Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:55:43.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 1373 Mas̲navī of Tāj al-Dīn Shaykh Ḥusayn Bey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2020

CAILAH JACKSON Open the ORCID record for CAILAH JACKSON [Opens in a new window]
CAILAH JACKSON*
Affiliation:
Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies/University of [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The fourteenth century saw the production of innumerable Islamic manuscripts, many of which were extensively and expertly illuminated. The period is well-studied, in particular, the products of the ateliers of Baghdad, Tabriz, Shiraz and Cairo. This article concerns a manuscript from a less well-known production centre, namely that of Erzincan. This manuscript is a copy of Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī's Mas̲navī produced in 774/1373. Although discussed briefly in previous scholarship (and attributed to Erzincan), there is much more to say about this skilfully and extensively illuminated manuscript. This article examines the manuscript's text, codicology, illuminations, inscriptions and wider historical context. In doing so, it substantiates the manuscript's connection to Erzincan and adds to the growing body of literature concerning the arts of the book of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Rūm.

Keywords

Mas̲navīMevlevisilluminated manuscriptsarts of the bookRūm
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 2021 , pp. 195 - 217
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Asiatic Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am grateful to the Süleymaniye Library in Istanbul for allowing me to examine the manuscript discussed in this article and for giving permission to publish images from their collection. Thank you also to the Museum of Islamic Art, Doha, the Austrian National Library, Vienna, and the Mevlana Museum, Konya for their permission. I was able to examine the manuscripts discussed in this article through the generous funding of the Barakat Trust and sincerely thank them for their support. Finally, thank you to both anonymous reviewers for their invaluable and insightful feedback.

References

2 In line with recent scholarship, I use ‘(Lands of) Rūm’ rather than Anatolia. See, for example, Bozdoğan, Sibel and Necipoğlu, Gülru, ‘Entangled Discourses: Scrutinizing Orientalist and Nationalist Legacies in the Architectural Historiography of the “Lands of Rum”’, Muqarnas 24 (2007), pp. 1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Patricia Blessing, Rebuilding Anatolia after the Mongol Conquest: Islamic Architecture in the Lands of Rūm, 1240–1330 (Farnham, 2014), p. 3.

3 The literature is extensive but, for some examples of recent studies, see Alison Ohta, ‘Covering the book: bindings of the Mamluk period, 1250–1516’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, School of Oriental and African Studies, 2012); Wright, Elaine, The Look of the Book: Manuscript Production in Shiraz, 1303–1452 (Washington, D.C. and Dublin, 2012)Google Scholar; and Azzouna, Nourane Ben, Aux Origines du Classicisme: Calligraphes et Bibliophiles au Temps des Dynasties Mongoles (les Ilkhanides et les Djalayirides 656–814/1258–1411) (Leiden, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Currently, no other manuscripts copied by this scribe are known.

5 The manuscript has been discussed but not illustrated in Zeren Tanındı, ‘Seçkin Bir Mevlevî’nin Tezhipli Kitapları’, in M. Uğur Derman Armağanı: Altmışbeşinci Yaşı Münasebetiyle Sunulmuş Tebliğler = M. Uğur Derman Festschrift: Papers Presented on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, edited by İrvin Cemil Schick (Istanbul, 2000), pp. 513–536, p. 521, n. 6. This analysis is repeated in Zeynep Demircan Aksoy, ‘XIV. Yüzyıl Anadolu Türk Tezhip Sanatı Tasarımları’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, 2011), pp. 209–229 where the manuscript is also illustrated, and its illumination is described. It has recently been reproduced in a facsimile edition, Süleymaniye Library, Mesnevi-î ma'nevî: (giriş-çeviri) (Istanbul, 2015) and has also been illustrated but not discussed in Mine Esiner Özen, Türk Tezhip Sanatı (Istanbul, 2003), pp. 44–51.

6 There is a further illuminated copy of the text from 784 (1382–83) (Mevlana Museum, Konya, 53) but I suspect that the illumination was added later. On this manuscript, see Abdülbaki Gölpınarlı, Mevlânâ Müzesi Müzelik Yazma Kitaplar Kataloğu (Ankara, 2003), pp. 57–60.

7 Cat. 7 was produced for a Mevlevi amīr based in Erzincan. Zeren Tanındı discusses the material's connection to Erzincan in Tanındı, ‘Seçkin Bir Mevlevî’nin Tezhipli Kitapları’; and Zeren Tanındı, ‘The Arts of the Book: Patrons and Interactions in Erzincan between 1365 and 1410’, in At the Crossroads of Empires: 14th–15th Century Eastern Anatolia: Proceedings of the International Symposium Held in Istanbul, 4th –6th May 2007, (edited and translated by) Deniz Beyazıt (Istanbul, 2012), pp. 221–238. The manuscript is discussed in further detail and historically contextualised in Cailah Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm, 1270s–1370s: Production, Patronage and the Arts of the Book (Edinburgh, 2020), Ch. 4, Cat. 15. Cat. 12 is almost certainly from Konya on the basis of its distinctive illumination. The manuscript is discussed in Jackson, Cailah, ‘The Illuminations of Mukhlis ibn ʿAbdallah al-Hindi: Identifying Manuscripts from Late Medieval Konya’, Muqarnas 36 (2019), pp. 41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar (see Figs 13–15).

8 One of the main early Mevlevi sources demonstrates that the devotees were to be found all over Rūm. In Persian, see Shams al-Dīn Aḥmad Aflākī, Manāḳib al-ʿārifīn: Metin, (ed.) Tahsin Yazıcı (Ankara, 1961); and in English, see Shams al-Dīn Aḥmad Aflākī, The Feats of the Knowers of God (Manāqeb al-ʿārefīn), (edited and translated by) John O'Kane (Leiden, 2002). See also Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm, p. 84, in particular.

9 These manuscripts, respectively, are: Bavarian State Library, Munich, Cod.pers.45 (copied 706/1307); Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul, Nafiz Paşa 658 (copied 717/1317); and Mevlana Museum, Konya, 1457 (copied 714/1314). See, respectively, Aumer, Joseph, Die persischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München (Munich, 1866)Google Scholar, p. 16, Cat. 45; Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm, p. 79, n. 132, p. 145, n. 98; and Gölpınarlı, Mevlânâ Müzesi Müzelik, pp. 272–273.

10 The literature is too extensive to reproduce here but is fully listed in Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm.

11 Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm (see especially Chapters 1–2).

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid; see also Cailah Jackson, ‘Illuminated Qurʾan manuscripts of late medieval Rūm (13th–14th centuries)’, in The Word Illuminated: Form and Function of Qur'anic Manuscripts, (eds.) Simon Rettig and Sana Mirza (Washington, D.C., forthcoming).

14 This issue is, however, in need of further study. This may yet uncover more original bindings from this context.

15 Robert Hillenbrand, ‘Western Scholarship on Persian Painting before 1914: Collectors, Exhibitions and Franco-German Rivalry’, in After One Hundred Years: The 1910 Exhibition “Meisterwerke Muhammedanischer Kunst” Reconsidered, (eds.) Andrea Lermer and Avinoam Shalem (Leiden, 2010), pp. 201–229.

16 It is not clear why Bahāʾ al-Dīn decided to leave Balkh, but it may have been due to a disagreement with the Khwārazmshāh. See H. Ritter and A. Bausani, ‘Djalāl al-Dīn Rūmī’, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, (eds.) P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W. P. Heinrichs, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0177 (accessed 3 May 2019); and Lewis, Franklin, Rumi: Past and Present, East and West: The Life, Teaching and Poetry of Jalâl Al-Din Rumi (London, 2008), pp. 46–63Google Scholar.

17 Lewis, Rumi: Past and Present, p. 274.

18 For scholarship on Rūmī's followers, see A. C. S. Peacock, ‘Sufis and the Seljuk Court in Mongol Anatolia: Politics and Patronage in the Works of Jalāl Al-Dīn Rūmī and Sulṭān Walad’, in The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, (eds.) A. C. S. Peacock and Sara Nur Yıldız (London, 2012), pp. 206–226; and Küçükhüseyin, Şevket, ‘Some Reflections on Hagiology with Reference to the Early Mawlawī-Christian Relations in the Light of the Manāqib al-ʿārifīn’, Al-Masāq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean 25, 2 (2013), pp. 240–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 The manuscript has been discussed in scholarship several times but for the most thorough examination and full bibliography, see Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm, Ch. 1.

20 Lewis, Rumi: Past and Present, p. 304.

21 Wright, The Look of the Book, p. 126.

22 Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm.

23 Thank you to Karin Scheper for her thoughts on this.

24 Qur'an 35:28.

25 As Lewis, Rumi: Past and Present, p. 307, states. This is evidenced, first, in the waqf note of the 1278 copy that discusses the text's collation and correction. Second, a copy of Book Three of Rūmī's Mas̲navī from 1317 completed in Cairo (madrasa al-Ẓāhiriyya, no longer extant) contains a Persian inscription from 723/1323 that outlines how Niẓām al-Dīn al-Arzinjānī al-Mawlawī checked the manuscript against the ‘true copy’ (nuskha-yi ṣaḥīḥ) in the ‘madrasa-i khudāvandigār Mavlānā’ in Konya (Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul, Nafiz Paşa 658, fol. 2a). On this manuscript, see note 9 above for bibliography. Niẓām al-Dīn al-Arzinjānī was, in fact, Aflākī's teacher (ustāz̲). Aflākī, Manāḳib al-ʿārifīn, vol. 2, p. 898; Aflākī, The Feats of the Knowers of God, p. 628.

26 Some copies of the Mas̲navī omit all of the prefaces which is not unusual or controversial. The manuscripts mentioned in this note otherwise include the other five prefaces, so the Book Five preface has been purposefully omitted. Other dated examples missing the fifth preface include a 738/1337 copy (Berlin State Library, Berlin, Minutoli 21) and a 744/1344 copy (Bavarian State Library, Munich, Cod.pers.35). The latter manuscript is Cat. 6 in Table 1. On Minutoli 21, see Wilhelm Pertsch, Verzeichniss der persischen Handschriften der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin (Berlin, 1888), pp. 784–785. On Cod.pers.35, see Aumer, Die persischen Handschriften, p. 14, Cat. 35. There is also an undated, non-illuminated copy presently in the Sam Fogg collection that is missing the fifth preface. Thank you to Andrew Butler-Wheelhouse for allowing me to examine this manuscript. None of these manuscripts mention a production location.

27 Banu Mahir and Netice Yıldız, ‘An Illuminated Mathnawi al-Maʾnawi of Jalaladdin al-Rumi Kept in the National Archive of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’, in 14th International Congress of Turkish Art: Proceedings, (ed.) Frédéric Hitzel (Ankara, 2013), pp. 475–481, Fig. 7. There are five non-illuminated 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 Mevlana Museum, Konya, 1193 and Mevlana Museum, Konya, 1457. See Gölpınarlı, Mevlânâ Müzesi Müzelik, pp. 255–256, 272–274. The 1295–1296 and 1319 manuscripts are, respectively, British Library, London, Or. 5602 and British Library, London, Or. 7693. See G. M. Meredith-Owens, Handlist of Persian Manuscripts, 1895–1966 (London, 1968), pp. 66, 68. The 1311–12 manuscript is unpublished (Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul, Hüsrev Paşa 184).

28 “sharīʿat hamchūn ʿilm-i kīmiyāʾ āmūkhtan-ast yā az ustādī yā az kitāb va ṭarīqat istiʿmāl kardan-i ān dārū-hā va mis-rā dar kīmiyāʾ mālīdan va ḥaqīqat zar shudan-i mis” (Mevlana Museum, Konya, 1177, fols 193b–194a). See Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥammad Rūmī, Mas̲navī, (ed.) Muḥammad Istiʿlāmī (Tehran, 1981–95), vol. 5, p. 7. The published version differs slightly but the meaning is essentially identical.

29 Many thanks to A. C. S. Peacock for this suggestion, and to Jawid Mojaddedi and Ahmet Karamustafa for their thoughts.

30 M. Ullmann, ‘al-Kīmiyāʾ’, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, (eds.) P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W. P. Heinrichs, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_islam_SIM_4374 (accessed 7 December 2018); and Regula Forster, ‘Alchemy’, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, THREE, (eds.) Kate Fleet, Gudrun Krämer, Denis Matringe, John Nawas and Everett Rowson, http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_23831 (accessed 7 December 2018).

31 Aflākī, Manāḳib al-ʿārifīn, vol. 2, p. 893; Aflākī, The Feats of the Knowers of God, p. 625.

32 A more comprehensive comparison involving unilluminated copies of the Mas̲navī would be ideal, but this is currently not possible due to lack of access.

33 See, for example, The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, W.557, fols 2b–3a, https://art.thewalters.org/detail/21410 (accessed 7 December 2018).

34 See, for example, Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts, Istanbul, MS.450, published in James, David, Manuscripts of the Holy Qurʾan from the Mamluk Era (Riyadh, 1999)Google Scholar, Fig. 35. This book was originally published as Qurʾāns of the Mamlūks (London, 1988).

35 On these Qur'ans, see Alya Karame, ‘Qur'ans from the Eastern Islamic World between the 4th/10th and 6th/12th Centuries’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Edinburgh, 2016), Ch. 5, pl. XIII, Ch. 6, pl. IX.

36 British Library, London, Or. 3623, fols 2b–3a. Illustrated in Wright, The Look of the Book, Fig. 3.

37 See ibid, Fig. 20 for an example from 1340s or 1350s Shiraz; and James, Manuscripts of the Holy Qurʾan, Fig. 38 for an example from early fourteenth-century Cairo.

38 Austrian National Library, Vienna, Mixt.1594. See Dorothea Duda, Islamische Handschriften (Vienna, 1983), vol.1, pp. 219–221. Sātī's connection to Erzincan is mentioned in n. 7 above and in ‘The manuscript's patron’ below.

39 Mevlana Museum, Konya, 75. On this manuscript, see Gölpınarlı, Mevlânâ Müzesi Müzelik, pp. 110–112; Demircan Aksoy, ‘XIV. Yüzyıl Anadolu’, pp. 328–338; and Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm, p. 208.

40 ‘This Dīvān of lovers has been presented for the purpose of reading, so that the lovers and the seekers may consider its commands well and remember its directives. The servant Mustanjid ibn Sātī the Mevlevi wrote it’ (īn Dīvān al-ʿushshāq-rā jihhat-i muṭālaʿa ba-dast dāda shud ki ʿāshiqīn va ṭālibīn muṭālaʿa farmūda ba-khayr yād āvard farmāyand katabahu al-ʿabd Mustanjid ibn Sātī al-Mawlawī).

41 As shown by an inscription in an undated copy of Shams al-Dīn Tabrīzī's Maqālāt that details Mustanjid's link to known members of Erzincan's Mevlevi community (Süleymaniye Library, Istanbul, Fatih 2788, fol. 123a). See Tanındı, ‘Seçkin Bir Mevlevî’nin Tezhipli Kitapları’, p. 526; and Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm, p. 213.

42 See James, Manuscripts of the Holy Qurʾan, Figs. 75 and 79.

43 See, for example, Wright, The Look of the Book, Fig. 71. Many thanks to one of the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out.

44 For a thorough discussion of the adoption of the Chinese lotus motif in Islamic art, see Yuka Kadoi, Islamic Chinoiserie: The Art of Mongol Iran (Edinburgh, 2009), passim.

45 See, for example, Wright, The Look of the Book, Figs. 1, 4, 6 and 7.

46 Ibid, Fig. 20.

47 Ibid, p. 49. See the central panel of the headpiece of National Library of France, Paris, Persan 377, fol. 2b, for an example. See https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8410889v (accessed 2 May 2019).

48 See James, Manuscripts of the Holy Qurʾan, Figs. 132, 135 and 142 for example.

49 Chester Beatty, Dublin, Is.1466, fols 332b–333a. See Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm, Ch. 1, Fig. A.2; and Elaine Wright, Islam: Faith, Art, Culture (London, 2009), p. 72.

50 Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Los Angeles, M.73.5.558-a. See https://collections.lacma.org/node/239925 (accessed 2 May 2019). See also Jackson, ‘The Illuminations of Mukhlis’, Figs 11–12.

51 See, for example, Massumeh Farhad and Simon Rettig (eds.), The Art of the Qurʾan: Treasures from the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts (Wa.shington, D.C., 2016), Cats. 23 and 25.

52 Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts, Istanbul, 431A, fols 3b–4a. See ibid, Cat. 14, pp. 168–169.

53 Fondation Martin Bodmer, Cologny, 527. See Leïla Benouniche, Le Kalila et Dimna de Genève: histoire d'un recueil de fables illustré (Geneva, 1995).

54 The complex has several dates, but the portal specifically dates to 656/1258. See Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm, Fig. 4.37.

55 Respectively, The al-Sabah Collection, Kuwait City, LNS 6 MS; and the David Collection, Copenhagen, D 1/1990. On the first manuscript, see Adel Adamova and Manijeh Bayani, Persian Painting: the arts of the book and portraiture (London, 2015), Cat. 1. The second manuscript is published in Kjeld von Folsach and Joachim Meyer, The Human Figure in Islamic Art: Holy Men, Princes, and Commoners (Copenhagen, 2017), Cat. 34.

56 See James, Manuscripts of the Holy Qurʾan, Fig. 49 and pp. 139–140.

57 See, for example, Farhad and Rettig, The Art of the Qurʾan, Cats. 31–32 and 53.

58 See Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm for several examples.

59 Refet Yinanç, ‘Selçuklu Medreselerinden Amasya Halifet Gazi Medresesi ve Vakıfkları’, Vakıflar Dergisi 15 (1982), pp. 5–22, p. 10.

60 A manuscript that was produced for Sātī ibn Ḥasan with slightly more illumination than the 1373 Mas̲navī costs 6,000 silver dirhams to produce. This was roughly equivalent to the annual wage of an amīr commanding 1,000 soldiers. See Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm, p. 211.

61 See n. 5 above.

62 Osman Turan, İstanbul'un fethinden önce yazılmış tarihî takvimler (Ankara, 1984), pp. 80–81. See also ʿAzīz ibn Ardashīr al-Astarābādī, Bazm va Razm, edited by Kilisli Rifʿat (Istanbul, 1928), p. 151; and Yaşar Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar: Eretna Devleti, Kadı Burhaneddin Ahmed ve Devleti, Mutahharten ve Erzincan Emirliği, II (Ankara, 1989), p. 64, n. 106, p. 151.

63 Ayna Bey and Pīr Ḥusayn may have been father and son according to Shukurov, Rustam, ‘Between Peace and Hostility: Trebizond and the Pontic Turkish Periphery in the Fourteenth Century’, Mediterranean Historical Review 9, 1 (1994), pp. 20–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar, p. 36.

64 Shukurov, ‘Between peace and hostility’, p. 32; Remler, Philip, ‘Ottoman, Isfendiyarid, and Eretnid Coinage: A Currency Community in Fourteenth-Century Anatolia’, The American Numismatic Society Museum Notes 25 (1980), pp. 167–188Google Scholar, pp. 174–176.

65 Turan, İstanbul'un fethinden, p. 80.

66 Al-Astarābādī, Bazm va Razm, pp. 151–159.

67 The main early Mevlevi sources are Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, Maktūbāt-i Mawlānā Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, (ed.) Tawfīq Subḥānī (Tehran, 1992); Farīdūn ibn Aḥmad Sipahsālār, Risālah-'i Sipahsālār dar manāqib-i ḥaẓrat khudāvandgār, (ed.) Muḥammad Afshīn Vafāyī (Tehran, 2007); Aflākī, Manāḳib al-ʿārifīn; and Aflākī, The Feats of the Knowers of God. After Aflākī's work was completed, the next Mevlevi source that survives is the as-yet unpublished Gulshan-i Asrār which was written in 951/1544 by Shāhidī Ibrāhīm Dede (d. 957/1550). See Nuri Şimşekler, ‘Şâhidî İbrâhîm Dede'nin Gülşen-i Esrâr’ı, Tenkitli Metin-Tahlil’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Selçuk University, 1998).

68 The patron of Cat. 1, for example, does not appear in any Mevlevi sources apart from the manuscript itself.

69 Dimitris Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid: Empire Building and Representation in the Ottoman Civil War of 1402–3 (Leiden, 2007), p. 71.

70 Al-Astarābādī, Bazm va Razm, pp. 374–379. See also Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar, p. 174.

71 Kastritsis, The Sons of Bayezid, pp. 71–72.

72 Shukurov, ‘Between Peace and Hostility’, p. 41.

73 See Yücel, Anadolu Beylikleri Hakkında Araştırmalar, passim; and Sait Kofoğlu, ‘Tâceddinoğulları’, in Turkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi, vol. 39, (eds.) Halis Ayhan and Ahmet Yılmaz (Istanbul, 2010), pp. 343–345.

74 Zachariadou, Elizabeth, ‘Trebizond and the Turks (1352–1402)’, Archeion Pontou 35 (1979), pp. 333–358Google Scholar, p. 343.

75 Thank you to Sara Nur Yıldız for this suggestion.

76 Çağman, Filiz and Tanındı, Zeren, ‘Selections from Jalayirid Books in the Libraries of Istanbul’, Muqarnas 28 (2011), pp. 221–264Google Scholar, Fig. 1.

77 National Library of France, Paris, Supplément persan 913, fol. 2a. See https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84328980 (accessed 2 May 2019).

78 See, for example, Sulṭān Ḥusayn's dinar: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, HCR15830. See http://hcr.ashmus.ox.ac.uk/coin/HCR15830 (accessed 6 December 2018).

79 See n. 38 above.

80 Mevlana Museum, Konya, 68–69. This manuscript is a two-volume copy of Dīvān-i Kabīr by Rūmī. See Tanındı, ‘Seçkin Bir Mevlevî’nin Tezhipli Kitapları’; Tanındı, ‘The Arts of the Book’; and Jackson, Islamic Manuscripts of Late Medieval Rūm, Ch. 4.

81 See notes 38, 39 and 41 above.

82 According to the Chester Beatty's Online Seals Database (currently offline), the latter seal also appears in a manuscript in the library's collection (Ar. 3590, fol. ia) and is numbered as seal 380. It dates to 1217 (1802–3).

83 According to Helen Loveday's classification of Islamic paper, the Mas̲navī's paper is closest to the ‘Syro-Egyptian’ type of the fourteenth century. See Loveday, Helen, Islamic Paper (London, 2001), p. 83Google Scholar.