No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
An introductory note on a Safawid munshī's manual in the Library of the School of Oriental and African Studies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
Extract
The Persian manuscript which is numbered 40912 in the SOAS accessions list is not given a very full description in the card catalogue of the Library. It has been entitled ‘Calligrapher's manual’, its numerous lacunae are referred to, and it is tentatively dated to the early seventeenth century. Since, for all ts defects, one of the two works it contains is an important and apparently unknown treatise on inshā' and bureaucratic practice of the late Safawid period it deserves a more adequate description. The purpose of this communication is to provide that, and to put forward some speculations about the date and authorship of that treatise.
- Type
- Notes and Communications
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 1970 , pp. 352 - 358
- Copyright
- Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1970
References
1 BM MS Add. 7691, fols. lb–2a. Rieu, C., Catalogue of the Persian manuscripts in the British Museum, London, 1879–1893, II, 519Google Scholar.
2 Blochet, E., Catalogue des manuscrits persans de la Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, 1905–1934, iv, 281Google Scholar, Supp. pers. No. 1838.
3 Provinzen und Zentralgewalt Persiens im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1966, 142Google Scholar. There is no mention of the author's name in the second work. However, Blochet is probably right in dating the MS to A.H. 1043 when the first work was composed since it was copied at Tabrīz where the first work was written and the scribe says he was honoured to write it which suggests he copied it under the author's supervision (see fol. 353 bis a). The second work is therefore most probably also by 'Abd al-Husain.
There is not space here to discuss in detail other MSS of works of ‘Abd al-Husain Nasīrī. See Storey, , Persian literature, I, part II, 1283Google Scholar. The work described by Farrukh, Rukn al-Dīn Humāyūn in Majallah-i Bar-rasīhā-yi Tārīkhī, II, 2, 1346/1967, 204–6Google Scholar (= Asafiyyah 1214 ?) seems from his description not to contain material relevant to the SOAS manual and to have had considerable additions made after the time of the author. The MS mentioned in that article as being in the British Museum is not in the British Museum.
4 op. cit., 20–2, 84.
5 Paris, fol. 303a; SOAS, fol. 112b. A folio is missing after fol. 105. The text can be restored from the Paris MS fols. 299b–300a.
6 In the SOAS manual it is stated that the seals of Muhammad Khudābandah differed and that the author has no information about them (fol. 117b). The anomalous seal types of Muhammad Khudābandah have already been noted by DrBusse, H. in his Untersuchungen znm islamische Kanzleiwesen, Cairo, 1959, 49Google Scholar.
7 See previous note.
8 Bābs v–vii have been bound incorrectly. The order should be as follows: 127–32, 152–5, 150–1, 133–42, 176–82, lacuna, 167–75, 143–9, 183, 155–66, 184.
9 fols. 107b, 119b–120a.
10 Chardin, J., Voyages du Chevalier Chardin en Perse, ed. Langles, L., Paris, 1811, x, 93Google Scholar. Both Rabino and Zambauer give the Hijrī date as 19 Shawwāl. This goes back to Poole's, R. S.Catalogue of coins of the Sháhs of Persia in the British Museum, p. xxxviGoogle Scholar, where it is based on a miscalculation from Chardin's date.
11 fol. 119a.
12 fol. 109a–b.
13 For reproductions see: A. D. Papazyan, Persidskie dokumenty Matenadarana, I, part II, No. 10; Borgomale, H. L. Rabino di, Album of coins, medals, and seals of the Shǎhs of Irǎn, 1500–1948, OxfordGoogle Scholar, the author, 1951, plate 48, Nos. 8, 9.
14 A poor impression is reproduced by P'ut'uridze, V. in his Sparsuli istoriuli sabut'ebi Sak'art'velos dsignt'satsavebshi, Tbilisi, 1962Google Scholar, I, part II, No. 6.
15 op. cit., plate 49, Nos. 14, 15.
16 fol. 119a.
17 fol. 118a–b. See Rabino, , plates 48–50Google Scholar, Nos. 7, 16, 22.
18 Rabino, , plate 48Google Scholar, No. 11; P'ut'uridze, Nos. 5, 6.
19 op. cit., IX, 500.
20 e.g. Rabino, , plates 48–9Google Scholar, Nos. 13, 14, 16.
21 op. cit., x, 84–92. Chardin gives 1668/1079 but only the latter part of 1668 fell in 1079. The use of the 1078 seals after the coronation does seem to discredit Chardin's statement that a new set of seals was cut at tnat time (x, 95).
22 ‘ Farāmīn-i mawjūd dar mūzah-i Julfā’, Hunar wa Mardum, New Series, No. 84, Mihrmāh 1348/October 1969, 15. Khubua, M., Sakart'velos muzeumis sparsuli p'irmanebi da hok'mebi, I, Tbilisi, 1949Google Scholar, No. 9; Busse, No. 18.
23 Busse, No. 20; Simsār, M. H., ‘Farmān-niwīsī dar dawrah-i Safawiyyah’, Majallah-i Bar-rasīhā-yi Tārīkhī, II, 6, 1346/1968, 127–52Google Scholar, plate 2; Khubua, No. 13.
24 Rabino, plate 49.
25 BM MS Add. 7691, fols. lb–2a.
26 See in particular Turkmān, Iskandar Beg, Tārīkh-i ālam-ārā-yi 'Abbāsī, ed. Afshār, Iraj, Tehran, 1334/1055–6—1335/1956–7, II, 722–8Google Scholar.
27 ibid., 805. The date is that of the composition of this section of the 'ālam-ārā. See Afshār's preface, n, p. [iii].
28 Turkmān, Iskandar Beg, Dhail-i Tārīkh-i ‘ālam-ārā-yi 'Abbāsī, ed.Khwānsārī, Suhailī, Tehran, 1317/1938–9, 282Google Scholar.
29 Bibliothèque Nationale, Supp. pers. 1838, fol. 9b. ‘Abd al-Husain also says (fol. 9a) that Khwājah 'Atīq 'Alī, Shāh Ismā'īl's munshī al-mamālik was his grandfather (jadd). It is not likely that Iskandar Munshī was mistaken in saying that Malik Bahrām was 'Abd al-Husain's paternal grandfather, so Khwājah 'Atīq 'Alī must have been his maternal grandfather or else jadd is used less precisely to mean ‘forebear’.
30 Nasrābādī, Tāhir, Tadhkirah-i Nasrābādī, ed. Dastgirdī, Wahid, Tehran, 1317/1938–9, 84Google Scholar.
31 ibid., 72. Nasrābādī states in his preface that he is writing in 1083 [1672–3] (p. 5) but earlier dates are in places referred to as the present and some manuscripts contain later additions and interpolations. See Storey, , op. cit., I, part II, 820Google Scholar.
32 Fihrist-i kitābkhānah-i majlis-i shūrā-yi millī, iv, ed. Hā'iri, A., Tehran, 1335/1956–7, 17Google Scholar.
33 ibid., VI, ed. S. Nafīsī, Tehran, 1344/1965–6, 210.
34 Tadhkirat al-mulūk, ed. Minorsky, V., London, 1943, 52Google Scholar.
35 BM MS Or. 2941, fol. 52b. The author of this work, Muhammad Ibrāhīm b. Zain al-'Ābidīn, was also of the Nasīrī family and was alsomajlis-niwīs. One would expect him to be Abū 'l-Qāsim's first cousin if he did not say that he was nawādah (grandchild or great-grandchild) of Tālib Khān, Hātim Beg's son (fol. 239a). Perhaps he was descended from Tālib Khān in the female line.