Navigation – Plan du site
II. Le persan, langue de culture

Ottoman Book Collectors and Illustrated Sixteenth Century Shiraz Manuscripts1

Les collecteurs du livre ottoman et les manuscrits illustrés de Chiraz au XVe siècle
Laie Uluç
p. 85-107

Résumés

Un examen rapide des listes d'archives du contenu des bibliothèques privées des intellectuels ottomans, ainsi que des bureaucrates du groupe des élites, montre de façon éclatante que ces bibliothèques recélaient nombre d'éditions luxueusement illustrées des travaux des classiques persans. Ce qui met en évidence la popularité des livres persans illustrés dans le domaine ottoman.

Haut de page

Avertissement

Ce document est issu d'une numérisation par OCR (reconnaissance optique de caractères), il peut contenir des erreurs. Pour une version sans erreur, le lecteur pourra se reporter au fac-similé de la version papier.

Texte intégral

  • 1  The editors would like to thank Dr Jane Hathaway, Ohio State University, for having kindly correct (...)

1« Any man of power or one holding a government position considered himself obliged to have a library of his own » , wrote Ibn Sa'îd in tenth-century Cordoba (P. deGayangos, 1840, 139). Bibliophilia was an asset not just for the Umayyads of Spain but for all elite Islamic bureaucrats. Because of the special place of the Quran in Muslim societies, the written word was valued from the beginning of Islam. Books were considered a sign of culture and power. Libraries served as war prizes and books as diplomatic presents. Multiplication of copies of the Quran led to a prosperous book trade and book agents acted as intermediaries in obtaining collectors' items for resale to book lovers (G. Bosch etal., 1981,4-19). In tenth century Cordoba, the Umayyad ruler al-Hakîm II collected books through agents all over the world (P. de Gayangos, 1840, 140).

2Throughout the Ottoman period, book collecting was not solely a royal prerogative ; Ottoman private collectors either belonged to the elite military class (askerî sinif) which was at the top of the Ottoman social hierarchy or they were members of the judiciary (ulema). For the Ottoman elite, owning richly illuminated and illustrated manuscripts was a sign of wealth and culture. Books were read, enjoyed, exchanged as valuable gifts and bought and sold by a large number of Ottoman literati. The sixteenth century Ottoman historian Mustafa Ali writes about his distress at having to sell « his dearest possessions, his books » (C. H. Fleischer, 1986, 137).

  • 2  It is not possible to distinguish the period or the production center of the books mentioned in th (...)

3The first section of this article analyzes the remaining evidence from the Persian holdings of the former private Ottoman collections which demonstrate that Ottoman literati collected Persian books.2 The existence of sizable private libraries will be shown in this study and information about the Persian holdings of some of these libraries that were referred to in sources and documents will be presented. This information is the result of a combined analysis of published material and original research undertaken at the Topkapi Palace Museum Archives (TPMA).

  • 3  I would like to thank Dr Filiz Çağman, director of the Topkapι Palace Museum and former curator of (...)

4The second section of the article examines the inscriptional evidence found in the illustrated sixteenth century Shiraz manuscripts of the Topkapi Palace Museum Library (TPML).3 Shiraz manuscripts constitute almost half of the total number of illustrated sixteenth century Persian holdings in this collection and are the largest group of manuscripts from a single production center. The inscriptional evidence provides an insight into the identity of Ottoman collectors and shows that Shiraz manuscripts were desirable collectors' items for the Ottoman palace. Additionally, the group as a whole shows the types of Persian books which were most readily available to Ottoman collectors.

  • 4  Especially during the periods of increased Ottoman-Safavid contact due to military conflicts betwe (...)

5The final section of the article establishes the fact that there was an Ottoman market for Persian luxury manuscripts in the sixteenth century and that this market was largely supplied by Shiraz manuscripts.4 Moreover, it shows that the Ottoman market may have led to an increase in the production of higher quality Shiraz manuscripts.

6Some Ottoman private libraries were quite large. It is recorded that Sehzâde Kor-kud b. Bâyezid II (d. 1513) had a large library which was transported by camels when he traveled (Feridun Bey, 1858,373 ; 1 H. Uzunçarsili, 1988-a, 644 ; Î. Eriin-sal, 1988, 36). The rich and influential grand vezir and son-in-law of Süleyman the Magnificent, Riistem Pasa (d. 968/1561), had a library of five thousand volumes according to the sixteenth century historian Mustafa Ali (I. H. Uzunçaisili, 1988-a, 644 ; L H. Uzunçarsili, 1988-C, 166, note 1 ; Z.Tanindi, 1986,140-153 ; Z. Tamndi, 1992, 265-276). Sources mention that one hundred and thirty of these volumes incorporated precious metals or stones (murassa) in their bindings (I. H. Uzunçarşili, 1988-c, 166, note 1). The library of Miieyyed-zâde Abdurrahman Efendi of Amasya (d. 922 h./1516), a member of the ulema, consisted of seven thousand volumes (TPMAD. 9291/2, fol. 1Or ; Î. Eriinsal, 1988, 37, notes 191, 192 and 194 ; î. H. Uzunçarsih, 1988-a, 644 and 662-63 ; î. H. Uzunçarsih, 1988-B, 232). This famous collection was dispersed at its owner's death. Some time later, those of his books which could be located were collected and confiscated for the palace by the sultan's orders (I. Eriinsal, 1988, 37-40).

7In many of the complexes built by members of the royal family and influential bureaucrats, the medrese-s were endowed withlibraries. These libraries usually held private collections of individuals whose names were to be perpetuated, such as the libraries of Sinan Pasa (d. 891 h./l486) and his brother Ahmed b. Hizir Bey (d. 927 h./1521). The former turned his rich library into a foundation (vakif) before his death while the latter endowed his private library to the medrese that he had built in Bursa (TPMA E. 6 345 and TPMA E. 8 110 ; L Eriinsal, 1988, 36 and 40, note 206 ; L H. Uzunçarsili, 1988-a, 658-660 ; î. H. Uzun-çarsili, 1988-B, 230-31).

8Ottoman bureaucrat-intellectuals were avid collectors of Persian literature. In the Topkapi Palace Museum Archives, there are account books (hesap defterleri), confiscation registers (mukhallefat kayttlan) and gift registers (hediye defterleri) which mention books. There are also separate book lists which solely record book names. Almost every document which lists book names includes names of the works of Persian authors. The most mentioned Persian works are the Şâhnâma of Ferdûsî, the Khamsa of Nizâmî, the works of Sadî, Jâmî and Attâr, the Dîvân of Hâfiz, the Khamsaoî Dihlavî, the 'Ajâ'ib al-makhlûqât of Qazvînî, the Majâlis al-'uççhâq and the Târîkh of Tabarî while the works of authors who wrote in Turkish like Navâ'î, şaikhî and Ahmadî are also seen.

9A sixteenth century account book cites two copies of the Khamsa of Nizâmî which were bought for fifty gold sovereigns each from the estate of Sâh Sultân, the daughter of Selim I and sister of Süleyman the Magnificent (TPMA D.34, fol. 35r). The date of the document shows that they must have been bought for the palace on 3 ramadân 985 h./24 November 1577 at the time of her death (F. Çagman, 1993, 229). Books were also purchased from the libraries of private individuals, possibly after their demise. An account book dated 996 h./1586 bears witness to another book purchase for the palace since it lists the prices paid to different auctioneers (dellal) for the books which belonged to a certain Harun Efendi (TPMA D. 1546) ; it was not possible to identify this personage.

10One of the most important bodies of documents found in the palace archives is the large number of muhallefat records. Although muhallefat means inheritance, the term also referred to the acquisition of confiscated property. Therefore, it is sometimes translated as inheritance inventories while, at other times, it means confiscation registers. However, the majority of the palace muhallefat records referred to confiscated property. These documents list the items from the estates of formerly important bureaucrats and military commanders who had habitually made their fortunes through their royal or official connections ; their estates were often confiscated by the state upon their death.

11The imperial confiscation process, which was a crucially important method of acquisition for the palace, needs to be studied in further depth than is possible in the present work. However, Julian Raby and Ünsal Yiicel conducted an extended analysis of the muhallefat records in connection with the porcelain collection of the palace. As a result of this, they were able to interpret the Ottoman imperial confiscation process and provide some clues to the way that it functioned ; Their findings indicate that, according to Islamic canonical law, confiscation was permissible in instances where an illegal fortune had been made at the expense of the state and where the re-appropriated money was to be used for the furtherance of the Holy War (J. Raby and U. Yiicel, 1986, 33). The imperial confiscation process was thus initially carried out against the wrongdoers of the sultans subjects. In time, however, its regular and widespread imposition amounted to an arbitrary death duty without limit (J. Raby and U. Yiicel, 1986, 16). Raby and Yiicel cited the French traveler, Tavernier, whose writings indicate that, by the mid-seventeenth century, the sultan was regarded as the sole heir of any deceased pasha, regardless of the manner of his death, and that his estate was itemized for the sultan's selection. The legal justification for this appropriation was that any man who died in state service was considered a slave of the sultan and that, upon his death, the sultan assumed automatic possession of his effects (J. Raby and Ü. Yiicel, 1986, 33).

  • 5  According to Raby and Yucel, the process of marking with red ink was done by the sultan « in his o (...)

12At the time of confiscation, registers of an estate were drawn up and presented to the sultan. The desirable items which were to be confiscated by the palace were marked by the letter mim in red ink. This represented the designation « important » (mühim). These items were then transported to the palace treasury and the rest were either sold or given back to the heirs (J. Raby and U. Yücel, 1986, 33).5 In the confiscation registers that were studied for this article, Persian books were almost always marked by the letter mim for palace confiscation. The manuscripts which were specified in the inventory as illuminated or illustrated were always marked. This meant that they were among the items which were chosen to be kept in the royal treasury.

13Some of the confiscations were carried out under dubious circumstances. The library of Sehid Ali Pasa, the grand vezir and son-in-law of Ahmed III, was confiscated by an imperial decree even though it had been deeded to a foundation before his death in 1 128 h./17l6. In order for the sultan to confiscate this valuable library, the seyh til-islam of the time issued a decree (fetva) to the effect that the library which contained works of philosophy (felsefe), astronomy and astrology (nticûm), history and biography (târîkh) and poetry (es'ar) were full of lies. Therefore, the library could not be left as a foundation, but should instead be confiscated (Î. Erunsal, 1988, 70-77 ; J. M. Rogers, 1995, 19-20).

14The sizable library of Damad Ibrahim Pasa, another grand vezir and son-in-law of Ahmed III, was also confiscated. The confiscation register of the sequestered items from his estate calls the owner of the listed items, « the slain » (maqtûl) Ibrahim Pasa. The register is dated to the year of his death, 1 143 h./1730 (TPMA D. 2211/1), when he was killed by rebelling janissaries (I. H. Danismend, 1947, IV/18). Registers of the estates of identifiable personages such as Damad Ibrahim Paşa can provide clues to the types of individuals who collected Persian literature.

15Damad Ibrahim Pasa's confiscation register lists almost nine hundred books, including a number of Persian works. This register categorizes all the books according to their subjects. First, there is a large section of Qurans (mushafve in'âm-t verifier), followed by books in various fields such as Quranic interpretation (fenn-i tefâsir-i çerïfe), Quranic stories (fenn-i akhâbîr-iserife), Islamic law (fenn-ifiqh -t şerif), theology (fenn-i kelâm), finance (fenn-i mâlî), Islamic spiritual philosophy (fenn-i tasawuf), medical sciences (fenn-i tib), lexicology (fenn-i lugat), syntax (fenn-i nahv), literature (fènn-i edehiyât), metaphysics (fenn-i hikmet), Eastern studies (fenn-i sarkî), Turkish and Persian dîvâns (Ttirkî ve Farsî dîvânlar) and anthologies and essays (mecmu 'a ve resâ 'il). Tides of individual books are listed under each heading with many of the titles in Persian. There are multiple copies of Persian classics ; some of them are noted as being illustrated (musavver). However, die categories of books appear unclear. The şâhnâma of Ferdûsî, the Khamsa of Nizârnî and the Târîkh of Tabarî are categorized under Eastern studies (fenn-i$arkî) while the Dîvâns of Navâ'î and Hâfiz are under Turkish and Persian dîvâns (Ttirkî ve Farsî dîvânlar) and the 'Ajâ'ib al-makhlûqât of Qazvînî is under metaphysics (fenn-ihikmet). Also, the works of one author can be found under multiple headings. For example, manuscripts of Jâmî and Sa'dî are both found under Islamic spiritual philosophy (fenn-i tasavvuf), but works of Jâmî are likewise found under anthologies and essays (mecmu 'a ve resâ 'il) and those of Sa'dî are also listed under Turkish and Persian dîvâns (Türkî ve Farsi dîvânlar).

16Another identifiable person whose effects were confiscated and inventoried was Mehmed Paşa, the Rumeli Beylerbeyiand one of the « royal companions » (musâhib) of Sultan Murad III. Similar to Damad Ibrahim Paşa, Mehmed Paşa was killed by rebelling janissaries in 997 h./1589 (Î. H. Danişmend, 1947, III/ 111-113). Although the complete confiscation register of his estate does not exist, a list of those of his books which were chosen to be brought over to the imperial treasury survives in the palace archives. This document, which is dated 997 h./1589, contains thirty-three book titles (TPMA D. 4057). One-third of the titles are either works of well-known Persian authors or are simply listed as being in Persian. Eight of the eleven Persian works are specified as illustrated and illuminated (musavver and muzehheb), but none of the remaining twenty-two titles is specified as such. There are large size (cild-i kebir) illustrated and illuminated (musavver and muzehheb) albums (murakka) and copies of the şâhnâma of Ferdûsî, the Khamsa of Nizâmî, the Kulliyât of Sa'dî and the 'Ajâ'ib al-makhlûqât of Qazvînî. Also listed among the titles are illustrated and illuminated (musavver and muzehheb) copies of the Majâ-lis al-usshâq, the Kulliyât of Sa'dî, the Gulistân and the Bûstân of Sa'dî, the Dîvân of Navâ'î in Central Asian Turkish, the Hadîqat al-Su'adâ 'and a book which was merely specified as being in Persian ('acem).

  • 6  These were probably written in Turkish and illustrated in Safavid Persia.

17Another sixteenth century inventory consisting exclusively of books belonging to an anonymous pasha lists two hundred and ten books of which one-third are in Persian (TPMA D.9 710). There are seven volumes of Sa'dî, eight of Hâfiz, thirteen of Nizâmî, nine of Jâmî, four of 'Attâr, two of Tabarî and five copies of the şâhnâmaof Ferdûsî. Many of the Persian works are noted as illustrated (musavver). In addition, there are two copies each of the Dîvâns of Navâ'î and of şaikhî.6

18The confiscation register dated 996 h./1588 of a certain Ali Çelebi indicates that he was an Ottoman who lived and died at Budin (Hungary) towards the end of 1587. Calligraphers' utensils which are listed in this register may indicate that Ali Çelebi practiced calligraphy himself. He owned Arabic and Persian dictionaries and books in three languages : Turkish, Arabic and Persian. Half of his library consisted of literature most of which was in Persian. There was a large size şâhnâma of Ferdûsî, two copies of the Yûsufand Zulaikhâ, two abridged copies of the Khamsa (one of them by Nizâmî), two copies of the works of Hâfiz, a şâh and Gudâ, a Tîmûrnâma and a Dîvân of şâhî. Ten of his books were specified as having Persian gilt bindings (L. Fekete, 1977, 615-38).

19There are also archival inventories of thousands of books which came to the royal treasury from unidentified sources. There are fifty-five separate lists (evrak), each of varying length (TPMA E. 2 885/15-70) : the smallest has eleven book names (TPMA E. 2 885/19) and the largest has around nine hundred (TPMA E. 2 885/15). The lists, most of which contain works of classical Persian authors, do not contain any groupings whatsoever but simply give book names. They often mention the same work more than once and sometimes indicate that a manuscript is illustrated (musawer). The most informative list concerns « the precious and illustrated books » (kitâb-i nefîse ve musawerân) (TPMA E. 2 885/39). Twenty-two of the seventy-six books on this list are noted as illustrated (musawer). Most of the illustrated copies are the works of classical Persian authors. Once again, there are illustrated copies of the Şâhnâma of Ferdûsî, the Khamsa of Nizâmî, the works of Jâmî, Sa'dî, Hâfiz and Ahmadî, the Sifât al-âşiqïn of Hilâlî and copies of the Majâlis al-usshâq.

20Books were habitually used as diplomatic gifts presented by Safavid embassies to the Ottoman domain. Ottoman written sources mention at least twenty-seven Safavid embassies that reached the Ottoman sultan between the years 1514-1600. A additionally, Safavid envoys were sent to the Ottoman Eastern headquarters (Iskandar Munshî, 1979, 385 ; B. Kutukoglu, 1962, 110-113). Some of the sources explicidy record the presence of gifts although book names are mentioned only rarely.

21In Ottoman manuscript illustrations of Safavid envoys, the presentation of books is often prominently represented. The reception by Selim II of the Safavid ambassador, şâh Qûlî Khân, was depicted in both the Nüzhet (el-esrâr) el-Akhbâr der sefer-i Sigetvar by Ahmed Feridun Pasa (TPML H. 1 339, fol. 247 v) and the şâhnâme-i Selîm Khân by Seyyid Lokman (TPML A. 3 595, fols. 53 v and 54 r) (I. Stchoukine, 1966, pl. XXVI and XXX ; F. Çagman and Z. Tanindi, 1986, pl. 155 and 157-158 ; S. S. Blair and J. M. Bloom, 1994, fig. 308). In the former, the author also lists a few of the more significant gifts. Among these, he mentions and describes a copy of the şâhnâma of Ferdûsî which makes it possible to identify this manuscript as the Tahmâsp Şâhnâma (TPML H. 1339, fol. 246 v) (S. C. Welch and M. B. Dickson, 1979). Although he does not enumerate other books brought by şâh Qûlî Khân, this does not signify that there were no other books. The inclusion of the Tahmâsp şâhnâma in the list was clearly because he considered it to be an extremely important gift.

22The first volume of Çâhinphnâme by Seyyid Lokman contains a depiction of the presentation of gifts in 1576 by şâh Tahmâsp s ambassador, Toqmaq Khân, when he reached the Ottoman capital after the accession of Murad III in 1574 (Istanbul University Library F. 1404, fols. 4lv and 42 r) (N. Atasoy and F. Çagman, 1974, pl. 18). Seyyid Lokman also mentions the same event in another of his chronicles, Züb-detu'tevârîkh. In the latter book, he records that Toqmaq Khân had brought a copy of the şâhnâma of Ferdûsî as a present and more than sixty volumes of dîvâns of Persian poets (Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts TIEM 1973, fol. 91v).

23In the second volume of the şâhïn$âhnâme by Seyyid Lokman, diere is a miniature showing the presentation of gifts by another Safavid ambassador, Ibrahim Khan, on the occasion of the circumcision festival of şehzâde Mehmed in 1582 (TPML B. 200, fols. 36v and 37r) [figs. 1 and 2]. Here, large books are held by men at the head of the presentation group. An account of the festivities lists some of the presents received by the sultan, his son and his family, not only from the Safavid shah and the crown prince, but also from various Safavid princes, princesses, the Safavid ambassador himself and some of the Ottoman vezirs (O. ş. Gokyay, 1986, 31-39). It records eighteen books as having been sent by the Safavid şâh Muhammad Khudâbanda and the crown prince, Hamza Mîrzâ. However, only ten titles are enumerated in the list, confirming the fact that not all books which were given as gifts were necessarily mentioned by chroniclers.

24The Kitàb-i Ganjina-i Fath-i Ganja by Ibrâhîm Çavus, describes the conquests of Ferhad Pasa, the Ottoman commander of the eastern forces at the time of the second Ottoman-Safavid peace in 1590 (TPML R. 1296, fols. 42-54) (t. H. Danişmend, 1947, III/l 17). A Safavid prince, Haidar Mîrzâ b. Hamza Mîrzâ b. Muhammad Khudâbanda, was sent to the Ottomans as a hostage for peace at the suggestion of Ferhad Paşa (î. H. Danişmend, 1947, III/100-102 ; B. Kütükoglu, 1962, 187-195 ; Iskandar Munshî, 1979, 479-483, 587 and 612). The Kitâb-t Ganjina-i Fath-i Ganja gives extensive coverage to this extremely important event and contains a list of presents brought by the Safavid peace delegation, the first eighteen items of which are books. They were presented by Haidar Mîrzâ who is illustrated three times in the manuscript (TPML R. 1296, fols. 46r, 48 v and 53 r) [figs. 3, 4 and 5]. First, he is shown before şâh 'Abbâs I and lastly, before the Ottoman Sultan Murad III. Between these two, he is shown at the banquet given in his honor at Erzurum by Ferhad Paşa who met the Safavid peace delegation there and escorted the group to Istanbul. Ferhad Paşa may also have received gifts from the Safavid prince. Ferhad Paşa was later executed by imperial decree and his estate devolved to the state (A. Mumcu, 1985, 160, note 442). There is unfortunately no trace of his estate among the surviving books in the Topkapi collection.

Figure 1 - The Safavid ambassador, İbrâhîm Khân, presents gifts on the occasion of the circumcision festival of Şehzâde Mehmed in 1582. (Şâhînşâhnâme by Seyyid hokman, vol. II, 1001/1592, TPML B.200,fol. 36v).

Agrandir

Figure 2 - The Safavid ambassador, İbrahim Khân, presents gifts on the occasion of the circumcision festival of Şehzâde Mehmed in 1582. (Şâhînşâhnâmeby Seyyid Lokman, vol. II, 1001/1592, TPML B.200,fol. 37r).

Agrandir

Figure 3 - The Safavidprince Haidar Mirzâ before Şâh'Abbâs I. (Kitab-i Ganjina-i Fath-i Ganjaby İbrahim Çâvûş, 998/1589-90, TPML R.1296, fol. 46r).

Agrandir

Figure 4 - The Safavid prince Haidar Mirzâ and the Safavid peace delegation at the banquet given by Ferhad Paşa in Erzurum. (Kitab-ι Ganjina-i Fath-i Ganjaby İbrâhîm Çâvûş, 998/1589-90, TPML R.1296, fol. 48v).

Agrandir

Figure 5 - The Safavid prince Haidar Mirzâ before Sultan Murad III. (Kitab-i Ganjina-i Fath-i Ganja by İbrâhîm Çâvûş, 998/1589-90, TPML R. 1296, fol. 53v).

Agrandir

Figure 6 - The Timurid prince Badî' al-Zamân b. Husain Mirzâ presenting a copy of the Şâhnâma of Ferdûsî to Sultan Selim I. (Selîmnâmeby Şükri Bitlisî, circa 1525, TPMLH. 1597-98, fol. 140r).

Agrandir

25Throughout the sixteenth century, various Safavid princes and officials defected to the Ottomans. They also seem to have used luxury manuscripts as gifts. The last Timurid ruler of Herat, Badî'al-Zamân b. Sultân Husain, who was living in the Safavid Palace during Selim Is conquest of Tabriz in 1514, was brought to Istanbul and resided at the Ottoman court. This event is illustrated in the Selîmnâme of şükrî where the author relates that the prince presented the sultan with a copy of the Sâhnâma of Ferdûsî (TPML H. 1597-98, fol. 139 v and l40 r) [fig. 6].

  • 7  In Hamadan, he captured his brother Bahrâm Mîrzâ's son's household.

26During the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent, two of şâh Tahmâsp's brothers, Sâm Mîrzâ and Alqâs Mîrzâ, revolted unsuccessfully against their older brother and subsequendy allied themselves, in 942 h./1535 and 954 h./1547 respectively, with the Ottomans (Î. H. Danişmend, 1947,II/178 and 254 ; C. H. Fleischer, 1985). Moreover, Alqâs Mîrzâ went back into Safavid territory with Ottoman support, conducted successful raids and sent some of the Safavid treasures that he had accumulated to Sultan Suleyman (C. H. Fleischer, 1985).7 Ottoman sources mention that these treasures included books such as Qurans, an illustrated şâhnâma of Ferdûsî, a dîvân, a history and other works (I. Peçevi, 1992, 199 ; I. H. Danismend, 1947,II/259). The Suleymânnâme of Fediullah Ali Çelebi (Arifî) specifically mentions Shirazi (kâr-işïrâz) manuscripts and contains three illustrations concerning Alqâs Mîrzâ (TPML H. 1 517, fols. 498 r, 471 v, 498 v and 506 r) (E. Atil (ed.), 1986, pl. 47,49 and 51). Eflâtûn şirvânî, Alqâs Mîrzâ's court poet and librarian, accompanied die prince to the Ottoman court and stayed on to later become die second Ottoman court historian Qâhnâmeci)(C. H. Fleischer, 1985).

  • 8  For example, calligraphers Muhammed Riza Tebrizi and Kasim Ali Tebrizi came to Istanbul in 994 h./ (...)
  • 9  If the contemporary historian Mustafa Ali is to be believed, they were even accorded an undue pref (...)

27During the reign of Murad III (1574-1595), especially after the outbreak of the Ottoman-Safavid war, Safavid literati8 and important Safavid officials were among those who emigrated or defected to the Ottomans (C. H. Fleischer, 1986, 123 n and 153).9 Iskandar Munshî also mentions that there were « many people who tried to keep in with both the Ottomans and the Safavids » around this time (Iskandar Munshî, 1979, 717).

  • 10  Şaraf Khân reached the city of Van and allied himself with the Ottomans in 1578. Maqşûd Beg Zû'lqa (...)
  • 11  Şâhvardî Khân seems to have defected to the Ottomans in 1589 but then tried to keep up good relati (...)
  • 12  This manuscript supplies an interesting historical fact since it has a purchase note written on th (...)

28During this period, şaraf Khân, an official brought up at the Safavid court in Tabriz, and Maqsûd Beg Zû'lqadir, a former Safavid envoy to the Ottoman court, both defected to the Ottomans (B. Kütükoglu, 1962, 69, 110 and 155 ; B. Kütükoglu, 1963, 132-34).10şâhvardî Khân 'Abbâsî, the governor of Lûris-tân whose sister was one of die wives of şâh ' Abbas, became the vassal of the Ottoman governor of Baghdad (Iskandar Munshî, 1979,643 and 717 ; B. Kiitiikoglu, 1962, 214-15).11 Khân Ahmad Khân of Gilân, who was closely connected widi the Safavid Shahs, tried to put his country under Ottoman suzerainty. Khân Ahmad, who had been educated at the court of şâh Tahmâsp as a child, married one of şâh Tahmâsp s daughters and was related to şâh 'Abbas' mother (Iskandar Munshî, 1979, 182-82,219 and 332-33). Ottoman chronicles record that Khân Ahmad both sent and brought presents (M. Selânikî, 1989, 295 ; B. Kiitiikoglu, 1962, 210-11 and 215 ; 1 H. Danismend, 1947, HI/123 and 125). In the Majmu 'a al-Kavâss by Sâdiqî Beg Afşar, Persian artist and chronicler of artists, he himself was an art patron of some significance. Sâdiqî mentions three poets and a historian as being in attendance at the Gilân court and he himself may have also been there as well (A. Welch, 1976, 62). Iskandar Munshî also mentions a calligrapher and a musician as being in his service (Iskandar Munshî, 1979, 272 and 280). A Shirazi $âhnâma of Ferdûsî dated to 998 h./1589-90 is known to have been owned by Khân Ahmad's daughter, a wife of şâh 'Abbâs I (Princeton University Library, Persian 1) (L. Marlow, 1985, 192-214).12

29Gift giving was an integral part of the personal and political relationships of the Ottoman elite. Ottoman officials had to provide suitable gifts at religious festivals (bayram) as well as at other large festivities organized by the palace when they were given an audience on their return from foreign assignments and when they were assigned to a bureaucratic post. The Persian illustrated book was a desirable and prestigious gift for these occasions. A palace imperial benefaction register (in'âmat defteri) listing the benefactions (in'âm and ihsân) given by Sultan Bayezid II (1481-1512) between the years 909-917 h./1503-1512, mentions a large number of people who brought books to the sultan and were rewarded in return (I. Eriinsal, 1988, 31, note 151). Seyyid Lokman mentions in the Hünernâme that the townspeople brought gifts to the sultan at the circumcision festival for the sons of Süleyman the Magnificent in 1539 (TPML H. 1524, vol. 2, fols. 94 v and 130 v).

30In the descriptions of the circumcision festival of şehzâde Mehmed in 1582, Persian books are mentioned among the gifts presented by the Ottoman vezirs to Sultan Murad III and the prince (O. ş. Gökyay, 1986, 31-39). The grand vezir, Sinan Paşa, presented the sultan with a gilded album and the prince with a copy each of the Kulliyâtoi Safdî and Khamsa of Nizâmî. The third vezir, Siyavuş Paşa, presented the sultan and die prince each with an illustrated copy of the şâhnâma of Ferdusi which was perhaps the highest ranking of the Persian classics. The fifth vezir, Mahmud Paşa, also presented the prince with an illustrated copy of the Khamsa of Nizâmî (O. S. Gôkyay, 1986, 34-35).

  • 13 Tekke libraries also mostly contained only mystical (taş avvufî) or religious (dînî) books. The lib (...)

31The evidence discussed above suggests that copies of Persian classics were often found in private collections of individuals from the elite military classes (askerî straf), but rarely in the libraries of the ulemaor in the medrese-s. The books chosen for the medrese libraries were for the edification of the students and mostly pertained to the subjects taught there. However, private libraries donated to a medrese may have included diverse books which reflected the individual interests of the owners (I. Eriinsal, 1988, 202 and 215).13This can be seen in the catalogue of the libraries of the Fatih complex compiled by an individual named Hâci Hasan-zâde Muhammed b. Hizir in 968 h./1552-53. In this catalogue, only the section listing the books which had been donated by private collectors contained subject headings such as Persian and Turkish books (Farsça ve Tiirkçe kitâplar), history (târîkh) and poetry fair) (TPMA D. 9 Ş559 ; L Eriinsal, 1988, 219, note 614 and 222-223). This type of diversity is found more frequently in the eighteenth century when Ottoman libraries functioned as individual institutions radier than being part of a complex (I. Eriinsal, 1988, 203).

  • 14 The distribution of the numbers is asfollows : (...)

32The Persian holdings of theTopkapi Palace Museum Library corroborate the evidence outlined above. This collection houses approximately two hundred sixteenth century illustrated Persian manuscripts (E E. Karatay, 1961 ; F. Çagman and Z. Tanindi [in preparation]). Almost half of these were produced in Shiraz. However, this ratio increases when one considers only the copies of Persian litterary classics which, in fact, are the titles most seen in Ottoman book lists. Sixty percent of the total number of this group are from Shiraz workshops.14Approximately one hundred of the sixteenth century illustrated Persian manuscripts, of which fifty had been made in Shiraz, bear later notes and marginalia which indicate that they had formerly belonged to private individuals before becoming palace property. Some of the former owners who are mentioned on diese manuscripts can be identified. The identifiable names provide an occasional correlation between archival documentation and existing manuscripts.

33An analysis of the inscriptional evidence found on Shiraz manuscripts in the Topkapi collection proves that sixteenth century Shiraz manuscripts were owned by both the Ottoman elite and members of the Ottoman royal family, that they were used as gifts both by the Safavid delegations and Ottoman officials and that they were considered worthy of being both confiscated and bought for the palace.

34Six illustrated sixteenth century Shiraz manuscripts contain later inscriptions which indicate that they were owned by members of the Ottoman royal family.

  • 15 « Şâhnâme Büyük Hatice Sultan'indir » . The exact identity of this Hatice Sultan cannot be establis (...)

35A Şâhnâma of Ferdûsî from circa 1515-20 and a Khamsaof Nizâmî from circa 1530 contain seals which belong to two of the sons of Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent. The former carries the note « Sultan Mehmed Çâhnâme » and the seal of şehzâde Mehmed (d. 1543) (TPML H. 1494). The latter has the oval seal of Çehzâde Mustafa (d. 1553) (TPML H.772). A $âhnâma of Ferdûsî dated 939 h./l533 contains the note « Hatice Sultan the elder's Şâhnâma » (TPML H.l482).15

36Two copies of the Khamsa of Nizâmî dated 945-47 h./l538-40 and 947 h./1540 and one of the Tîmûrnâma of Hâtifî from circa 1550 have the inscription « the late (Merhûme) şah Sultan » on their back flyleaves (TPML H.758, TPML H. 755 andTPML H.1593). As mentioned above, Shah Sultan was the daughter of Selim I and sister of Süleyman the Magnificent. These two copies of the Khamsa of Nizâmî therefore provide a significant example of the correlation that can be established between archival documentation and an identifiable name found on manuscripts since they were the two copies of the Khamsa of Nizâmî that were bought for fifty gold sovereigns each from her estate as cited by the account book mentioned above (TPMA D. 34, fol. 35 r ; F. Cagman, 1993,229). Moreover, they constitute an example of Shiraz manuscripts that were bought for the palace.

  • 16  « Şâh'dan gelen kitaptir » .

37Two Shiraz manuscripts, a Khamsa of Khusrau Dihlavî dated to 970 h./l562-63 and a Yûsuf and Zulaikhâ of Jâmî from circa 1575 contain flyleaf notes with the date 990/1582 saying « the book which came from the şah » (TPML H. 794 h. and TPML H. 727).16 The note and its date clearly indicate that these two manuscripts were among the eighteen books which were brought by the Safavid ambassador, Ibrâhîm Khân, on the occasion of the circumcision festival of Çehzâde Mehmed in 1582.

38Unfortunately, these instances of relatively certain correlation are exceptional. More commonly, one is unable to match the people whose libraries have surviving archival documentation with the identifiable names found on extant manuscripts. For example, the confiscation register of the estate of Ibrahim Paşa cited hundreds of books but the Topkapi Palace Museum Library does not contain a single manuscript which bears any evidence of having belonged to him. Conversely, there are manuscripts, including ones from Shiraz, which bear notes which say that they were received into the Palace collection from the estate (muhallefat) of an Ottoman bureaucrat but the confiscation register of that persons estate has not been found.

39Two manuscripts from Shiraz, a copy of the Kulliyâtoi Sa'dî dated 939 h./1532 and a Khamsa of Nizâmî dated 918 h./1512-13 bear the round seal of Ibrahim Paşa (d. 1536), the brodier-in-law and grand vezir of Süleyman the Magnificent (TPML R. 926 and TPML H. 770). They must have devolved to the state as part of his estate which was confiscated after his execution in 942/1535 (I. H. Danişmend, 1947, II/183).

  • 17  These are TPML H. 1481 (a Şâhnâma of Ferdûsî dated to 950 h./1543 and copied by 'Alî katîb), TPML (...)
  • 18  « Vezîr-i d'zam Sinàn Pasa'dan gelen kitâptir, sene 999 » This book also has the same mixed style (...)
  • 19  TPML R. 924 has a second flyleaf note which says that it was a « gift of the son of Mîr 'Abd-Allâh (...)
  • 20  Although confiscation registers of Sinan Paşa tate exist, there are no booklists.

40Seven illustrated Persian manuscripts in the Topkapi Palace Museum Library are inscribed with the name Sinan Paşa. Five of these have Shiraz style illustrations.17 Although, ordinarily, it would not have been possible to identify an Ottoman name without additional clues, in this instance, it can be understood that these books had belonged to the Sinan Paşa who had served five terms as the grand vezir between 1579 and his death in 1596 since he was one of the richest and most influential officials to have lived in the last quarter of the sixteenth century (F. Çagman and Z. Tanindi, 1996, 145, note 2). The information helping to thus identify him is supplied by an eighth book, a Şâhnâma of Ferdûsî dated to 983 h./1576 which carries the note « the book which came from the grand vezir Sinan Paşa, year 999 h./1591 » (TPML R. 1 544).18 The same Sinan Paşa was the grand vezir during the 1582 circumcision festival of şehzâde Mehmed and was recorded in the gift lists as having presented the prince with a copy each of the Kulliyât of Sardî and the Khamsa of Nizâmî. Two manuscripts with Shiraz style illustrations, a Kulliyât of Sa'dî dated 978 h./1570-71 and a Khamsa of Nizâmî dated 980 h./1560-61 are among the books which carry his name and may very well be the books which he presented to the prince in 1582 (TPML R. 924 and TPML H. 780).19Sinan Paşa was executed by an imperial decree in 1 004 h./1596 and his considerable estate devolved to the state (M. Selânikî, 1989, 585 ; Î. H. Danismend, 1947, HI/163).20

  • 21 « 1097 şehr-i rebî' ul-evvel' de maqtûl vezîr-i a'zam Ibrahim Paşa'dan gelen şâhnâme-i Firdevsî'dir (...)
  • 22  « fî 8 safer [10]95 mukhallefât-i vezîr-izd'am Mustafâ Paşa. »

41Three sixteenth century Shiraz manuscripts have inscriptions which indicate that they had belonged to seventeenth century Ottoman grand vezirs and were confiscated as part of their estates. The first is a Şâhnâma of Ferdûsî dated 960 h./1553 and copied by Fânî al-kâtib al-şîrâzî which has the flyleaf note « this is the şâhnâma of Ferdûsî which came from the estate of the slain (maqtûl) grand vezir îbrâhîm Paşa in rebV ul-evvel 1097 h./1686 » (TPML H.1495).21The second is a copy of the Khamsa of Nizâmî from circa 1585 with the flyleaf note « the estate of the grand vezir Mustafa Paşa » and the date [10] 95 (TPML A. 3 559).22 The grand vezir Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa Paşa was executed in the year 1094 h./1683. This note, dated to the next year, indicates that his estate was confiscated after his death in 1684.

  • 23 « sene 1097 Zilhiccesinde merhûm muşâhib Mustafâ Paşa muhallefâtιndan alιnmιştιr. »

42The third one is another copy of a Şâhnâma of Ferdûsî from circa 1555 (TPML H. 1484). A note on its flyleaf says « taken from the estate of the late musahib Mustafa Paşa » in 1 097 h./1686.23By the date and the adjective musâhib (royal companion), it is understood that this Mustafa Paşa was the second vezir, the son-in-law and one of the companions of Sultan Mehmed IV (1648-1687). There are other illustrated Persian manuscripts in theTopkapi collection that have notes which specify that they came from the library of this paşa after his death in 1686 when his estate was confiscated (F. Çagman and Z. Tanindi, 1996, 135).

  • 24 « Darüssaade Ağasι Beşir Ağa'nιn kitâblarιndan. »
  • 25 « Darüssaade Ağasι Beşir Ağa'nιn kitâblarιndan. »

43Three additional manuscripts bear the name of another seventeenth century Ottoman official, the Darüssade agast Beşir Aga (alive in 1635). The earliest one is a Khamsa of Nizâmî dated 934 h./1528 (TPML R. 871). It bears the flyleaf note : « this is one of the books of the Darussaade agast Beşir Aga » . The work, which is in a mixture of styles,24 was copied by a Herat scribe, Yâr Muhammad al-Harâvî. It has a Shiraz style binding and an illumination dating to approximately from the same time when it was copied, but its illustrations seem to have been added later, possibly in another center. The other two books are very high quality Shiraz manuscripts from the middle of the 1580 s. A HaftAurang of Jâmî from around 1580 has the same note as that of the first book, but, this time, it is located on the margin next to the frontispiece illumination : « this is one of the books of the Darussaade agast Beşir Aga » (TPML R. 911).25 The last one, a şâhnâma of Ferdûsî dated 993 h./1585, contains the square seal of the same Aga, Bes,ir (TPML R. 1548). This is one of the better documented Shiraz manuscripts. Its colophon supplies the name of its calligrapher, Nizâmî b. Amîr Jalâl Kaşî, and it is also signed by its illuminator Qâsim 'Alî şîrâzî.

  • 26 « pişkaş-i zauja-i marhûm Khwâja Au[ha]d al-dîn Mahmûd vazîr-i... Shîrâzî... »
  • 27 « ...'dan gelen kitaptιr. 96. »

44A note on the flyleaf of a Shirazi copy of the Yûsuf and Zulaikhâ of Jâmî dated 973 h./1565 (TPML H. 724) quite clearly states that the book was a « gift of the wife of the late Khwâja Au[ha]d al-dîn Mahmûd, an official of Shiraz » ,26 although the recipient is not mentioned. A Shirazi copy of the Mihr andMustarî'of'Assâr of circa 1580 (TPML H.814) may also have been a gift since it also contains a flyleaf note saying « the book which came from... (name erased). » The note has the date 96, which may refer to [9]96 h./1586-87 or [10]96 h./1684-85.27

  • 28 « Saatçι Hasan Paşa'nιn getirdiği khamsa-i Nizâmî’dir. Sene 1006 h./l597. »

45A Shirazi copy of the Khamsa of Nizâmî dated to 986 h./1578-79 bears the legend « the Khamsa of Nizâmî brought by Saatçi Hasan Paşa 1006 h./1597 » (TPML B. 147).28Saatçi Hasan Paşa had been the Ottoman governor of Tabriz for the previous two years and was ordered to return to Istanbul in 1597 (M. Selânikî, 1989, 477 and 703) which is precisely the year mentioned in this note. The manuscript was most probably among the gifts that he brought on his return.

46After the first Ottoman-Safavid battle at Çaldiran in 1514, Persian illustrated manuscripts started reaching Ottoman court circles in larger numbers. At first, they represented booty, but were later on sent as diplomatic gifts or were purchased by Ottoman officials. The influx of Persian manuscripts was maintained for the rest of the century and appears to have intensified during the two periods of active conflict : the Eastern campaigns of Süleyman the Magnificent which started in 1534 and ended with the Amasya peace of 1555, and the twelve year Ottoman-Safavid war from 1578 till 1590 during the reign of Murad III.

  • 29  An example is a manuscript of the three poems from the Khamsa of Nizâmî probably copied in Herat a (...)

47The above survey indicates that Persian luxury manuscripts were highly valued by Ottoman book collectors and bureaucrats because they could be owned or used as gifts, sometimes to the sultan himself. On the other hand, Ottoman luxury manuscripts were produced at palace workshops and seem to have been almost exclusively for the sultans. Works of the Persian classical authors like Ferdûsî, Nizâmî, Sa'dî, Jâmî, Hâfiz, Dihlavî and 'Assâr do not appear to have been produced in Istanbul at all. There are a small number of extant manuscripts of some authors' works which contain Ottoman illustrations, but these all appear to have been unfinished Persian manuscripts which were then given illustrations by Ottoman artists after they had reached Ottoman territories (N. M. Tidey, 1981, 63, cat. no. 55 A, figs. 43 and 44 ; N. M. Titley, 1984, pi. 23).29

48The view that Ottoman sultans liked to have copies of the Şâhnâma of Ferdûsî produced for their own libraries is not borne out by the available material. Persian was indeed used as a court language by the Ottomans who had some of their own histories written in Persian and in the same meter as Ferdûsî's şâhnâma.

Figure 7 - Khwâja Ubaid-Allâh visiting Maulânâ Khwâja Mahmûd the bookbinder at his shop. (Majâlis al-'Uşşâq, circa1580, TPMLH. 829,fol. 128r).

Agrandir
  • 30  This is the Tercüme-i Şàhnâme of circa 1580 : TPML H. 1 518.
  • 31  This number includes both sixteenth century copies and others.

49But, it is not likely that the Ottoman sultans ever commissioned a copy of the legendary history of the Persian kings in Persian. During the reign of Murad III (1574-95), a translation of the Persian Şâhnâma of Ferdûsî was prepared for him in Turkish at the same time that he was having the history of his own ancestors written in Persian (N. Atasoy and F. Çagman, 1974, 87).30 None of the forty-two illustrated Persian copies of the Şâhnâma in the Topkapi Palace Museum Library is a product of the Ottoman court artists.31 Their presence may be explained as booty from the Persian campaigns, as gifts to the Ottoman sultans or dignitaries or as purchases by the Ottoman elite.

50In my view, the combination of the two factors discussed in this article implies that Ottoman bureaucrats and the elite had to satisfy their taste for Persian illustrated luxury manuscripts by acquiring them from their Eastern neighbors. The evidence for this is the existence of documents recording that the Ottoman elite collected Persian books as well as the inscriptional information found in the illustrated sixteenth century Shiraz manuscripts in the Topkapi collection. One could add a third factor which is that the works of classical Persian authors inIstanbul libraries all appear to have been produced in Persia. Even examples of manuscripts to which illustrations were later added after they had reached Ottoman territories are extremely scarce.

Figure 8 - Yûsuf and Zulaikhâ of Jâmî, 975 h./1568, copied by Şâh Mahmûd al-kâtib al-Maşhadi at Shiraz (TPML H. 812, end flyleaf).

Image9

51The comparative numbers of sixteenth century copies of Persian classics from the Topkapi collection indicate that the increased demand for high quality Persian illustrated books during the periods of increased Ottoman-Safavid contacts of the sixteenth century was largely met by prolific manuscript production of the Shiraz workshops [fig. 7]. The number of illustrated Shiraz manuscripts found in Turkish libraries implies that book agents may have organized the resale of Shirazi manuscripts both in the Eastern border towns and in Istanbul. A Shirazi copy of the Yûsuf and Zulaikhâ of Jâmî has a colophon which specifies that it was written by Şâh Mahmûd al-kâtib al-Maşhadî in Shiraz in 975 h./1568 (TPML H.812). A medallion was later added to the end flyleaf of the manuscript at the time of its purchase, specifying that Hâci Ali Tekatî, an individual who may have been from the Ottoman city of Tokat, had bought it at Shiraz [fig. 8]. The medallion also claimed that the manuscript was copied by the famous calligrapher, Şâh Mahmûd al-Nişâpûrî, possibly a deliberate error to enhance the value of the manuscript.

52Some Shirazi manuscripts may even have been prepared with the Ottoman market in mind. A dispersed Shirazi Şâhnâma of Ferdûsî dated 970-91 h./1562-83, bears some evidence that it may have been intended as a present for the Ottoman sultan. Some of its illustrated folios are owned by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York (MMA 52.20, 9a-d) ; its last two folios of text and finispiece are in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts (BMFA 14.691-692) (E. J. Grube, 1963, figs. 4-5 ; Welch A., 1979, 2 ; CoomaraswamyA. K., 1929, pl. LIV-LVII). After the text was completed in 1562, it was set aside and was not illustrated. In 1583, it was remargined, illuminated and illustrated. The new illustrations extended on to the new margins and, consequently, the picture is in greater proportion than the calligraphy. The manuscript was also given a new double folio finispiece that depicts the triumphal entry of a personage accompanied by his army into a city. The outfits and headgear of both the leader and members of his army are in a strange style which distantly resembles Ottoman counterparts. For example, the headgear of the leader lacks the customary folds of a Safa-vid turban while the soldiers' headgear resembles that of an Ottoman janissary. However, the painter could not have been fully conversant with the correct form of Ottoman janissary headdress since those worn by the Ottomans never have the crown-like base which can be seen in these pages. Other pages in this Sâhnâma also show figures dressed in the same manner. An additional feature which brings an Ottoman connection to mind is the panegyric verses written to a sultan on the finispiece miniatures themselves (A. K. Coomaraswamy, 1929, 61-62). It is probable that the garbled Ottoman attire and the panegyric verses for a sultan (rather than a shah) indicate that the manuscript was intended to be a gift to the bibliophile Ottoman Sultan Murad III (L. Uluç, 1994). The date of the enlargement of the manuscript, 991 h./1583, is also significant. A year later, in 992 h./1584, the Safavid ambassador, Ibrâhîm Khân Tavâjî, reached the Ottoman capital, bringing a letter from the Safavid Şâh Muhammad Khudâbanda asking for peace (M. Selânikî, 1989, 146). The now dispersed Sâhnâma would have been an appropriate gift for this occasion.

  • 32  The Topkapi collection has a copy of the Khusrau and Şīrīn of Şaikhî from circa 1525 and a copy of (...)

53The production of Shirazi illustrated manuscripts written in Anatolian Central Asia or Chaghatai Turkish such as the Iskandarnâma of Ahmadî, the Dîvân of Navâ'î and the Khusrau andSirin of Çaikhî may also have reflected Ottoman demand.32 Seven of the eight Safavid copies of the Iskandarnâma of Ahmadî, dating from 1519 to 1561, were produced in Shiraz (S. Bagci, 1989, 38). The list of the presents sent by Şâh Muhammad Khudâbanda to the Ottoman sultan and the crown prince Çehzâde Mehmed for the circumcision ceremony of 1582, given in the Surname mentions a copy of the Iskandarnâma of Ahmadî in Turkish (TPML H. 1 344) (0. Ş. Gölcyay, 1986, 31). This could be one of the two sixteenth century copies of the work found in the Topkapi collection (TPML R. 813 andTPML R. 812). Both of these manuscripts contain Shiraz style illustrations, the colophon of one specifies that it was copied at Shiraz ; they are dated one year apart from each other (965 h./1557-58 and 966 h./1558) and were both written by the same scribe.

54The influx of Shiraz manuscripts into Ottoman territories slowed down after the second Ottoman-Safavid peace of 1590 and stopped by the end of the sixteenth century. None of the illustrated Shiraz manuscripts found in the Istanbul libraries is dated later than 1602. The next year marks the beginning of the military successes of the Safavids and the retreat of the Ottoman armies at the Eastern border.

55Thus, an incidental outcome of the increased Ottoman-Safavid interaction due to war was, paradoxically, a cultural development. The royal workshops in the Ottoman capital may have provided the reigning sultan with the type of books that he required, but Shiraz seems to have been the principal provider of copies of works composed by the sought-after Persian poets and writers. The wars provided the means by which the Ottoman elite acquired the luxury manuscripts which they desired and the Shirazi workshops with a notably increased demand for their finest quality manuscripts.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

ATASOY N. and ÇAGMAN F., 1974, Turkish Miniature Painting, Istanbul, R. C. D. Cultural Institute.

ATIL E. (ed.), 1986, Süleymanname : The Illustrated History of Süleyman the Mgnificent, Washington, D. C, National Gallery of Art, H. Abrams.

BAGCI S., 1989, Minyatürlü Ahmedi Iskendernameleri : Ikonografik Bir Deneme, unpublished doctoral thesis, Hacettepe University, Ankara.

BLAIR S. S. and BLOOM J. M., 1994, The Art and Architecture of Islam 1250-1800, New Haven and London, Yale University Press.

BOSCH G. et al, 1981, Islamic Bindings and Bookmaking, Chicago, Oriental Institute, Chicago University.

ÇAGMAN F., 1993, « Catalogue : The Saljuk and Ottoman Periods » , in Woman in Anatolia : 9000 Years of the Anatolian Woman, Istanbul, Ministry of Culture, 202-295.

ÇAGMAN F. and TANINDI Z., 1986, The Topkapi Saray Museum, the Albums and Illustrated Manuscripts (edited and expanded from the original Turkish by J. M. Rogers), New York and Boston.

1996, « Remarks on Some Manuscripts from the Topkapi Palace Treasury in the Context of Ottoman-Safavid Relations » , Muqarnas XIII, 132- 148. (in preparation), Topkapi Sarayi Müzesi Kütüphanesi Minyatürlü Yazmalar Kataloğu, Istanbul.

CEZAR Y., 1977, « Bir Ayanin Muhallefati » , in Belleten, n° 41, 41-78.

COOMARASWAMY A. K., 1929, Les miniatures orientales de la collection Goloubew au Museum of Fine Arts de Boston, Ars Asiatica, n° XIII, Paris.

DANISMEND İ. H., 1947, İzahli Osmanli Tarihi Kronolojisi, Istanbul, Türkiye Yayinevi.

ERÜNSAL İ., 1988, Türk Kütüphaneleri Tarihi II, Kuruluştan Tanzimat'a Kadar Osmanli Vakif Kütüphaneleri, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.

FEKETE L., 1977, « XVI. Yüzyilda Taşrali bir Türk Efendisinin Evi » , in Belleten, n° 43, 615-38.

FERIDUN Bey, 1858, Münşe’ât-t Selâtîn, Istanbul, Takvimhane Matbaasi.

FLEISCHER C. H., 1985, « Alqâs Mirzâ Safawi » , in Encyclopaedia Iranica, E. Yarshater (ed.), Leiden, E. J. Brill and London, Luzac and Co., 907-909. 1986, Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire : The Historian Mustafa Ali (1541-1600), Princeton, Princeton University Press.

GAYANGOS (de) P. (trans.), 1840, History of Mohammedan Dynasties in Spain by Ahmed ibn-Mohammed al-Makkari, London, printed for the Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland.

GÖKYAY O. S., 1986, « Bir Saltanat Düğünü » , in Topkapι Sarayι Müzesi Yιllιğι, I, 31-39.

GÖYÜNÇ N., 1990, « Tarih Başhkli Muhasebe Defιerleri » , in Osmanlι Araşιιrmalan (Journal of Ottoman Studies), X, 1-37.

GRUBE E. J., 1963, « Four Pages from a Turkish 16th Century Shahnamah in the Collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York » in O. Aslanapa (ed.), Beitrage zur Kunst-geschichte Asiens. In Memoriam Ernst Diez, Istanbul, 237-55.

1968, « The Ottoman Empire » , in The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, XXV.

ISKANDAR Munshî, 1979, Târikh-i lam-ârâ-yi 'Abbâsi (History of Shah Abbas the Great), R. M. Savory (trans.), Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press.

KARATAY F.E., 1961, Topkapι Sarayι Müzesi Kütüphanesi Farsça Yazmalar Kataloğu, Istanbul,Topkapι Sarayι Müzesi Yayinlri.

KÜTÜKOGLU B., 1962, Osmanlι-İran Siyasi Münasebetleri, Istanbul, Istanbul Fetih Cemiyeti. 1963, « Şah Tahmasb'in III. Murad'a Cülus Tebriki » , in Tarih Dergisi, XV, 1-24.

MARLOW L., 1985, « A Persian Book of Kings : The Peck Shâhnâmeh » , in Princeton University Library Chronicle, XLVI/2, 192-214.

MUMCU A., 1985, Osmanlι Devletinde Siyaseten Katl, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.

ÖZ T., 1946, Topkapι Sarayι Müzesinde Yemen Fatihi Sinan Poşa Arşivi, Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.

PEÇEVI İ., 1992, Peçevi Tarihi, B. S. Baykal (ed.), Mersin, Kültür Bakanlιğι Yayinlarι.

RABY J. and YÜCEL Ü., 1986, Chinese Ceramics in the Topkapι Saray Museum, London, Sotheby's Publications in association with the directorate of the Topkapi Saray Museum.

ROGERS J. M., 1995, Empire of'the Sultans : Ottoman Art from the Collection of Nasser D. Khalili, Geneva and London, the Nour Foundation in association with Azimuth Editions Limited.

SAVAS S., 1993, « Sivas Valisi Dağistânî Ali Paşa'nin Muhallefâti » , in Belgeler, XV, 249-291.

SELANIKI M., 1989, Târîh-i Selânikî, M. İpşirli (éd.), Istanbul, Edebiyat Fakultesi Basimevi.

STCHOUKINE L, 1966, La peinture turque d'après les manuscrits illustrés, Paris, P. Geuthner.

TANINDI Z., 1986, « 13-14. Yüzyilda Yazilmiş Kur'an'larin Kanunî Döneminde Yenilenmesi » , in Topkapi Sarayt Muzesi Yιllιğt, I, Istanbul, 140-153.

1992, « The Manuscripts Bestowed as Pious Endowments by Rüstem Pasha, the Grand Vizier of Süleymân the Magnificent » in G. Veinstein (ed.), Soliman le Magnifique et son temps, Actes du Colloque de Paris. Galeries nationales du Grand Palais,7-10 mars 1990, Paris, 265-276. Ottoman Book Collectors and Illustrated Sixteenth Century Shiraz Manuscripts 1107

TITLEY N. M., 1981, Miniatures from Turkish Manuscripts : A Catalogue and Subject Index of Paintings in the British Library and the British Museum, London, The British Library Reference Division Publications.

1984, Persian Miniature Painting and its Influence on the Arts of India and Turkey, Austin, Texas, University of Texas Press.

ULUÇ L., 1994, « A Persian Epic, Perhaps for the Ottoman Sultan » , in Metropolitan Museum Journal, n° 29, 57-69.

UZUNÇARŞILI İ. H., 1988-a, Osmanlt Tarihi, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi. 1988-b, Osmanlι Devletinin İlmiye Teşkilati, Ankara, Tiirk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi. 1988-c, Osmanlι Devletinin Merkez ve Bahriye Teşkilati, Ankara, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi.

WELCH A, 1976, Artists for the Shah, New Haven and London, Yale University Press.

1979, Calligraphy in the Arts of the Muslim World Austin, Texas, University of Texas Press.

WELCH S. C. and DICKSON M. B., 1979, The Houghton Shahnameh, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

Haut de page

Annexe

ABBREVIATIONS

TPMA : Topkapi Palace Museum Archives

TPML : Topkapi Palace Museum Library

Haut de page

Notes

1  The editors would like to thank Dr Jane Hathaway, Ohio State University, for having kindly corrected the Ottoman transliteration.

2  It is not possible to distinguish the period or the production center of the books mentioned in the sources.

3  I would like to thank Dr Filiz Çağman, director of the Topkapι Palace Museum and former curator of its library as well as Professor Zeren Tanindi of Uludağ University for allowing me to work with the proofs of the catalogue which they are jointly preparing on the illustrated manuscripts of the Topkapi Palace Museum Library. Research for this article was conducted as part of my dissertation on sixteenth-century illustrated Shiraz manuscripts.

4  Especially during the periods of increased Ottoman-Safavid contact due to military conflicts between the two states between 1534-1555 and 1578-1590.

5  According to Raby and Yucel, the process of marking with red ink was done by the sultan « in his own hand» .

6  These were probably written in Turkish and illustrated in Safavid Persia.

7  In Hamadan, he captured his brother Bahrâm Mîrzâ's son's household.

8  For example, calligraphers Muhammed Riza Tebrizi and Kasim Ali Tebrizi came to Istanbul in 994 h./1586 and 995 h./1587 respectively.

9  If the contemporary historian Mustafa Ali is to be believed, they were even accorded an undue preference in government and palace service.

10  Şaraf Khân reached the city of Van and allied himself with the Ottomans in 1578. Maqşûd Beg Zû'lqadir came to the Ottoman court as an envoy in 988 h./1580, defected to the Ottomans in 990/1582 and acted as a guide to the Ottoman grand vezir and commander, Ozde-miroğlu Osman Paşa, during his conquest of Tabriz in 993 h./1585.

11  Şâhvardî Khân seems to have defected to the Ottomans in 1589 but then tried to keep up good relations with both sides. According to Iskandar Munshî, many other people had also tried this seemingly safer policy.

12  This manuscript supplies an interesting historical fact since it has a purchase note written on the back of its last page on fol. 474 v, saying that it was purchased for fifty-five tumans in Rajab 1040/February 1631 from the daughter of Khân Ahmad Khân of Gîlân and the wife of the late Şâh 'Abbâs, by Khayrat Khân, an ambassador from [the ruler of Golconda] 'Abdallâh the Qutb şâh (1626-72) to the Safàvid Şâh Safî during his stay in Isfahan.

13 Tekke libraries also mostly contained only mystical (taş avvufî) or religious (dînî) books. The library of Şeyh Vefa Zâviye, an early tekke library from die period of Fatih Sultan Mehmed (the Conqueror), was an exception. This library contained about two hundred books, including literature. One of the main subject headings in this library's list was Turkish and Persian dîvâns(Türkçe ve Farsça dîvânlar) which probably reflected the personal choice of the founder who may have had a private collection.

14 The distribution of the numbers is asfollows : Image7
Persian titles from the collection which do not have Shiraz copies are not mentioned in this list.

15 « Şâhnâme Büyük Hatice Sultan'indir » . The exact identity of this Hatice Sultan cannot be established, but the reference indicates that she was one of the members of the royal family.

16  « Şâh'dan gelen kitaptir » .

17  These are TPML H. 1481 (a Şâhnâma of Ferdûsî dated to 950 h./1543 and copied by 'Alî katîb), TPML H. 780 (a Khamsa of Nizâmî dated to 980 h./1560-l), TPML H. 403 (an 'Ajâ'ib al-makhlûqât of Qazvînî dated to 976 h./1568-69 copied by Ala al-Dîn b. Hidâyat Allah al-Sarîf), TPML R. 924 (a Kulliyât of Sa'dî dated to 978/1570-71) and TPML H. 749 (a Khamsa of Nizâmî dated to 999-1 000 h./1591). The other two are in a mixed style which is related to the Shiraz style. These are TPML R. 1 026 (a Mihr and Mustari of 'Assâr dated to circa 1580) and TPML H. 1505 (a Sâhnâma of Ferdûsî from circa 1580-90). A third manuscript in the latter style, TPML H. 1487 (a Sâhnâma of Ferdûsî from circa 1580), carries the note saying « 55 the Sâhnâma brought by the son of the grand vezir Sinan Paşa (« 55 Sinan Posa vezîr-i a \am oglu getirdigi Sâhnâme fdir » ).

18  « Vezîr-i d'zam Sinàn Pasa'dan gelen kitâptir, sene 999 » This book also has the same mixed style as two of the manuscripts which carry his name.

19  TPML R. 924 has a second flyleaf note which says that it was a « gift of the son of Mîr 'Abd-Allâh Mahmûd Shâhristânî » (« Kulliyât-i Sa'dî, piskas-i valad-i Mîr 'Abd-Allâh MahmûdSâhristânï  « ). The second note may imply that Sinan Paşa may also have received this as a gift, possibly from one of the Safavid delegations to his headquarters in Erzurum during the previous year.

20  Although confiscation registers of Sinan Paşa tate exist, there are no booklists.

21 « 1097 şehr-i rebî' ul-evvel' de maqtûl vezîr-i a'zam Ibrahim Paşa'dan gelen şâhnâme-i Firdevsî'dir. »

22  « fî 8 safer [10]95 mukhallefât-i vezîr-izd'am Mustafâ Paşa. »

23 « sene 1097 Zilhiccesinde merhûm muşâhib Mustafâ Paşa muhallefâtιndan alιnmιştιr. »

24 « Darüssaade Ağasι Beşir Ağa'nιn kitâblarιndan. »

25 « Darüssaade Ağasι Beşir Ağa'nιn kitâblarιndan. »

26 « pişkaş-i zauja-i marhûm Khwâja Au[ha]d al-dîn Mahmûd vazîr-i... Shîrâzî... »

27 « ...'dan gelen kitaptιr. 96. »

28 « Saatçι Hasan Paşa'nιn getirdiği khamsa-i Nizâmî’dir. Sene 1006 h./l597. »

29  An example is a manuscript of the three poems from the Khamsa of Nizâmî probably copied in Herat at the end of the fifteenth century : British Library Or. 13948.

30  This is the Tercüme-i Şàhnâme of circa 1580 : TPML H. 1 518.

31  This number includes both sixteenth century copies and others.

32  The Topkapi collection has a copy of the Khusrau and Şīrīn of Şaikhî from circa 1525 and a copy of the Dîvân of'Alî Shîr Navâ'î dated 932 h./1525, both with Shiraz style illustrations (TPML H. 683 and TPML R. 807). Additionally, the Bibliothèque Nationale de France also has a Shiraz copy of the latter work dated 972 h./1564 (Supp.Turc. 762).

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Laie Uluç, « Ottoman Book Collectors and Illustrated Sixteenth Century Shiraz Manuscripts », Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée [En ligne], 87-88 | septembre 1999, mis en ligne le 12 mai 2009, consulté le 20 juillet 2017. URL : http://remmm.revues.org/299

Haut de page

Auteur

Laie Uluç

New York University, Institute of Fine Arts.

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
Les contenus de la Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée sont mis à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d’Utilisation Commerciale - Partage dans les Mêmes Conditions 4.0 International.

Haut de page