 206, 208, 217, 220n32, 221n54, 226–30, 230n2, 231, 234, 238, 240, 241, 247, 251 Mevlevi base, 6–7, 15, 26, 67, 73n19, 79n132, 84, 106, 129–31, 133, 137–8, 140n16, 208, 218, 223n85, 227–8 Qaramanid occupations, 24, 82–3, 86, 134–5, 137, 138, 146n111, 169–70, 206 SåtÈ ibn Óasan’s family origins, 171, 210–11, 213, 216, 218 ‘school’ of illumination, 3, 17, 71, 132, 136, 138–9, 227 see also individually listed artists, patrons, officials, buildings and manuscripts; illumination – Konya Köprülü, Mehmed Fuad, 8, 19n28, 19n29, 20n54, 159 Korkuteli see Òstanos Köseda©, battle of, 1, 4, 23, 148 Kufic script, 44, 44, 45, 50, 69, 100, 112, 117, 277; see also calligraphy Kütahya, 23, 63, 84, 135, 140n2, 148, 165n32 Ladik (Denizli), 5, 23, 66, 84, 129, 140, 160, 167n63 Larende (Karaman), 63, 78n97, 84, 104, 135, 136, 137, 140n4, 145n101, 148 al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya (1228), 102, 136, 158, 228 illumination, 89, 105, 112, 159, 243 later ownership, 86, 135, 136, 159, 243 see also Alanya; Badr al-DÈn IbråhÈm ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (Qaramanid patron); Kayqubåd I, ʿAlåʾ al-DÈn (Seljuk ruler); al-ZanjånÈ al-ʿUthmånÈ, A˙mad ibn Saʿd ibn MahdÈ ibn ʿAbd al-Íamad (scholar) La†åʾif al-Óikma, 158; see also al-UrmawÈ, Siråj al-DÈn (scholar) libraries, 13, 63, 162, 172 lions, 56–7, 56, 77n93 lotuses, 177, 184, 185, 188, 189, 189, 190, 191, 192–5, 193, 196, 197, 198, 205, 207, 209, 221 Maʿårif, 145n101; see also Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi leader) madhhab, 6, 149, 211; see also ÓanafÈs; ShåfiʿÈs

299

index

madrasas, 7, 9, 21n75, 25, 58, 63–4, 71, 73n19, 73n20, 73n21, 76n77, 78n99, 80n170, 83, 128–9, 144n79, 149, 215, 224n104 al-madrasa (al-Íå˙ibiyya) al-Shamsiyya see Çifte Minareli Medrese (Sivas) al-madrasa al-Ûåhiriyya (Cairo), 131 Madrasa Atåbakiyya (Konya), 125, 129 madrasa of Saʿd al-DÈn Köpek (Konya), 26, 52, 63, 231–2 madrasa-yi khudåvandigår/ madrasat mawlånå (Konya), 7, 63–4, 79n132, 106, 109, 129, 145n101, 247, 250 madrasa-yi MuʿÈn al-DÈn-i parvåna/ al-madrasa al-MuʿÈniyya (Tokat), 126, 144n72; see also Gök Medrese (Tokat) see also Emir Sinaneddin Medresesi (Òstanos); Gök Medrese (Sivas); Ònce Minareli Medrese (Konya) Ma˙mËd I (Ottoman ruler), 238, 240, 253, 255 Malatya, 81n179, 149–50, 160, 210 malik al-khawåßß wa-l-˙ujjåb, 53, 233 Mamluks, 3, 4, 16, 24, 77n87, 83, 135, 137, 138, 145n95, 156, 161 bookbinding, 102, 172, 231 calligraphy, 48, 50, 90, 112 craftsmen, 76n76 illumination, 47, 47, 74n40, 99, 100, 112, 139, 155, 163, 193, 194, 196, 204, 205, 206, 208, 213, 217, 227 manuscripts, 48, 100, 132, 136, 227, 230 paper production, 220n26 see also Baybars (Mamluk ruler); Cairo; Damascus Manåqib al-ʿÅrifÈn, 15, 68; see also AflåkÈ, Shams al-DÈn A˙mad (hagiographer) Mangujakids, 4, 82, 150 Manisa, 84, 148 Mantashids, 82, 148, 160 manuscripts audience/readers, 8, 62, 63, 65–6, 84, 134–5, 159 consumption, 2, 3, 9, 100, 138, 228 function, 3, 56, 133, 134, 228 recitation, 56, 66, 133, 236, 238; see also Mevlevis – samåʿ production expenses, 2, 8, 72, 174, 222n77, 261 Maqålåt, 213, 214, 222n80; see also Shams al-DÈn TabrÈzÈ (Sufi dervish)

Maragha, 68, 81n178, 100, 102, 129, 221n57, 228 marble, 46, 135, 136 marginalia, 12, 65, 134 Martin, Fredrik Robert, 13 Masålik al-Abßår fÈ Mamålik al-Amßår, 16, 85; see also al-ʿUmarÈ, Shihåb al-DÈn A˙mad ibn Fa∂lallåh (Mamluk official) Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ content and composition, 26, 234, 236 recitation and reciters (mas-navÈkhvåns), 56, 66, 77n89, 133, 145n101, 236, 238 see also manuscripts – recitation; RËmÈ, Jalål al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi patron saint) Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1278), 16, 25, 56, 57, 62–6, 71–2, 106, 116, 131–4, 156 calligraphy, 26, 27, 28–9, 28, 42, 107, 235 codicology, 26, 106, 171, 234 illumination, 28, 29, 30, 31–43, 43–4, 47–8, 50–2, 53, 59, 61–2, 92, 99, 112, 117, 125 missing prose preface, 64–5, 79n133 waqf note, 235, 236–8 see also book stand; Jamål al-DÈn Mubårak ibn ʿAbdallåh al-Íå˙ibÈ (patron); Mevlevis – shrine; Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAbdallåh al-QËnawÈ al-WaladÈ (scribe) Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1318), 17, 106, 125, 134, 163 calligraphy, 126, 127, 246 codicology, 245–6 illumination, 126, 127, 132, 139 see also Çifte Minareli Medrese (Sivas); Tåj al-DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Ma˙mËd al-RåzÈ also known as Ibn al-NaqÈb al-QËnawÈ al-MawlawÈ (scribe) Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1323), 17, 104, 106, 128, 130, 133, 134, 138–9 calligraphy, 107, 109, 109, 247–50 codicology, 246–7 illumination, 109, 112, 113–17, 134, 138–9 see also Intihånåma (1314); madrasa-yi khudåvandigår/ madrasat mawlånå (Konya); RËmÈ, Jalål al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi patron saint) – tomb; ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh (scribe)

300

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1372), 17, 171, 210–11, 216, 217–18 calligraphy, 174–5, 176, 198–202, 263 codicology, 171–2, 261–2 illumination, 175, 177, 189, 191, 193–4, 196, 197–204, 203–4, 206, 208 see also DÈvån-i KabÈr (1368); Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-MawlawÈ (scribe); Mas-navÈ-i ValadÈ (1366); Sharaf al-DÈn SåtÈ ibn Óusåm al-DÈn Óasan al-MawlawÈ (patron) Mas-navÈ-i ValadÈ (pre-1332), 104, 106, 130, 133–4, 136, 138, 145n101, 228 calligraphy, 107, 109, 110, 123, 124 codicology, 106, 251 illumination, 109, 112, 116–17, 118–25, 125 waqf note, 251–2, 252 see also A˙mad ibn Mu˙ammad al-Kåtib also known as Ibn al-Nassåj al-MawlawÈ al-A˙adÈ (scribe); Mevlevis – shrine; Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi leader); ʿUthmån ibn AbÈ Bakr al-WaladÈ (patron/ endower) Mas-navÈ-i ValadÈ (1366), 17, 171, 210, 217–18 calligraphy, 174–5, 176, 178, 180, 181, 183, 184 codicology, 171–2, 256–7 illumination, 175, 177, 178–84, 189, 191, 193–4, 196, 203–4, 206, 208, 210 see also DÈvån-i KabÈr (1368); Óasan ibn ʿUthmån al-MawlawÈ (scribe); Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1372); Sharaf al-DÈn SåtÈ ibn Óusåm al-DÈn Óasan al-MawlawÈ (patron); Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi leader) MasʿËd II, Ghiyåth al-DÈn (Seljuk ruler), 24–5, 58–9, 62, 66, 86 mausoleums, 25, 80n170, 128, 140n16, 216 Jalål al-DÈn RËmÈ see Mevlevis – shrine; RËmÈ, Jalål al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi patron saint) – tomb al-MåzandarånÈ, ʿAbdallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Kiyå (historian), 16, 160; see also Risåla-yi Falakiyya

medallions/roundels circular (non-marginal), 29, 30, 59, 60, 101, 105, 109, 111, 173, 178, 181, 182, 189, 191, 194, 207, 214 marginal, 27, 28, 29, 29, 30, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 44, 45, 49, 54, 60, 69, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94–100, 99, 117, 121–5, 180, 186, 187, 197, 198, 200–3, 232 pointed oval, 30, 31–6, 47, 48, 50–2, 51, 54, 68, 71, 77n86, 86, 87, 99, 112, 113, 116, 116, 118–20, 132, 190, 196, 227 polylobed, 93, 98, 99, 102, 133, 173, 177, 178, 179, 184, 186–8, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 194, 195, 196, 197–205 merchants, 3, 5, 6, 67, 128, 161, 162, 167n79, 170 metalwork, 5, 13, 46, 57, 75n51, 77n93, 132, 221n53 metaphysics, 134, 240 Mevlana see RËmÈ, Jalål al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi patron saint) Mevlana Müzesi, 136, 234; see also Mevlevis – shrine Mevlevis, 6–7, 8, 25, 57, 62, 84, 130–2, 134, 138–9, 170–1, 208, 212, 213, 216, 218, 227–8 disciples’ identities, 7, 9, 66–7, 131, 160, 228 elite associations, 8, 66–7, 137–8, 210, 228 madrasas see madrasa-yi khudåvandigår/madrasat mawlånå (Konya) manuscripts see individually listed manuscripts, artists and patrons al-MawlawÈ nisba, 131, 133, 145n95, 213; see also individually listed artists and patrons; al-WaladÈ nisba primary sources, 15–16; see also AflåkÈ, Shams al-DÈn A˙mad (hagiographer); Ibtidånåma; Manåqib al-ʿÅrifÈn; Sipahsålår, FarÈdËn ibn A˙mad (historian) relations with Christians and converts, 9, 67–8 relations with the Turcomans, 84, 134, 135, 136–8, 160 relations with the ʿulamåʾ, 7, 19n27, 64–5, 129 samåʿ, 7, 19n26, 66, 68, 84, 128, 129, 228 shrine, 7, 8, 26, 44, 50, 52–3, 56, 57, 64, 66, 77n89, 84, 106, 109,

301

index

128–9, 133–4, 135, 137, 140n16, 142n50, 146n102, 162, 172, 208, 223n85, 238, 247, 252, 258; see also Mevlana Müzesi; RËmÈ, Jalål al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi patron saint) – tomb zåwiyas, 7, 66, 84, 129, 135, 160 see also individually listed Mevlevi leaders and manuscripts migration, 5, 16, 25, 46, 67, 72, 82, 83, 159, 264; see also mobility of craftsmen and scholars mirrors for princes, 17, 56, 102, 104, 150, 158, 159, 163, 166n44, 243, 253, 254; see also advice literature Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd min al-Mabdåʾ ilå-lMaʿåd, 16, 149–50, 158, 165n20; see also RåzÈ Dåya, Najm al-DÈn (scholar) Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd min al-Mabdåʾ ilå-lMaʿåd (1349; 1351), 17, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 158–63, 165n24, 228, 253–6, 256; see also Ghiyåth al-DÈn ʿAbd al-Ra˙Èm ibn YËnus (Hamidid patron); ʿÏså ibn Zakariyyåʾ (Hamidid patron); Ra˙matallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Muqarrab (scribe); RåzÈ Dåya, Najm al-DÈn (scholar) mobility of craftsmen and scholars, 3, 6, 16, 25, 46, 71–2, 73n19, 83, 101, 126, 129, 132, 174, 226–7, 229; see also migration monks and monasteries, 68, 76n68, 170, 208 mosques, 25, 68, 73n20, 75n49, 80n170, 83, 146n105, 149, 168n91; see also E∞refo©lu Camii (Bey∞ehir) Mosul, 46, 50, 62, 133, 162, 196, 204, 219n9, 221n56, 228 Mubåriz al-DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn Sulaymån (Ashrafid patron), 85, 88, 134–5, 136, 146n105, 240; see also al-FußËl al-Ashrafiyya fÈ-lQawåʿid al-Burhåniyya wa-lKashfiyya (1311) Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAbdallåh al-QËnawÈ al-WaladÈ (scribe), 26, 52, 57, 67, 71, 234, 235, 236; see also Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1278) Mu˙ammad ibn al-Óåjj Dawlatshåh al-ShÈråzÈ (scribe), 147n127 Mu˙ammad ibn Óusayn al-MawlawÈ (scribe), 206 Mu˙ammad ibn ʿÏså al-BukhårÈ al-MawlawÈ (scribe), 145n95

Mu˙ammad ibn Is˙åq ibn IbråhÈm al-LårandÈ al-WaladÈ (scribe), 63, 145n101 Mu˙ammad ibn Ma˙mËd al-RåzÈ (Seljuk official), 145n97 Mu˙ammad ibn Mu˙ammad ibn ʿUmar known as Jalål and Ibn al-Kamål al-Kha††å† (scribe), 203 mu˙aqqaq script, 48, 49, 50, 71, 75n60, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 99, 126, 127, 130, 133, 242; see also calligraphy MuʿÈn al-DÈn Sulaymån parvåna (Seljuk official), 7, 15, 18n23, 23, 25, 66, 67, 80n157, 82, 126, 128, 135; see also Gök Medrese (Tokat); GurjÈ KhåtËn (noblewoman); madrasa-yi MuʿÈn al-DÈn-i parvåna/al-madrasa al-MuʿÈniyya (Tokat) Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh al-HindÈ (illuminator), 26, 29, 48, 52, 57, 117, 231–2, 232, 234, 235, 236 al-HindÈ nisba, 57, 71, 74n28, 77n95, 132, 174, 235 see also Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1278); Qur’an (1278) MËså ibn Ya˙yå ibn Óamza al-MawlawÈ (scribe), 144n74 Musåmarat al-Akhbår va Musåyarat al-Akhyår, 15; see also al-AqsaråyÈ, KarÈm al-DÈn Ma˙mËd ibn Mu˙ammad (historian) Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ al-MawlawÈ al-ArzinjånÈ (Mevlevi disciple), 172, 173, 208, 211, 212, 213, 218, 220n28, 222n64, 224n113, 258, 260–1, 262, 264, 264 Muʿta∂id ibn Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ al-MawlawÈ al-ArzinjånÈ (Mevlevi disciple), 211, 212, 212, 213, 223n84 Mu†ahhartan (ruler of Erzincan), 170 MuΩaffar al-DÈn Yavlak Arslån (possible patron), 75n63 Muzaffarids, 20n46, 169, 194, 196 mysticism see taßawwuf naßÈ˙atnåmas see advice literature; mirrors for princes NåßirÈ (occultist), 14, 70 naskh script, 26, 27, 28, 29, 42, 44, 44, 48, 59, 61, 69, 86, 90, 107, 109, 110, 126, 127, 151, 154, 155, 174–5, 176, 180, 181, 183–5, 187, 195, 198–202, 209, 214, 231, 232,

302

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

naskh script (cont.) 234, 235, 238, 239, 241, 240, 243, 244, 245–50, 246, 247, 251, 253, 255, 257, 258, 259, 262, 263, 264; see also calligraphy nastaʿlÈq script, 28–9, 174; see also calligraphy Nebuchadnezzar, son of Simeon the physician of Rumkale (Syriac patron), 69, 69, 81n173, 81n174, 81n175 NiΩåm al-DÈn al-ArzinjånÈ al-MawlawÈ (Mevlevi disciple), 79n132 NËr al-DÈn ibn Jåjå (Mongol official), 52, 76n77 Nuzhat al-QulËb, 16, 128, 219n9; see also al-QazwÈnÈ, Óamdallåh al-MustawfÈ (historian) Okyay, Necmeddin (binder), 247 Ottomans, 1, 2, 11, 18n2, 66, 77n87, 83, 86, 137, 139, 147n127, 149, 217, 226, 228 bookbinding, 234, 238, 240, 243, 244, 251, 253, 257, 259 manuscripts/manuscript production, 19n35, 63, 126, 132, 168n89, 221n57, 227 painting, figural, 13, 21n67, 56–7, 56, 68, 70, 77n89 palmettes, illuminated full, 38–42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 49, 53, 54, 60, 61, 89, 95–8, 99, 105, 113, 114, 116–20, 122–5, 127, 130, 177, 180, 184, 185, 188, 205 half-, 39, 42, 43, 43, 47, 54, 98, 99, 151, 152, 154, 173, 185, 188, 193, 209 interlaced split, 32–6, 87, 93, 96, 99, 102, 105, 111, 112, 113, 115, 179, 188, 189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 202, 204, 209 rotating split, 28, 29, 31–41, 43, 43, 44, 48, 49, 87, 92, 112, 117, 118, 120–3, 132, 227 split, 31–7, 40, 42, 43, 44, 53, 54, 60, 69, 88, 89, 91, 94–6, 98, 99, 99, 105, 111, 114, 118, 119, 121, 127, 130, 151, 152, 154, 173, 175, 177, 178, 179, 180–95, 189, 191, 193, 194, 196, 197–203, 205, 207, 206, 208, 209, 213, 214, 232 paper BaghdådÈ, 26, 71, 74n30, 172, 220n21 chain and laid lines, 172, 231, 234, 238, 240, 242, 243, 244, 247, 251, 253, 255, 257, 259, 262

Damascus, 171, 172, 173, 174, 220n26, 220n27, 261 papermakers, 100, 130, 132 thickness, 231, 234, 238, 240, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 251, 253, 255, 257, 259, 262 tinted, 26, 172 watermarks, 75n59, 153, 153, 160–1, 164, 234, 251, 255 parvåna see MuʿÈn al-DÈn Sulaymån parvåna (Seljuk official) patronage, 1–2, 6, 13, 58, 77n87, 138, 147n127, 149, 226–9 architecture, 25, 135 Ilkhanid, 17, 59, 62, 63, 84 Mevlevi, 7–9, 17, 67, 71–2, 130, 133–4, 137–8, 171, 216–18 Seljuk bureaucrats, 62, 72, 84 Turcoman, 17, 84–5, 86, 135–8, 150, 158–60 see also individually listed patrons Paul, Jürgen, 216–17 Peacock, A. C. S., 10, 14, 24, 138, 158, 160 Persian interlinear translations, 90, 136, 138 painting, 13 patrons’ knowledge of, 136, 158–60, 163, 213 petal borders, 27, 30, 44, 48, 86, 87, 99, 100, 101, 102, 105, 111, 112, 113–16, 141n39 philosophers/philosophy, 65, 85, 86, 102, 134, 240 pigments/palettes, 20n59, 29, 47, 48, 65, 86, 90, 112, 172, 193, 208, 231, 234, 238, 240, 242, 243, 244, 246, 247, 251, 253, 255, 257, 258, 262 blue and gold, 27, 29, 29, 30, 48, 49, 49, 54, 60, 61, 71, 84, 86, 87, 88, 111, 112, 113–18, 123, 126, 127, 132, 175, 177, 178–80, 182, 186–90, 197–205, 207, 214, 232, 233 light purple, 112, 119–22, 125, 136, 175, 251, 257, 258, 262 silver, 177, 181, 183, 188, 196, 206, 208, 218, 220n36, 257, 258 white ‘highlights’, 29–31, 33, 34, 36, 37–40, 49, 54, 60, 61, 100, 117, 119, 121–4, 177, 180, 187–91, 194, 201, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 217 PÈr Óusayn (patron), 170, 208, 213, 215, 224n96 plague, 17, 155, 162–4, 168n89, 170, 217, 220n26, 224n107, 229

303

index

poetic metres, 106 polygons, illuminated see geometric shapes, illuminated ports, 161, 162, 164, 167n77 primary sources, 14–16 Qå∂È Burhån al-DÈn A˙mad (ruler of Kayseri and Sivas), 15, 165n30, 170, 212 Qalandars, 7, 25, 64; see also Shams al-DÈn TabrÈzÈ (Sufi dervish) Qaramanids, 4, 82, 85, 137, 140n10, 156, 159, 160, 164n4 manuscript patronage, 84, 86; see also al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya (1228); Qur’an (1314–15); taqwÈms occupations of Konya, 24–5, 62, 82, 83, 86, 104, 134, 135, 137, 138, 169–70, 206 scholarship/historiography, 90, 142n42 Turkish language declaration, 20n53, 73n13 see also ʿAlåʾ al-DÈn ibn KhalÈl (Qaramanid patron); Badr al-DÈn IbråhÈm ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (Qaramanid patron); Ermenek; KhalÈl ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (Qaramanid patron); Konya; Larende (Karaman) Qaramånnåma, 16, 22n94, 146n117; see also ShikårÈ, A˙mad (historian) al-QazwÈnÈ, Óamdallåh al-MustawfÈ (historian), 5, 16, 128; see also Nuzhat al-QulËb Qunghur†åy (Ilkhanid official), 24, 140n7 Qur’ans and Qur’an juzʾs, 1, 21n67, 100, 126, 136, 142n50, 143n68, 143n69, 150, 194, 203, 215–16, 219n17, 222n77, 226, 228, 230n2 exegesis (tafsÈr), 9, 129, 142n54, 159, 160, 165n19, 166n54 Ilkhanid, 47, 48, 99–100, 101, 102, 102, 126, 175, 196, 208 Mamluk, 47, 47, 48, 74n40, 76n76, 99–100, 102, 196, 205 medieval Persian and Central Asian, 44, 44, 45, 46, 50, 59, 74n44, 141n39, 194, 204, 226 memorisers (˙åfiΩs), 76n85, 131, 145n100, 215 Sackler Qur’an juzʾ (late 13th/early 14th c.), 48, 49, 50, 62, 71, 90, 112 translations, 90, 92, 136, 142n44, 142n46, 147n127

see also Qur’an (1278); Qur’an (1314–15) Qur’an (1278), 16, 25, 26, 52–3, 62, 63, 65, 71, 133, 156 calligraphy, 26, 27, 29, 232, 233 codicology, 231 illumination, 29, 29, 30, 44, 47–8, 59, 61–2, 66, 86, 92, 112, 228, 232, 233 see also Óasan ibn ChËbån ibn ʿAbdallåh al-QËnawÈ (scribe); Mukhliß ibn ʿAbdallåh al-HindÈ (illuminator); Sayf al-DÈn Sunqur ibn ʿAbdallåh al-Íå˙ibÈ (patron) Qur’an (1314–15), 17, 86, 131, 134–5, 136, 137, 138, 140n3, 147n127, 206 binding, 101–2, 103, 104, 142n50 calligraphy, 91, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97–9, 109 codicology, 91, 241–2 illumination, 91–2, 91–100, 99–101, 102, 112, 155 see also IsmåʿÈl ibn YËsuf (scribe); KhalÈl ibn Ma˙mËd ibn Qaråmån (Qaramanid patron); YaʿqËb ibn GhåzÈ al-QËnawÈ (illuminator) Qu†b al-DÈn ShÈråzÈ (scholar), 25, 143n65 Rabåbnåma, 106, 143n63, 171, 177, 220n34, 256; see also Ibtidånåma; Intihånåma; Mas-navÈ-i ValadÈ; Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi leader) Ra˙matallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Muqarrab (scribe), 150, 151, 155, 253, 254, 256, 256; see also Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd min al-Mabdåʾ ilå-l-Maʿåd (1349; 1351) RashÈd al-DÈn HamadånÈ (Ilkhanid official), 171, 215; see also Jåmiʿ al-TavårÈkh RåwandÈ, Mu˙ammad ibn ʿAlÈ (scholar), 6, 158 RåzÈ Dåya, Najm al-DÈn (scholar), 6, 16, 17, 129, 149–50, 160, 165n19, 253, 254; see also Mirßåd al-ʿIbåd min al-Mabdåʾ ilå-l-Maʿåd Redford, Scott, 56 Risåla-yi Falakiyya, 16, 160; see also al-MåzandarånÈ, ʿAbdallåh ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Kiyå (historian) RËm, lands of meaning and scope, 4–5, 9–10 al-RËmÈ nisba, 10

304

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

RËmÈ, Jalål al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi patron saint), 8, 10, 15–16, 19n27, 20n46, 25, 26, 56–7, 64, 65, 106, 137, 150, 212, 229 early life and education, 6–7, 73n19 relations with contemporaries, 7, 66–8, 77n95, 129 tomb (turba), 7, 80n157, 128, 129, 236, 247, 248, 249, 260, 261; see also Mevlevis – shrine writings (general), 17, 66, 84, 104, 133, 136, 171, 172; see also individually listed manuscripts and titles see also Óusåm al-DÈn ChalabÈ (Mevlevi leader); madrasa-yi khudåvandigår/madrasat mawlånå (Konya); Mevlevis; Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi leader) Rumkale, 69, 81n173, 81n174, 129, 210 Íadr al-DÈn al-QËnawÈ (scholar), 63, 129, 142n54 Safi, Omid, 9 Íå˙ib ʿA†å see Fakhr al-DÈn ʿAlÈ (Seljuk official) Sahip Ata Külliyesi (Konya), 73n21, 203, 206 Íalå˙ al-DÈn al-ZarkËb (Mevlevi disciple), 67, 106 Íandal (illuminator), 76n76 Sayf al-DÈn Sunqur ibn ʿAbdallåh al-Íå˙ibÈ (patron), 53, 57, 133, 156, 231, 233, 233; see also Fakhr al-DÈn ʿAlÈ (Seljuk official); malik al-khawåßß wa-l-˙ujjåb; Qur’an (1278) scribes, 52, 57, 67, 71, 72, 74n36, 76n85, 78n97, 80n154, 100, 129, 130, 131–2, 134, 145n99, 170, 203, 228, 229, 233, 253; see also individually listed scribes; calligraphy seals, 234, 238, 240, 243, 245, 247, 253, 255, 258 Sebinkarahisar (Kö©onya), 169, 170, 213 Seljuks, Great, 4, 18n16, 44 Seljuks, RËm, 1, 4, 10, 14, 23, 25, 56, 57, 62, 64, 82, 85, 137, 138, 148 advice literature, 158–9, 163 caravanserai/trade networks, 5, 161 illumination, 86, 89 see also individually listed rulers

ShåfiʿÈs, 25, 77n95; see also madhhab Shåhnåmas, 21n69, 22n94, 74n33, 146n117, 194, 205 shamanism, 8, 19n28, 137, 217 Shams al-DÈn TabrÈzÈ (Sufi dervish), 6, 7, 106, 150, 213; see also Maqålåt Sharaf al-DÈn SåtÈ ibn Óusåm al-DÈn Óasan al-MawlawÈ (patron), 17, 171, 173, 178, 204, 210–13, 212, 215–18, 219n18, 223n85, 223n95, 224n101, 229 manuscript patronage, 171–2, 177, 210–11, 220n27, 229, 257, 258, 260, 261 see also DÈvån-i KabÈr (1368); Mas-navÈ-i ValadÈ (1366); Mas-navÈ (1372); Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ al-MawlawÈ al-ArzinjånÈ (Mevlevi disciple); Muʿta∂id ibn Mustanjid ibn SåtÈ al-MawlawÈ al-ArzinjånÈ (Mevlevi disciple); TårÈkh-i ChingÈz Khån sharÈʿa, 9, 65, 132 Shaykh ʿAlÈ (Jalayirid prince), 215–16 ShikårÈ, A˙mad (historian), 16, 22n94, 146n117; see also Qaramånnåma Shiraz, 20n46, 25, 59, 78n113, 84, 194 shrine of RËmÈ see Mevlevis – shrine, RËmÈ, Jalål al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi patron saint) – tomb Sinån al-DÈn Khi∂r ibn YËnus (Hamidid prince), 156, 157, 158, 166n43, 168n91; see also Emir Sinaneddin Medresesi (Òstanos) Sinop, 5, 130, 160, 161 Sipahsålår, FarÈdËn ibn A˙mad (historian), 15–16, 67, 126, 171, 213 Sivas, 1, 15, 57, 66, 68, 84, 149–50, 158, 160, 161, 169, 170, 212, 219n4 Armenian scriptoria, 210 manuscripts, 14, 17, 84, 104, 106, 125–6, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 139, 143n65, 163, 218, 227, 245–6 trading post, 5, 128 see also Çifte Minareli Medrese (Sivas); Gök Medrese (Sivas); Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1318) slaves and former slaves, 16, 52, 53, 57, 67, 68, 71, 76n76, 77n87, 106, 130, 133, 156, 162, 170, 237–8, 244–5, 247–8, 249–50; see also ibn ʿAbdallåh patronymic Soltaniyeh, 84, 135 strapwork, 28–43, 43, 45, 46, 47, 60, 61, 69, 71, 88, 89, 92–8, 100, 108,

305

index

109, 112, 115, 117, 118–25, 130, 172, 177, 178, 184, 186, 188–90, 189, 191, 192–5, 193, 194, 196, 197, 202–5, 213, 217, 221n53, 232, 233 four-point cross, 191, 201, 203, 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 221n57 S-shaped, 43, 49, 113, 116, 173, 178–81, 183, 187–90, 198–200, 203, 203, 207, 208, 214 see also knotwork Sufis (general), 3, 7, 67, 129, 164 architecture/spaces, 8, 19n35, 25, 63, 83 great and little traditions, 8–9 relations with the ʿulamåʾ, 7, 20n48, 25, 64 see also Mevlevis Sufism see taßawwuf Sul†ån Walad, Bahåʾ al-DÈn Mu˙ammad (Mevlevi leader), 7, 15, 17, 57, 63, 67, 71, 84, 104, 106, 130, 133, 134, 143n63, 145n101, 171, 172, 191, 208, 211, 213, 220n34, 227, 236, 244, 245, 238, 248–51, 253, 256, 258; see also individually listed works; al-WaladÈ nisba Sümer, Faruk, 217 Sunni Revival, 6, 18n16 sËra headings, 90, 91, 92, 99, 99, 126; see also headpieces/tailpieces; upper and lower panels, illuminated Syriac, 50–2, 51, 69, 81n172–8 Tabriz, 59, 85, 128, 134, 135, 163, 165n22, 170 manuscript production, 62, 74n30, 100, 133, 141n32, 203, 221n57, 222n77, 228 Tåj al-DÈn Mu˙ammad ibn Mu˙ammad ibn Ma˙mËd al-RåzÈ also known as Ibn al-NaqÈb al-QËnawÈ al-MawlawÈ (scribe), 125–6, 129, 131, 143n66, 145n97, 245–6, 246; see also Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1318) Tåj al-DÈn Shaykh Óusayn Bey see PÈr Óusayn (patron) Tanındı, Zeren, 73n22, 171, 174, 208, 215 taqwÈms, 14, 166n44, 206, 207, 213 TårÈkh-i ChingÈz Khån, 171, 215–16, 218; see also ʿIßmat al-DÈn Khwand(i)går KhåtËn bint AkhÈʿÈ Bey (Jalayirid princess); Sharaf

al-DÈn SåtÈ ibn Óusåm al-DÈn Óasan al-MawlawÈ (patron) taßawwuf, 7, 85, 106, 129, 149, 150, 159, 160, 163, 164, 234, 244, 245, 246, 251, 253, 254, 256, 258, 261 scholarly analyses, 9, 19n36 tawqÈʿ script, 26, 28, 28, 54, 60, 88, 105, 107, 108, 109, 114, 115, 116, 123, 124, 126, 127, 151, 152, 207, 232, 233, 252, 256; see also calligraphy Teke principality see Hamidids text blocks, 12, 27, 61, 69, 91, 92, 127, 142n50, 153, 151, 154, 176, 214, 231, 238, 240, 242, 243, 244, 245, 253, 255 four-column, 26, 27, 74n32, 110, 147n127, 172, 176, 209, 234, 247, 251, 257, 258, 262 textiles, 5, 50, 56, 77n93, 84, 130, 162, 170, 246 text pages, illuminated, 28, 29, 30, 42, 44, 44, 48, 49, 65, 90, 94, 95, 99, 108, 109, 112, 114, 115, 116, 123, 124, 177, 180, 183, 189, 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202 thuluth script, 28, 43, 54, 60, 61, 89, 97, 98, 102, 112, 126, 151, 152, 154, 155, 173, 175, 178–181, 183, 186–192, 194, 195, 197–205, 207, 209, 214; see also calligraphy TÈmËr (Timurid ruler), 4, 18n2, 211, 220n26, 224n113, 264 Timurids, 13, 224n113 manuscripts, 63, 196, 221n41, 227 TÈmËrtåsh ibn ChËbån Suldus (Ilkhanid official), 15, 73n15, 83, 85, 135, 156, 169 Togan, Zeki Velidi, 11 Tokat, 5, 126, 128, 129, 145n97, 160, 165n32, 169, 218; see also Gök Medrese (Tokat) tombs see mausoleums travel see migration; mobility of craftsmen and scholars Trebizond, 4, 5, 163, 167n77, 169; see also Byzantines Turan, Osman, 11, 137, 159, 217 Turcomans, 4–5, 16, 23, 24, 64, 66, 67, 68, 80n150, 82, 84, 135, 136, 148, 169, 229 historiography, 2, 10–11, 17, 90, 137–8, 159–60, 164, 217, 224n117 manuscript patronage, 17, 84–104, 138–9, 148–64, 227, 228, 229

306

ˉM ISLAMIC MANUSCRIPTS OF LATE MEDIEVAL RU

Turcomans (cont.) see also individually listed principalities and princes; beyliks Turkish language, 6, 139, 170, 213, 217, 223n94, 223n95 poetry/literature, 7–9, 19n30, 22n94, 74n33, 106, 146n117, 147n127, 159, 165n20, 166n44, 166n54 scholarship, modern, 10, 11, 20n54, 70, 73n13, 90, 138, 142n43, 217 see also Qaramanids – Turkish language declaration Ëj, 10, 159–60, 163–4, 167n63; see also frontier ʿulamåʾ, 7, 25, 80n150, 129, 144n72, 145n95, 242 ◊ljaytË (Ilkhanid ruler), 83, 146n111, 196, 208, 219n4 Ulu ʿÅrif ChalabÈ (Mevlevi leader), 65, 65, 68, 125, 134, 137, 140n18, 146n111, 146n119, 165n22 al-ʿUmarÈ, Shihåb al-DÈn A˙mad ibn Fa∂lallåh (Mamluk official), 5, 9, 16, 85, 148, 156; see also Masålik al-Abßår fÈ Mamålik al-Amßår upper and lower panels, illuminated, 29, 44, 44, 49, 94, 98, 151, 152, 155, 180, 183, 187, 196, 198–202, 205, 207, 209, 221n43; see also headpieces/tailpieces; sËra headings al-UrmawÈ, Siråj al-DÈn (scholar), 6, 7, 15, 25, 67, 77n95, 81n172, 158; see also La†åʾif al-Óikma ʿUthmån ibn ʿAbdallåh (scribe), 106, 107, 130, 143n63, 220n32, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249, 250; see also Intihånåma (1314); Mas-navÈ-i MaʿnavÈ (1323) ʿUthmån ibn AbÈ Bakr al-WaladÈ (patron/endower), 106, 133, 251, 252; see also Mas-navÈ-i ValadÈ (pre-1332) ʿUthmån ibn Amatallåh (architect), 141n23

Uzunçar∞ılı, Òsmail Hakkı, 11, 20n46, 85 Varqa va Gulshåh, 21n75 verse markers see medallions/ roundels – marginal WalÈ ÓåjjÈ Bey al-MawlawÈ al-BurhånÈ (later owner), 155, 255–6, 256 waqfiyyas/waqfs, 14, 21n75, 53, 63, 71, 76n77 waqf notes in manuscripts, 26, 52, 79n132, 106, 116, 146n105, 172, 173, 208, 211, 235, 236–8, 251–3, 252 watermarks see Italians – watermarked paper; paper – watermarks Wittek, Paul, 10, 159 woodwork, 13, 46, 53, 55, 56, 56, 75n50, 77n89, 85, 92, 101, 132; see also book stand workshops, 2, 14, 63, 129, 132, 208, 227, 230 Wright, Elaine, 26, 74n32, 194 YaʿqËb ibn GhåzÈ al-QËnawÈ (illuminator), 86, 97, 131, 241–2; see also Qur’an (1314–15) Yıldız, Sara Nur, 58–9 YËnus Emre (poet), 8, 9, 84 al-ZanjånÈ al-ʿUthmånÈ, A˙mad ibn Saʿd ibn MahdÈ ibn ʿAbd al-Íamad (scholar), 86, 102, 104, 158, 243; see also al-La†åʾif al-ʿAlåʾiyya (1228) zåwiyas, 7, 66, 84, 128, 135, 140n17, 140n20, 141n21, 141n22, 141n23, 141n24, 149, 162 manuscript production, 63, 129, 160 see also Mevlevis – zåwiyas zayn al-˙ajj wa-l-˙aramayn, 156, 165n32, 255 Zayn al-Munajjim ibn Sulaymån al-QËnawÈ (astrologer), 14