An Illuminated Manuscript of Early Fourt

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 8 (2017) 85–122
brill.com/jim
An Illuminated Manuscript of Early Fourteenth-

Century Konya? Anīs al-Qulūb (ms Ayasofya 2984,
Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Istanbul)*
Cailah Jackson
University of Oxford, Oxford, uk
[email protected]
Abstract
Research concerning the cultural and artistic life of medieval Rūm has made welcome
advances in recent years. However, much of this research analyses architecture, and
scholarship is yet to fully address the production of illuminated Islamic manuscripts
in the later medieval period—material which is often rich in visual and historical
detail. This article seeks to partially address this gap by discussing one illuminated
manuscript: a copy of the Persian-language Anīs al-Qulūb by Burhān al-Dīn al-Anawī
that was almost certainly produced in early fourteenth-century Konya. The article
outlines the codicological and aesthetic aspects of the manuscript and analyses these
findings in relation to other illuminated manuscripts from late medieval Konya. It
demonstrates that, despite its relative neglect in Islamic art survey texts, illuminated
manuscript production in Konya was a highly-developed art form with its own local
conventions and links to other production centres of the Islamic arts of the book.
Keywords
Konya – Anatolia/Rūm – Mawlawī dervishes – illumination – calligraphy – patronage –

medieval – Seljuks – Ilkhanids – Injuids – Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi
* Submitted on October 3, 2016. Accepted for publication on October 11, 2016.
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/1878464X-00801003

86 jackson
Introduction
The study of medieval Anatolian history and culture was once described as “a
graveyard of scholars,”1 with early Ottoman history in particular being beset
by ‘black holes’.2 However, due to several recent inquiries into various aspects
of the political and socio-cultural landscapes of Bilād al-Rūm,3 the picture is
now much brighter. Scholarship within the last couple of decades or so has
taken fresh looks at the context within which the academic field emerged and,
as a result, attempted to redress the boundaries, frameworks and terms that
previously defined the focus and scope of literature.4
1 Scott Redford, “Words, Books, and Buildings in Seljuk Anatolia,” International Journal of
Turkish Studies 13, nos. i–ii (2007): 7–16, 7.
2 Colin Imber, “The Legend of Osman Gazi,” in The Ottoman Emirate (1300–1389): Halcyon Days
in Crete i: a symposium held in Rethymnon 11–13 January 1991 (Rethymnon: Crete University
Press, 1993): 67–76.
3 Following recent scholarship, I have chosen to employ the term, ‘Rūm’ or ‘Bilād al-Rūm’
(literally, ‘the country of Rome/Byzantium’) rather than Anatolia or Turkey, as a more accurate
reflection of contemporary terminology and as a means of avoiding the ethnic or nationalist
essentialism that has previously marked the historiography of this context. See, for example,
Sibel Bozdoğan and Gülru Necipoğlu, “Entangled Discourses: Scrutinizing Orientalist and
Nationalist Legacies in the Architectural Historiography of the “Lands of Rum”,” Muqarnas
24 (2007): 1–6; Cemal Kafadar, “Introduction: A Rome of One’s Own: Reflections on Cultural
Geography and Identity in the Lands of Rum,” Muqarnas 24 (2007): 7–25; Patricia Blessing,
Rebuilding Anatolia after the Mongol Conquest: Islamic Architecture in the Lands of Rūm, 1240–
1330 (Farnham: Ashgate, 2014), 3.
4 The literature is quite extensive but, aside from the works cited in the previous note, some
selected works include: Ahmet T. Karamustafa, “Early Sufism in Eastern Anatolia,” in Classical
Persian Sufism: From its Origins to Rumi, ed. Leonard Lewisohn (London: Khaniqahi Nimat-
ullahi, 1993): 175–198; Cemal Kafadar, Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman
State (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995); Charles Melville, “Anatolia under the
Mongols,” in The Cambridge History of Turkey, ed. Kate Fleet and Suraiya Faroqhi (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009): 51–101; Jürgen Paul, “Mongol Aristocrats and Beyliks in
Anatolia. A Study of Astarābādī’s Bazm va Razm,” Eurasian Studies 9 (2011): 105–158; Ayfer
Karakaya-Stump, “The Vefāʾiyye, the Bektashiyye and Genealogies of “Heterodox” Islam in
Anatolia: Rethinking the Köprülü Paradigm,” Turcica 44 (2012–2013): 279–300; Sara Nur Yıldız,
“Karamanoğlu Mehmed Bey: Medieval Anatolian Warlord or Kemalist Language Reformer?
Nationalist Historiography, Language Politics and the Celebration of the Language Festival
in Karaman, Turkey, 1961–2008,” in Religion, Ethnicity and Contested Nationhood in the Former
Ottoman Space, ed. Jørgen Nielsen (Leiden: Brill, 2012): 147–172; Rachel Goshgarian, “Open-
ing and Closing: Coexistence and Competition in Associations Based on Futuwwa in Late
Medieval Anatolian Cities,” British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 40, no. 1 (2013): 36–52;

anīs al-qulūb, an illuminated ms of early 14th-c. konya? 87
Within many of these studies, new understandings of art and cultural pro-
duction have emerged that recognise the ethnic and religious diversity of the
region and the fragmented and fluid nature of political authority.5 However, it
remains the case that many of these studies concern architectural forms and
their patronage.6 This article focuses on one example of another important, yet
Şevket Küçükhüseyin, “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, no. 2 (2013): 240–251; Baki Tezcan, “The Memory of the Mongols in Early
Ottoman Historiography,” in Writing History at the Ottoman Court: Editing the Past, Fash-
ioning the Future, ed. Emine Fetvacı and H. Erdem Çıpa (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 2013): 23–38; Bruno De Nicola, “The Ladies of Rūm: A Hagiographic View of Women
in Thirteenth- and Fourteenth-Century Anatolia,” Journal of Sufi Studies 3, no. 2 (2014): 132–
156; Dimitri Korobeinikov, Byzantium and the Turks in the Thirteenth Century (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2014); A.C.S. Peacock, “The Seljuk Sultanate of Rūm and the Turkmen of
the Byzantine Frontier, 1206–1279,” Al-Masāq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean 26, no. 3
(2014): 267–287; Nicolas Trépanier, Foodways and Daily Life in Medieval Anatolia: A New Social
History (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2014); Rustam Shukurov, The Byzantine Turks, 1204–
1461 (Leiden: Brill, 2016); several papers in A.C.S. Peacock, Bruno De Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız,
eds., Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company,
2015); several papers in A.C.S. Peacock and Sara Nur Yıldız, eds., Islamic Literature and Intel-
lectual Life in Fourteenth- and Fifteenth-Century Anatolia (Würzburg: Ergon Verlag, 2016); Sara
Nur Yıldız, Mongol Rule in Thirteenth-Century Anatolia: The Politics of Conquest and History
Writing, 1243–1282 (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
5 Apart from Blessing, Rebuilding Anatolia, selected works include: Ethel Sara Wolper, Cities
and Saints: Sufism and the Transformation of Urban Space in Medieval Anatolia (University
Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2003); Scott Redford, “Albert Gabriel, les turcs, et
l’architecture seldjoukide,” in Albert Gabriel (1883–1972): mimar, arkeolog, ressam, gezgin =
Albert Gabriel (1883–1972): architecte, archéologue, artiste, voyageur, ed. Pierre Pinon (Istanbul:
Yapı Kredi Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık Ticaret ve Sanayi, 2006): 79–84; Necipoğlu and Bozdoğan,
“Entangled Discourses”; Oya Pancaroğlu, “Formalism and the Academic Foundation of Turk-
ish Art in the Early Twentieth Century,” Muqarnas 24 (2007): 67–78; Scott Redford, “ “What
Have You Done for Anatolia Today?”: Islamic Archaeology in the Early Years of the Turkish
Republic,” Muqarnas 24 (2007): 243–252; Oya Pancaroğlu, “Fin-de-Siècle Reconnaissance of
Seljuk Architecture in Anatolia: Friedrich Sarre and His Reise in Kleinasien,” in Scramble for
the Past: A Story of Archaeology in the Ottoman Empire, 1753–1914, ed. Zainab Bahrani, Zeynep
Çelik, and Edhem Eldem (Istanbul: salt, 2011): 399–415; Judith Pfeiffer, “Mevlevi-Bektashi
Rivalries and the Islamisation of the Public Space in Late Seljuq Anatolia,” in Islam and
Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, ed. A.C.S. Peacock, Bruno De Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız
(Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2015): 311–327.
6 Published works that discuss art forms from this period other than architecture include:
Marianne Barrucand, “The Miniatures of the Daqāʾiq Al-Ḥaqāʾiq (Bibliothèque Nationale
Pers.174): A Testimony to the Cultural Diversity of Medieval Anatolia,” Islamic Art 4 (1991):

88 jackson
neglected, art form: that of illuminated manuscripts. This example is a copy

of Anīs al-Qulūb (The Hearts’ Companion) by Qāḍī Burhān al-Dīn Abū Naṣr
ibn Manṣūr al-Anawī (of Ani, in present-day Armenia), who died some time
after 1222. It exists in a single manuscript (i.e. a unicum) which is yet to be
fully edited and published.7 The manuscript’s illuminations also remain mostly
unpublished.8 Although the manuscript does not contain a colophon or any
113–128; Oya Pancaroğlu, “The Itinerant Dragon-Slayer: Forging Paths of Image and Identity
in Medieval Anatolia,” Gesta 43, no. 2 (2004): 151–164; Filiz Çağman and Zeren Tanındı, “Illus-
tration and the Art of the Book in the Sufi Orders of the Ottoman Empire,” in Sufism and Sufis
in Ottoman Society: Sources, Doctrine, Rituals, Turuq, Architecture, Literature and Fine Arts,
Modernism, ed. Ahmet Yaşar Ocak (Ankara: Atatürk Supreme Council for Culture, Language
and History, 2005): 501–527; Şeyda Algaç, “İstanos (Korkuteli)’da 1349–1351 (720–752) Tarihleri
Arasında Hazırlanmış Tezhipli İki Yazma,” Güzel Sanatlar Enstitüsü Dergisi 17 (2006): 1–14;
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, ed. and trans. Deniz Beyazıt
(Istanbul: Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes Georges Dumézil, 2012); Suzan A. Yalman,
“ʿAla al-Din Kayqubad Illuminated: A Rum Seljuq Sultan as Cosmic Ruler,”Muqarnas 29 (2012):
151–186; Zeynep Demircan Aksoy, “İlhanli ve Memlûk Etkileşiminde xiv. Yüzyıl Anadolu Türk
Tezhip Sanatı,” Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 7, no. 29 (2014): 265–280; Tolga Uyar,
“Thirteenth-Century “Byzantine” Art in Cappadocia and the Question of Greek Painters at
the Seljuq Court,” in Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, ed. A.C.S. Peacock, Bruno De
Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2015): 215–231.
7 Only the final part of the text has been published by Mehmed Fuad Köprülü, “Anadolu
Selçukları Tarihi’nin Yerli Kaynakları i: Anîs al-Kulûb,” Belleten 7 (1943): 459–522, 497–521.
Excerpts from the text and their accompanying English translations appear in the appendix of
a recent article by A.C.S. Peacock, “An Interfaith Polemic of Medieval Anatolia: Qāḍī Burhān
al-Dīn al-Anawī on the Armenians and their Heresies,” in Islam and Christianity in Medieval
Anatolia, ed. A.C.S. Peacock, Bruno De Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız (Burlington: Ashgate
Publishing Company, 2015), 233–261, 254–261. The text has also been discussed in a recent
article in Armenian by Gagik Danielyan, “Hayocʿ xalifan. Hṙomklayi katʿołikosakan atʿoṙi
patmutʿyan arabakan skzbnałbyurnerə,” in Cilician Armenia in the Perceptions of Adjacent
Political Entities (Historical-Philological Essays), ed. A.A. Bozoyan, R.M. Shukurov, V.A. Ter-
Ghevondian and G.G. Danielyan (Yerevan: Institute of Oriental Studies, National Academy
of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, 2016), 200–287. I am grateful to both A.C.S. Peacock
and Gagik Danielyan for informing me about their recent work on the text of Anīs al-Qulūb.
8 The manuscript has been discussed briefly in a number of Turkish PhD and ma theses:
Hatice Aksu, “Anadolu Selçuklu Tezhip Sanatı ve Osmanlı (Klasik Dönem) Tezhip Sanatının
Mukayesesi,” ma Thesis, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, 1992, 128–129; Şeyda Algaç, “Ana-
dolu Selçukluları ve Beylikleri Dönemi Tezhip Sanatı (xiii–xv. Yüzyıllar),” PhD Thesis, Istan-
bul University, 2000, 162–164; Zeynep Demircan Aksoy, “xiv. Yüzyıl Anadolu Türk Tezhip
Sanatı Tasarımları,” PhD Thesis, Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University, 2010, 62–64. Images of

ownership information contemporary to its production, the illumination indi-

cates that it was almost certainly produced in Konya in the first half of the
fourteenth century.
This article is one contribution to uncovering the rich heritage of illumi-
nated manuscript production in the region and redressing the emphasis given
to architecture in secondary scholarship. I hope to demonstrate that the copy
of Anīs al-Qulūb is, in fact, an important example of the late medieval ‘Konya
school’ of illumination, which I discuss in more detail in this article. Surviving
manuscript evidence shows that Konya was in fact an active centre of illumi-
nated manuscript production and patronage in the late thirteenth and early
fourteenth centuries despite the fact that the city was subject to fairly consis-
tent political turmoil and not governed by an imperial authority.9
Manuscripts from late medieval Konya, and Rūm more generally, have been
broadly neglected in Islamic art scholarship due to two main reasons: their lack
of obvious dynastic connections and near-absence of illustrations. It is also
the case—generally-speaking—that the types of texts copied in this setting
had a more ‘local’ focus and have therefore not featured in academic studies
that focus on more popular genres such as fables or epic poetry.10 The priority
given to both imperial patronage and Islamic miniature painting in survey texts
the manuscript’s illuminations also appear on the dust jacket and p. 21 (fig. 4) of Ayla
Ersoy, Türk Tezhip Sanatı (Istanbul: Akbank, 1988). Ersoy briefly describes the manuscript’s
illumination on p. 46.
9 I discuss the production and patronage of illuminated manuscripts in late medieval Konya
and their surrounding historical and cultural contexts in depth in Chapters One and Two
of my doctoral dissertation, Patrons and Artists at the Crossroads: The Islamic Arts of the
Book in the Lands of Rūm, 1270s–1370s, DPhil Thesis, University of Oxford, forthcoming.
10 Other than Qurʾāns, there are few illuminated copies of popular works (like the Shāh-
nāma or Kalīla wa-Dimna, for example) that have been securely attributed to late medieval
Rūm. Illuminated copies of some of Rūmī’s more well-known works, like the Mathnawī-i
Maʿnawī, were produced in late medieval Konya, but production appears to have remained
local to Rūm (particularly Konya) up to the late fourteenth century (see a manuscript
of Dīvān-i Kabīr that was probably produced in Shiraz in 1372. Or. 2866, British Library.
London). In terms of texts with wider circulation across the Islamic world, there are two
copies of Najm al-Dīn Rāzī Dāya’s Mirṣād al-ʿIbād min al-Mabdaʾ ilā al-Maʿād which were
produced in İstanos (Korkuteli) in 1349 and 1351 (respectively, ms Fatih 2841 and ms Aya-
sofya 2067, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Istanbul). Algaç, “İstanos (Korkuteli)’da”; Jackson,
Patrons and Artists at the Crossroads. Leila Benouniche has argued that an illuminated
copy of Kalīla wa-Dimna completed in 1262 was produced in Konya. While this is possible,
it is not certain. See Leila Benouniche, Le Kalila et Dimna de Genève: histoire d’un recueil
de fables illustré (Geneva: Slatkine, 1995).

90 jackson
gives the false impression that the arts of the book in the region before the
rise of the Ottomans were comparatively insignificant.11 Questions surrounding
the dynastic framework of Islamic art, and how to periodise Islamic history,
are increasingly acknowledged in scholarship but continue to present issues.12
For example, the problematic, tripartite division of ‘Seljuk’, ‘Beylik’ (or, ‘pre-
Ottoman’) and ‘Ottoman’ history has been notably persistent in both historical
and art historical scholarship, though some recent studies have sought to avoid
this.13 Such a division is problematic because it obscures the nuances of what
was a politically fractured and culturally complex period.14
Additionally, the enthusiasm shown towards Persian painting by western
collectors in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has resulted in an
enduring emphasis on painting in Islamic art scholarship.15 This has resulted
in the comparative neglect of Islamic calligraphy—several important publi-
cations on calligraphy notwithstanding16—towards which collectors were rel-
atively indifferent. The impact of the market on scholarship also prompted
highly questionable behaviour by dealers, who carved up albums and manu-
scripts in order to maximise profits.17 The isolation of illustrations from their
11 Richard Ettinghausen, Oleg Grabar and Marilyn Jenkins-Madina, eds., Islamic Art and
Architecture, 650–1250 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001), 257–263;
Sheila S. Blair and Jonathan M. Bloom, The Art and Architecture of Islam, 1250–1800 (New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1994), 146–148.
12 Sheila S. Blair and Jonathan M. Bloom, “The Mirage of Islamic Art: Reflections on the Study
of an Unwieldy Field,” The Art Bulletin 85, no. 1 (2003): 152–184; Gülru Necipoğlu, “The
Concept of Islamic Art: Inherited Discourses and New Approaches,” in Islamic Art and
the Museum, ed. Benoit Junod, Georges Khalil, Stefan Weber and Gerhard Wolf (London:
Saqi Books, 2012): 57–75.
13 Patricia Blessing, for example, avoids this historical framework throughout Rebuilding
Anatolia, her recent publication on architecture of the same period that is under discus-
sion in the present study.
14 Bozdoğan and Necipoğlu, “Entangled Discourses”; Kafadar, “Introduction: A Rome of
One’s Own”, 8; Gülru Necipoğlu, “Creation of a National Genius: Sinan and the Histori-
ography of ‘Classical’ Ottoman Architecture,” Muqarnas 24 (2007): 169–180; Pancaroğlu,
“Formalism and the Academic Foundation of Turkish Art,” 67.
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, ed. Andrea Lermer and Avinoam
Shalem (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 201–229.
16 For example, Sheila S. Blair, Islamic Calligraphy (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
2006); Alain George, The Rise of Islamic Calligraphy (London: Saqi Books, 2010).
17 The most famous instance of this occurring is the Paris art dealer George Demotte’s (1877–
1923) dismantling of the so-called Great Mongol Shāhnāma, a monumental illustrated

codicological contexts helped to normalise the separation of the constituent

arts of the book (painting, calligraphy, bookbinding and illumination)—a situ-
ation that also persists in scholarship and has, in some cases, hindered a better
understanding of Islamic manuscript production.18
The period in which the copy of Anīs al-Qulūb was produced was profoundly
complex, politically- and culturally-speaking, and it is therefore worth briefly
reviewing the historical context before discussing the manuscript in detail.
Although political authority in Rūm had been split between Byzantine, Arme-
nian and Muslim polities since the late eleventh century, the decisive Mongol
victory over the Rūm Seljuks in 1243 at the Battle of Kösedağ was a turning point
in the region’s history. Following heavy losses in this battle, the Seljuks were
forced to pay tribute to the Mongols, and their power as rulers was substantially
diminished. Despite the fact that the Mongols were ostensibly the new rulers
of central and eastern Rūm, de facto political authority soon became divided
between ambitious bureaucrats, locally-based Mongol governors and Turkish
beys (prince or commander, Ar. amīr), even in the former Seljuk stronghold of
Konya. The late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries saw a constant series
of incursions and rebellions by both Turkmen and Mongol amīrs vying for
power, often followed by violent repercussions. This diffusion of power, which
was further exacerbated by numerous Crusader invasions over the eleventh to
thirteenth centuries, persisted until the short-lived unification of the region
under the command of the Ottoman ruler Bāyazīd i (r. 1389–1402).19
In spite of consistent instability in the political sphere, cultural life in Konya
and many other of Rūm’s cities flourished, encouraged in part by émigré schol-
ars, dervishes and artists. Part of this influx was caused by the destruction
manuscript which was probably produced for the Ilkhanids in the 1330s. It was also
formerly known as the ‘Demotte’ Shāhnāma. See Oleg Grabar and Sheila Blair, Epic Images
and Contemporary History: The Illustrations of the Great Mongol Shahnama (Chicago and
London: University of Chicago Press, 1980); Linda Komaroff and Stefano Carboni, eds.,
The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256–1353 (New York:
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2002); Sheila S. Blair, “Rewriting the history of the great
Mongol Shahnama,” in Shahnama: the Visual Language of the Persian Book of Kings, ed.
Robert Hillenbrand (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004): 35–50.
18 Some recent publications, such as Elaine Wright’s The Look of the Book: Manuscript Pro-
duction in Shiraz, 1303–1452 (Washington, d.c. and Dublin: Freer Gallery of Art and Arthur
M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institute; University of Washington Press; Chester Beatty
Library, 2012) have successfully attempted to overcome such divisions in the study of the
Islamic arts of the book by considering manuscripts as ‘whole’ objects.
19 ‘Short-lived’ because Tīmūr (r. 1370–1405) gave many of the region’s amīrs their lands back
after imprisoning Bāyazīd following the Battle of Ankara (1402).

92 jackson
brought by the Mongols to the cities of Persia and the Jazira and was facili-
tated by travel along well-established trade routes that had been put in place
by the Rūm Seljuks in the early thirteenth century. However, even before the
resettlement motivated by the Mongols, Rūm in general was populated by peo-
ple of varying religious and ethnic backgrounds, including Arabic-, Persian-
and Turkish-speaking Muslims, Christian Greeks and Armenians, Mongols, and
European merchants. The intellectual openness and relative religious toler-
ance that this diverse atmosphere engendered, alongside possible employment
opportunities, only served to further strengthen Rūm’s attractiveness to crafts-
men, scholars and Sufis.
In this environment of political fragmentation and cultural cosmopoli-
tanism, the breakdown in imperial rule lead to a displacement of the impor-
tance that Konya had held as a centre of political and economic activity under
the Rūm Seljuks to other towns like Sivas, Kayseri and Tokat. According to
remaining manuscript evidence, however, Konya appears to have remained a
significant hub of artistic activity despite the absence of an effective imperial
authority. This lack of a securely-established imperial court, and the wealthy
patrons who inhabited it, prompted a rise in ‘local’ and comparatively less
well-known patrons.20 In this context of relative religious diversity, Sufis were
important representatives of the Islamic faith and made crucial contributions
to socio-religious, political and economic life.21 Dervishes could have a level of
authority over the local populace and had the potential to become intermedi-
aries between elite and non-elite devotees or, indeed, instigators of rebellion.22
The Mawlawī dervishes in particular played a central role in the production
and patronage of illuminated manuscripts in Konya. Several instances of this
will be mentioned below.
20 Blessing, Rebuilding Anatolia. The problem of orienting Islamic art history around dynas-
tic periods and imperial patronage has been mentioned above. Our current understand-
ings of the production of Islamic art and architecture have been undeniably shaped by the
focus on patrons of the highest political levels. While this is entirely appropriate in some
contexts, there have also recently been encouraging movements towards a consideration
of patronage on the sub-imperial or local level in order to produce more nuanced under-
standings of the dynamics of production and patronage. For example, the most recent His-
torians of Islamic Art Association Biennial Conference was entitled “Regionality: Looking
for the Local in the Arts of Islam”, Courtauld Institute of Art, London, October 20–22, 2016.
21 Wolper, Cities and Saints.
22 Omid Safi has discussed how prominent Sufis were used to legitimise the authority of the
Great Seljuks in Iran, while religious figures who opposed the regime were suppressed.
Omid Safi, “Bargaining with Baraka: Persian Sufism, “Mysticism,” and Pre-modern Poli-
tics,” Muslim World 90, nos. 3–4 (2000): 259–288.

To begin with, I briefly discuss the text and its author and then describe the
physical and decorative properties of the manuscript in detail. Following this, I
place the manuscript’s material properties into context by discussing contem-
porary manuscripts that were produced in Konya and the artistic landscape
of the city in order to demonstrate that Anīs al-Qulūb was indeed probably
produced in the same city. Finally, I describe two related manuscripts (one pre-
viously unknown to scholarship) that, on the basis of their illumination, could
also be from Konya.
The Composition and Content of the Text
Although this article is primarily concerned with the decoration and material
properties of Anīs al-Qulūb, it is useful to briefly consider the wider context of
the text itself and its author, which have been studied in a series of articles by
A.C.S. Peacock. Anīs al-Qulūb, which comprises around 24,000 bayts (verses),
was started when the author was twenty-four years old in 562/1166–1167.23 It
was completed some time before 1210 and presented to the Seljuk sultan of
Rūm ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāwūs i (r. 1210–1219) in 1210–1211 on the occasion of his
accession to the throne.24 Although the text was not originally composed as a
royal commission, the ruler is, unsurprisingly, praised several times through-
out.25
The work is divided into seven chapters, mainly consisting of versified stories
of the prophets (qiṣaṣ al-anbiyāʾ) written in the mutaqārib metre—the same
metre used in Firdawsī’s (d. 1020) Shāhnāma.26 Following these stories, which
comprise the first six chapters, only the seventh chapter contains any histor-
ical information. This chapter begins with the expeditions (ghazawāt) of the
Prophet Muḥammad, which is then followed by an account of the caliphs up to
and including al-Nāṣir li-Dīn Allāh (r. 1158–1225), the Abbasid ruler of Baghdad,
a brief discussion of the Samanids and the Ghaznavids, and an account of the
Great Seljuks of Iran, which “rarely contain[s] any original information.”27 The
23 ms Ayasofya 2984, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, fol. 4b.

24 Peacock, “An Interfaith Polemic,” 235.
25 A.C.S. Peacock, “Aḥmad of Niğde’s “al-Walad al-Shafīq” and the Seljuk Past,” Anatolian
Studies 54 (2004): 95–107, 101.
27 A.C.S. Peacock, “Local Identity and Medieval Anatolian Historiography: Anavi’s Anis al-
qolub and Ahmad of Niğde’s al-Walad al-shafiq,” Studies on Persianate Societies 2 (2004):
115–125, 117.

94 jackson
last chapter, however, also contains important details concerning the author’s
experience of growing up in a majority Christian town.28
Although Anīs al-Qulūb is one of several works written for the Seljuks of
Rūm, it is in fact the only surviving work that discusses local history in the
medieval period before the Mongol invasion in 1243. It is also one of the earliest
works that was dedicated to a Seljuk sultan and only one text precedes it in date:
Rāḥat al-Ṣudūr wa-Āyat al-Surūr by Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī Rāwandī, which was
an advice manual that was dedicated to Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kaykhusraw i (r. 1192–
1196, 1204–1210) around 601/1204–1205. Anīs al-Qulūb’s early date and detailed
discussion of local history is therefore somewhat of an anomaly, seeing as
most surviving historical chronicles from late medieval Rūm date to the late
thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, when the political landscape was far
more turbulent.
Al-Anawī’s work evidently met with the sultan’s approval as he was, at some
point after the text was completed, given the role of qāḍī (judge) of Malatya. He
is mentioned in this role in a waqfiyya (endowment deed) dated 619/1222 for the
mausoleum of ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāwūs i, which is located in the Şifaiye Medresesi
in Sivas.29 In this document, which discloses the last known whereabouts of the
author, he is designated, “the judge, the imam, the scholar and agent, … glory
of Islam, sun of the judges.”30
Anīs al-Qulūb Codicological Properties
The manuscript measures 328mm (length) by 255 mm (width) by 95 mm

(depth) and consists of 428 folios. It is covered in an Ottoman marbled paper
binding that has a tan leather spine but is missing its envelope flap. Impressions
of an older envelope flap are visible on folios 100b–101a. For the most part, the
manuscript is bound in quaternions but there are some irregularities in the
gatherings, most probably due to the later rebinding. There are a few binions
and ternions scattered throughout the manuscript, for example. In general,
the manuscript is in relatively poor condition, with most of the quires having
come away from the spine. The first few folios are also quite worn and insect-
28 This aspect of the text has been discussed in depth by Peacock, “An Interfaith Polemic”.
29 Refet Yinanç, “Sivas Abideleri ve Vakıfları,” Vakıflar Dergisi 22 (1991): 15–44, 28–29, 38.
Ankara: Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğü Arşivi, Defter 584, 288–291.
30 “Al-qāḍī al-imām al-ʿālim al-ʿāmil … sharaf al-islām shams al-quḍāt wa-l-ḥukkām.” Both
quḍāt and ḥukkām (sing. ḥākim) mean ‘judges’. Peacock, “An Interfaith Polemic,” 239. I
am very grateful to Boris Liebrenz for his help with this translation.

damaged. Although the manuscript contains no patronage information, it was

later owned by the Ottoman sultans Bāyazīd ii (r. 1481–1512) and Maḥmūd i (r.
1730–1754) and the latter endowed it to an undisclosed place. The seals of both
rulers are found on folio 1a, along with the seal and inscription of Aḥmad
Shaykhzāda, the inspector of the endowments for Mecca and Medina under
Maḥmūd i (al-mufattish bi-awqāf al-ḥaramayn al-sharīfayn), who drafted Maḥ-
mūd’s endowment inscription.31 Other than this inscription, the three seal
impressions and later catchwords, there are no other inscriptions of any kind.
The textblock of the manuscript measures 270mm by 194mm and is
arranged into four equally-sized columns of thirty-three lines. The main paper
used is light cream in colour and is quite smooth with some shine despite pos-
sessing several fibrous inclusions. Ten sheets measure approximately 2mm in
thickness32 and vertical laid lines are visible (twenty measure 30mm across).
The text is copied in solid black naskh script, which is quite neat and steadily
consistent throughout the manuscript.
The copy of Anīs al-Qulūb contains eleven pages with illumination. The first
of these is the frontispiece on folio 1a which consists of a large pointed oval
(200mm by 140mm) with a solid gold centre, a blue and gold petalled border
and spindly, black finials [fig. 1]. This frontispiece is immediately followed by
an illuminated bifolio on folios 1b–2a that contains the title of the manuscript
and the name of the author written in a mixture of Arabic and Persian [fig. 2].
The text reads:
This is the book Anīs al-Qulūb (The Hearts’ Companion), from the pearls
of speech and the ornaments of poetry, the witty stories of useful infor-
mation and precious verses of the sultan of discourse, glory of the pens,
most noble of the sages, light of the eyes of the scholars, king of the truth-
seekers, well of Allāh in the two worlds (i.e. Heaven and Earth), proof to
the knowledgeable, essence of water and clay, proof of the community,
the truth and the religion, the judge, father of victory, son of Masʿūd of
Ani, Allāh’s mercy be upon him, and may He make his abode in the high-
est paradise.33
31 The seal of Bāyazīd ii also appears on folio 428b.

32 I was unfortunately not able to use a micrometer when examining the manuscript.
33 “Hādhihi [scil.: hādhā] kitāb-i Anīs al-Qulūb az durar-i guftār wa-ghurar-i ashʿār wa-mulaḥ-
i fawāʾid wa-manẓūmāt-i farāʾid-i sulṭān al-kalām mafkhar al-aqlām afḍal al-hukamāʾ nūr
aʿyun al-ʿulamāʾ malik al-muḥaqqiqīn biʾr Allāh fī al-arḍayn burhān al-ʿārifīn khulāṣat al-
māʾ wa-l-ṭīn Burhān al-Milla wa-l-Ḥaqq wa-l-Dīn al-Qāḍī Abū Naṣr ibn Masʿūd al-Anawī,
raḥmat Allāh ʿalayhi wa-jaʿala al-firdaws al-aʿlā wa [sic] mathwāhu.” I am very grateful to
Boris Liebrenz for his help with deciphering this text and its translation.

96 jackson
figure 1 Pointed oval frontispiece, Anīs al-Qulūb by Burhān al-Dīn al-Anawī, ca. 1300–1350,
probably Konya. ms Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Ayasofya 2984, fol. 1a.
photo: süleymaniye kütüphanesi

figure 2 Right half on the double illuminated title-page, Anīs al-Qulūb by Burhān al-Dīn al-
Anawī, ca. 1300–1350, probably Konya. ms Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi,
Ayasofya 2984, fol. 1b.

98 jackson
There are a few mistakes in the Arabic text, probably suggesting that the
unnamed scribe was not a native speaker of Arabic, which would not have
been unusual for the time.34 The final section of this inscription confirms
that the author was dead at the time of the manuscript’s copying so it can
be dated to after 1222, not 1212 as has been previously asserted.35 Following
these three illuminated pages are the opening framed text pages on folios 2b–3a
and illuminated headers on folios 68b, 132b, 195b, 258b, 320b and 385b [figs 3–
4]. Subtitles within the text are also written in gold naskh and tawqīʿ scripts.
The colour palette of the manuscript is quite simple and dominated by gold
and blue. The execution of the illumination is of a good but not exceptional
standard being somewhat untidy in places.
The Manuscript’s Provenance
In the following sections, I discuss the manuscript’s physical properties and

decoration in relation to comparable material and suggest that the copy of Anīs
al-Qulūb was almost certainly produced in Konya in the first half of the four-
teenth century. The manuscripts with which I compare Anīs al-Qulūb are (1) a
677/1278 copy of Rūmī’s Mathnawī-i Maʿnawī, (2) a 723/1323 copy of the same
work and (3) a copy of Sulṭān Walad’s Mathnawī, consisting of the author’s
Ibtidānāma, Rabānāma and Intihānāma, produced shortly before 732/1332.36
34 Peacock notes a number of scribal errors in the main text as well. “An Interfaith Polemic,”
253.
35 Demircan Aksoy, “xiv. Yüzyıl Anadolu,” 62.
36 Respectively, these manuscripts are ms 51, ms 1177 and ms 74, all in the Mevlana Müzesi in
Konya. Abdülbaki Gölpinarlı, Mevlânâ Müzesi müzelik yazma kitaplar kataloğu (Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2003), 45–55, 108–110, 248–252. See also Zeren Tanındı,
“1278 Tarihli En Eski Mesnevi’nin Tezhipleri,” Kültür ve Sanat 8 (1990): 17–22; Demircan
Aksoy, “İlhanli ve Memlûk Etkileşiminde”; Jackson, Patrons and Artists at the Crossroads.
Although only the 1323 Mathnawī-i Maʿnawī contains information explicitly stating that
it was copied in Konya, the other two manuscripts contain very strong indications that
they were also produced there. The 1278 Mathnawī-i Maʿnawī contains a waqf note on
folio 325b stating that it was endowed to Rūmī’s shrine in Konya by its patron, who also
donated an ornately carved wooden book stand to the same shrine in 1279 (No. 332,
Mevlana Müzesi, Konya). See Rudolf M. Riefstahl, “A Seljuq Koran Stand with Lacquer
Painted Decoration in the Museum of Konya,” The Art Bulletin 15, no. 4 (1933): 361–373
(note that the stated accession number, 374, is incorrect). Furthermore, several of the
Mathnawī’s illuminations bear a very close resemblance to those of a 1278 Qurʾān that
was copied in the madrasa of Saʿd al-Dīn Köpek [Kūbak] in Konya (ms Is. 1466, Chester

Broadly speaking, the letter forms of Anīs al-Qulūb’s calligraphy display fea-
tures that are similar to the naskh script of late thirteenth and early fourteenth-
century manuscripts produced in Konya. Such features include nūns, qāf s and
sīns with deep, round bowls, kāf s with long wide heads, and words and let-
ters in superscript at the end of lines [fig. 5]. The alif s of Anīs al-Qulūb, how-
ever, are somewhat larger than the typically small alif s of manuscripts from
Konya and do not feature the slightly left-leaning stance that is often present.
Although the form of the script is relatively close to contemporary examples
from manuscripts produced in Konya, it is not enough in and of itself to indi-
cate a similar provenance.
The format of the textblock is, however, stronger evidence to link the manu-
script to Konya. The textblock is arranged into four, slim columns. This for-
mat was not commonly seen in Islamic manuscripts until at least the mid-
fourteenth century and was certainly fairly widespread by the fifteenth. Elaine
Wright has noted that, in the later fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the move-
ment towards the four-column format coincided with the increased produc-
tion of romantic epic texts like the Khamsa of Niẓāmī (d. 1209).37 The earliest
known example of the four-column textblock format appears in a copy of Fir-
dawsī’s Shāhnāma produced in 614/1217 (the earliest dated copy of this epic
text) and it is possible that the four-column format was more popular than the
manuscript record suggests.38 However, what surviving manuscript evidence
does show is that the four-column format is also found in a number of illumi-
nated manuscripts from late thirteenth and early fourteenth-century Konya.
Four-column textblocks are present in all three of the Mawlawī manuscripts
mentioned at the beginning of this section. Whether or not the four-column
format was more widespread than the manuscript record shows, there certainly
Beatty Library, Dublin). See Elaine Wright, Islam: Faith, Art, Culture: Manuscripts of the
Chester Beatty Library (London: Scala, 2009), 72. Both manuscripts were decorated by
Mukhliṣ ibn ʿAbdallāh al-Hindī. The copy of Sulṭān Walad’s Mathnawī produced before
1332 was also endowed to the Konya shrine. Many of its illuminations appear to have been
directly copied or adapted from the 1278 Mathnawī-i Maʿnawī and it is therefore likely
that the manuscript was produced in close proximity to its predecessor. Zeren Tanındı,
“Anadolu Selçuklu Sanatında Tezhip: Müzehhip Muhlis b. Abdullah El-Hindî ve Halefleri,”
in Arkeoloji ve Sanat Tarihi Araştırmaları Yıldız Demiriz’e Armağan, ed. M. Baha Tanman
and Uşun Tükel (Istanbul: Simurg, 2001), 148.
37 Wright, The Look of the Book, 126.
38 ms Magl.Cl.III.24, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, Florence. This illuminated,
unillustrated manuscript does not contain any information about its artists, patron or pro-
duction location. Due to the presence of Turkish glosses in the manuscript, Sheila Blair has
suggested that it may have been produced in Rūm. Blair, Islamic Calligraphy, 366, 400, n. 4.

100 jackson
figure 3 Framed and illuminated text page, the beginning of Anīs al-Qulūb by Burhān al-
Dīn al-Anawī, ca. 1300–1350, probably Konya, with the basmala in Persian. ms
Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Ayasofya 2984, fol. 2b.

figure 4 Illuminated headpiece and framed text, Anīs al-Qulūb by Burhān al-Dīn al-Anawī,
ca. 1300–1350, probably Konya. ms Istanbul, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Ayasofya
2984, fol. 68b.

102 jackson
figure 5 Framed text page, Mathnawī by Sulṭān Walad, before 732/1332. Konya, Mevlana
Müzesi, ms 74, fol. 109b.
photo: cailah jackson

appears to have been an association between the textblock type and medium-
to-large manuscripts from Konya.
There are also a number of similarities between the illumination of Anīs
al-Qulūb and that of contemporary illuminated manuscripts from Konya. The
most striking is that of the large pointed oval frontispiece [see fig. 1]. Apart from
Anīs al-Qulūb, pointed oval frontispieces appear in four illuminated manu-
scripts that were all produced in Konya: the three Mawlawī texts mentioned
above, and a 710/1311 copy of al-Fuṣūl al-Ashrafiyya fī al-Qawāʿid al-Burhāniyya
wa-l-Kashfiyya by Badr al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Tustarī (d. 1329–1330).39 As far
as I am aware, there are no other securely-identified Islamic manuscripts that
feature this distinctive style of illuminated frontispiece.40
Pointed oval frontispieces do appear in late fourteenth and early fifteenth-
century illuminated manuscripts from Persia. However, these look rather differ-
ent to the examples cited above, usually being smaller in scale and sometimes
set into illuminated frames.41 Of the four manuscripts from Konya cited in the
39 ms Ayasofya 2445, Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi, Istanbul.

40 There is one further example of a pointed oval frontispiece which appears on a detached
folio from a (presumably no longer extant) Qurʾān (m.73.5.558, Los Angeles County Mu-
seum of Art, Los Angeles). Although the folio is currently attributed to thirteenth or
fourteenth-century Syria or Egypt, the presence of the pointed oval and the style of the
illumination suggests that this folio was likely produced in Konya. In the absence of any
precedents in the Islamic manuscript tradition (as far I can ascertain), it is possible that
the pointed oval shape may be connected to the contemporary Byzantine arts of the
book. See Annemarie Weyl Carr, “Gospel Frontispieces of the Comnenian Period,” Gesta
21, vol. 1 (1982): 3–20, figs 7–8. This relationship remains largely speculative as it is not
clear what the practical links were between Byzantine and Islamic artists who worked
on manuscripts. It is, however, certainly the case that some artists and Mawlawī devotees
living in Konya were Christians or converts from Christianity. For example, Gūrjī Khātūn
(d. after 1286), who was the daughter of Queen Rusudān of Georgia (r. 1223–1245), appears
to have either remained Christian or converted to Islam some time after her marriage to
Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kaykhusraw ii (r. 1237–1246). See “The Ladies of Rūm”: 132–156, 148–151.
Shams al-Dīn Aflākī, the author of the Mawlawī hagiography Manāqib al-ʿĀrifīn writes
that at one time Gūrjī Khātūn commissioned a devotional portrait of Rūmī from a painter
(naqqāsh) named ʿAyn al-Dawla al-Rūmī. Another anecdote which details this painter’s
conversion to Islam from Christianity, describes him as a Mawlawī before and after his
change in religion. Shams al-Dīn Aflākī, The Feats of the Knowers of God (Manāqeb al-
ʿārefīn), ed. and trans. John O’Kane (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 292–293, 382–383.
41 See, for example, ms Supplément arabe 1567 and ms Supplément persan 1963, both from
the Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. Francis Richard, Splendeurs persanes: manu-
scrits du xiie au xviie siècle (Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, 1997), cats 28 and
37.

104 jackson
previous paragraph, the pointed oval frontispiece of the 723/1323 Mathnawī-i

Maʿnawī of Rūmī displays a particularly strong resemblance to the frontispiece
of Anīs al-Qulūb [fig. 6]. Both feature spindly, three-branch finials, stylised flo-
ral bands, and petal-like, outer borders. Both are also largely executed in gold
and blue pigment, with black outlining and some green colour present in the
‘petals’.
Beyond the instance of the pointed oval frontispiece, there are further par-
allels between the illumination of Anīs al-Qulūb and the 723/1323 Mathnawī-i
Maʿnawī. Firstly, the two manuscripts are very similar in size. Anīs al-Qulūb
measures 328mm (length) by 255 mm (width) while the 723/1323 Mathnawī
measures 310mm (length) by 240mm (width). The dimensions of the text-
blocks are fairly close as well. Anīs al-Qulūb’s textblock measures 270mm by
194mm while that of the 723/1323 Mathnawī measures 252mm by 184mm. The
main paper used in both manuscripts is also comparable though it is difficult
to tell whether they have a common original source. Like the paper of Anīs
al-Qulūb, the Mathnawī’s paper is light cream, smooth, slightly burnished and
features several inclusions and vertical laid lines, twenty of which measure
about 33 mm across. These codicological parallels suggest that it is possible that
the two manuscripts were produced by an artist or team of artists out of the
same workshop.
Further similarities include comparable headpieces and borders which, like
the pointed oval frontispieces, are largely executed in gold and blue colour
palettes in both manuscripts. Headpieces in both manuscripts, for example,
are structured in the same way, with two squares on either side, an inscription
in white pigment in the central panel and a small vignette attached on the
outer edge. Though the vignettes look rather different from each other, the
overall visual parallels between the manuscripts’ headpieces are nevertheless
evident [fig. 7; see also fig. 4]. The particular gold and blue strapwork border
patterns that are present on the title pages of Anīs al-Qulūb also appear in the
723/1323 Mathnawī [fig. 8; see also fig. 2]. These borders additionally appear in
a 714/1314 copy of Sulṭān Walad’s Intihānāma that was produced in Konya.42
Both the 723/1323 Mathnawī and the 714/1314 Intihānāma were copied by the
same scribe, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAbdallāh, a freed slave (ʿatīq) of Sulṭān Walad and,
as I have suggested elsewhere, these two Mawlawī manuscripts were probably
illuminated by the same person.43 It is certainly within the realms of feasibility
that the same illuminator decorated the copy of Anīs al-Qulūb as well. This
42 Ibid., cat. 17.

43 Jackson, Patrons and Artists at the Crossroads.

figure 6 Pointed oval frontispiece, Mathnawī-i Maʿnawī by Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, 723/1323. Konya,
Mevlana Müzesi, ms 1177, fol. 2a.
possibility thus anchors the production of Anīs al-Qulūb to around 723/1323,

and it is therefore likely that it was produced in the first half of the fourteenth
century.
The evidence accumulated above demonstrates that the manuscript pres-
ently discussed is connected to Konya largely on the basis of its illumination.

106 jackson
figure 7 Illuminated headpiece, Mathnawī-i Maʿnawī by Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, 723/1323. Konya,
Mevlana Müzesi, ms 1177, fol. 194b, detail.
Anīs al-Qulūb is in fact just one piece of material that forms part of a larger
corpus of illuminated manuscripts that display features of the ‘Konya school’
of illumination that appears to have been active from the late thirteenth to
early-to-mid fourteenth centuries. Much of the surviving manuscript evidence
from 677–732/1278–1332, some of which I discuss above and below, features
the repeated use of certain key motifs. Such motifs include large pointed oval
frontispieces, circle and pointed oval strapwork bands, and circular motifs com-
posed of half-palmettes. All of these motifs appear—multiple times in some
cases—in the manuscripts cited above. Any notion of an artistic school should
of course be used with caution. In this context, the ‘Konya school’ was perhaps
a loose community of craftsmen (scribes, illuminators, bookbinders and paper-
makers) that may have lived in and around Konya who were connected through
networks of patronage, shared work and civic spaces, and teacher-student rela-
tionships. It was such networks that could have enabled the localised and
repeated use of such motifs.
Although it is very likely that Anīs al-Qulūb was produced in Konya, it is
worth noting that some of the elements of its decoration suggest connections
to illuminated manuscripts produced in Persia and the Jazira. For example, the
framed, polylobed medallions present in the illuminated title pages [see fig. 2]
ultimately have their origins in illuminations produced in the twelfth-century
Jazira, perhaps Mosul.44 This form was eventually adopted by the Ilkhanids
44 See, for example, several folios in ms Arabe 2964, Bibliothèque nationale de France,
Paris. Available online at Gallica, the digital library of the Bibliothèque nationale de
France: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8422960m. This manuscript is the Kitāb al-
Diryāq, produced in 595/1199, possibly in Mosul. Nahla Nassar, “Saljuq or Byzantine: Two

and polylobed medallions, sometimes ‘floating’ within rectangular frames, are

present in illuminated manuscripts produced for the Ilkhanid vizier Rashīd al-
Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadhānī (d. 1318) between 1307 and 1315.45 The Ilkhanids’
successors in Shiraz, the Injuids, also used framed, polylobed medallions in
their manuscripts, such as a dispersed Shāhnāma produced for the Injuid vizier
Qiwām al-Dīn in 741/1341.46
The connection to the arts of the book of the eastern Islamic world is
consistent with some other manuscripts produced in late medieval Konya.
The dedication page of a 714/1314–1315 Qurʾān produced in Konya for Khalīl
ibn Maḥmūd (of the Qaramanid beylik), for example, is also comprised of a
framed, polylobed medallion and it is probable that the shape was adopted
from the Ilkhanid tradition.47 It is possible that the appearance of styles asso-
ciated with workshops of Persia and the Jazira is due to the migration of
artists from those regions to Konya in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth
centuries but the documentary evidence for this remains minimal. It is the
case that artists with nisbas from the eastern Islamic world indeed produced
manuscripts in Rūm. For example, illuminated manuscripts were copied by
scribes named ‘al-Bukhārī’ (from Bukhara) and ‘al-Tustarī’ (from Shushtar),
while two manuscripts that were completed in Konya in 677/1278 were illu-
minated by an ‘al-Hindī’ (from Hindustan). However, nisbas are not always
definitive evidence of geographical origin and should therefore be interpreted
Related Styles of Jazīran Miniature Painting,” in The Art of Syria and the Jazīra, 1100–
1250, ed. Julian Raby (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985); Rachel Ward, “Evidence
for a School of Painting at the Artuqid Court,” in The Art of Syria and the Jazīra, 1100–
1250, ed. Julian Raby (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985); Oya Pancaroğlu, “Socializing
Medicine: Illustrations of the Kitāb al-Diryāq,” Muqarnas 18 (2001): 155–172, 155.
45 ms eh 248, Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi, Istanbul; ms Arabe 2324, Bibliothèque
nationale de France, Paris. For the former manuscript, see David James, Manuscripts of
the Holy Qurʾān from the Mamlūk Era (Riyadh: King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic
Studies, 1999), fig. 86, cat. 46; For the latter manuscript, see Nourane Ben Azzouna and
Patricia Roger-Puyo, “The Question of the Formation of Manuscript Production Work-
shops in Iran According to Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh al-Hamadhānī’s Majmūʿa Rashīdiyya
in the Bibliothèque nationale de France,” Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 7 (2016): 152–194,
figs 2 and 3.
46 ms s1986.111, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Washington dc. Available online at Open f|S, the
ongoing digitisation project at the Freer and Sackler Galleries: http://www.asia.si.edu/
collections/edan/object.php?q=fsg_S1986.111.
47 Zeren Tanındı, “Konya Mevlâna Müzesi’nde 677 ve 665 Yıllık Kur’an’lar Karamanlı Beyli-
ği’nde Kitap Sanatı,” Türkiye Bankası Kültür Sanat Dergisi 12 (1991), 42–44, 43.

108 jackson
figure 8 Strapwork border with text, Mathnawī-i Maʿnawī by Jalāl al-Dīn Rūmī, 723/1323.
Konya, Mevlana Müzesi, ms 1177, fol. 4a.

with care.48 Rather than complicating the picture, these links suggest that
the ‘Konya school’, like other Islamic centres of the arts of the book such
as Tabriz and Shiraz, did not exist in isolation, but were in fact integrated
into wider transregional artistic networks. Such networks, which were formed
and maintained through the travels of itinerant artists, patrons and scholars
along well-established trade routes, enabled the diffusion of techniques, styles,
patterns and motifs across the Islamic (and, in some cases, the non-Islamic)
world.49 While manuscripts from Konya display distinctive ‘local’ features, they
of course also contain elements that signal their place in the wider contexts of
the Islamic arts of the book. The interconnectedness of manuscript production
centres in some cases therefore challenges scholarly frameworks formed by
dynastic or modern geographical boundaries that do not always serve the
material in the most effective way.
Since there is no colophon or dedication in the manuscript, any sugges-
tions concerning possible patrons will necessarily be speculative. The extent
of the illumination suggests that the patron was someone of financial means
or political standing. However, it is noteworthy that some of the most lavish
manuscripts from late medieval Konya were commissioned by figures who
were otherwise not well-known or, at least, who are not mentioned in the
chronicles of the period although they were often part of elite political circles.
For example, the 677/1287 Mathnawī-i Maʿnawī mentioned above was one of
the most elaborate monumental manuscripts produced in the thirteenth cen-
48 The scribe from Bukhara is Abū al-Maḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Maḥmūd ibn al-Ḥājjī nick-
named (al-mulaqqab bi) Ḥamīd al-Mukhliṣī al-Bukhārī who completed an illuminated
copy of Sirāj al-Dīn Urmawī’s Laṭāʾif al-Ḥikma in 684/1286 (ms Persan 121, Bibliothèque
nationale de France, Paris) and an unilluminated copy of Faḍl Allāh Isfarāyinī’s commen-
tary on Kalīla wa-Dimna in 676/1278 (ms Supplément persan 1442, Bibliothèque nationale
de France, Paris). The scribe from Shushtar was Badr al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Tustarī (men-
tioned above) who copied his own work, al-Fuṣūl al-Ashrafiyya, in 710/1311. The illuminator
of the two 1278 manuscripts is mentioned in note 38 above. The nisba of ‘al-Hindī’ is rather
unusual in this context though there are contemporary instances of individuals living
in Konya with this nisba who were associated with Hindustan. İlyas Çelebi, “Hindî,” in
Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi (Istanbul: Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklo-
pedisi Genel Müdürlüğü, 1998), 66–67; Aflākī, The Feats of the Knowers of God, 67. I am
grateful to Saqib Baburi for suggesting that the ‘al-Hindī’ nisba could be a remnant from
an earlier, possibly Ghaznavid, period (personal communication).
49 Although there is no evidence for the following in the context being presently discussed,
it is important to remember that beyond private or royal commissions, artists and their
skills, or artistic material, could also be commercially acquired in book markets or forcibly
appropriated through military means.

110 jackson
tury. Its patron is named in the waqf document at the back of the manuscript as
Jamāl al-Dīn Mubārak ibn ʿAbdallāh, a freed slave (ʿatīq) of the powerful Seljuk
vizier Fakhr al-Dīn ʿAlī ibn Ḥusayn (d. 1288), also known as Ṣāḥib ʿAṭā.50 On
the lacquered book stand that he donated to the shrine in 1279, Jamāl al-Dīn
is named as a ‘servant’ of the same vizier (khādim al-Ṣāḥibī).51 One ‘Mubārak
ibn ʿAbdallāh al-Khādim’ is noted as a witness to an endowment deed dated to
671/1272, which appears to confirm that the patron was indeed an—apparently
wealthy—attendant of some sort.52 There is therefore no reason to assume that
the patron of Anīs al-Qulūb was someone from the princely or imperial level,
for instance.
Although the author, Burhān al-Dīn al-Anawī, was appointed the qāḍī of
the important city of Malatya, the text does not seem to have had a substan-
tial impact beyond its immediate courtly audience. There are so far no known
references to Anīs al-Qulūb or Burhān al-Dīn al-Anawī in any other contempo-
rary sources.53 The manuscript being presently discussed is the only surviving
copy of the text, which suggests that it did not have a wide circulation and was
certainly not a ‘madrasa’ text. This particular copy, furthermore, contains no
annotations. This supports the suggestion that it was a private commission,
rather than a student’s or scholar’s textbook.
A.C.S. Peacock has carefully considered the text’s relevance to the period
in which it was first produced. The final chapter, which contains information
concerning the author’s experiences of life in the majority Christian town of
Ani, is notably hostile to the local Armenian population. Peacock suggests that
this antagonism could be a “riposte” to contemporary expansionist Armenian
policies or a “warning” against ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāwūs’ relationship with Levon
(Leo), Lord of Armenian Cilicia from 1197 and King from 1198 until his death
in 1219.54 However, since there is no information about the identity of the
patron, it is difficult to ascertain what relevance this polemical section had in
the early fourteenth century. As in previous centuries, there was a degree of
cultural and economic interaction between Muslims and Armenians in Rūm,55
50 ms 51, Mevlana Müzesi, Konya, fol. 325b.

51 See note 36 above. Riefstahl, “A Seljuk Koran Stand,” 371.
52 This deed was drawn up for Nūr al-Dīn Jibrīl ibn Jājā (d. 1301), the governor of Kırşehir.
Ahmet Temir, Kırşehir emiri Caca Oğlu Nur el-Dinʾin 1272 tarihli Arapça-Moğolca vakfiyesi
(Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1959), 80.
54 Ibid., 251.
55 Seta Dadoyan, The Armenians in the Medieval Islamic World: Paradigms of Interaction: Sev-
enth to Fourteenth Centuries, 3 vols. (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2011–2014);

notably in the growth of futuwwa associations56 and in the field of architec-

ture.57 However, religious tensions between Muslim and Armenian Christians
in eastern Rūm re-emerged to a certain extent in light of instability in the
Ilkhanid empire in the early fourteenth century. Although minority Armenian
populations in Rūm had been subjected to attacks from the 1290s by both
Mamluk and Ilkhanid forces,58 persecution of Christians escalated particularly
around the time that the Ilkhanid empire was beset by internal discord. While
the Mongols were occupied with rebellions and military losses, local Muslim
commanders sought to gain dominance over Christian religious authorities in
places like Kayseri and Erzurum.59
However, any connection between the production of this copy of Anīs al-
Qulūb and contemporary tensions with local Armenian populations is conjec-
tural and it is important to remember that most of the text consists of stories
of the prophets alongside aspects of Islamic history. It may well be that the
text was instead copied due to an interest in these subjects. Similar texts were
certainly produced for at least one named Rūmī patron in the early fourteenth
century. Abū Isḥāq al-Thaʿlabī’s (d. 1035) collected stories of the prophets, ʿArāʾis
al-Majālis fī Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʾ, was translated into Turkish from Arabic under the
title Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʾ between 1312 and 1319 for Mubāriz al-Dīn Muḥammad Bey,
Sergio La Porta, “Conflicted Coexistence: Christian-Muslim Interaction and Its Represen-

tation in Medieval Armenia,” in Contextualizing the Muslim Other in Medieval Christian
Discourse, ed. Jerold C. Frakes (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011); S. Peter Cowe, “Pat-
terns of Armeno-Muslim Interchange on the Armenian Plateau in the Interstice between
Byzantine and Ottoman Hegemony,” in Islam and Christianity in Medieval Anatolia, ed.
A.C.S. Peacock, Bruno De Nicola and Sara Nur Yıldız (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Com-
pany, 2015), 77–105.
56 Rachel Goshgarian, “Futuwwa in Thirteenth-Century Rūm and Armenia: Reform Move-
ments and the Managing of Multiple Allegiances on the Seljuk Periphery,” in The Seljuks
of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East, ed. A.C.S. Peacock and Sara Nur
Yıldız (London: I.B. Tauris, 2012): 227–263; Goshgarian, “Opening and Closing”.
57 Armen Ghazarian and Robert Ousterhout, “A Muqarnas Drawing from Thirteenth-Cen-
tury Armenia and the Use of Architectural Drawings during the Middle Ages,” Muqarnas
18 (2001): 141–154.
58 The torture and massacre of the Armenian clergy of Harput (Kharberd) in 1290 by the
Mamluk ruler Qalāwūn (r. 1279–1290) and his son al-Ashraf, for example, Cowe, “Patterns
of Armeno-Muslim Interchange,” 96.
59 Cowe, “Patterns of Armeno-Muslim Interchange,” 97; Robert Bedrosian, “Armenia during
the Seljuk and Mongol Periods,” in The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times,
Vol. 1: The Dynastic Periods: From Antiquity to the Fourteenth Century, ed. Richard G. Hov-
annisian (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1991), 241–271, 266.

112 jackson
ruler of the Aydinid beylik from 1308 to 1334.60 The same patron also commis-
sioned a Turkish translation of Farīd al-Dīn al-ʿAṭṭār’s Persian collection of Sufi
biographies, Tadhkirat al-Awliyāʾ, at some point during his reign.61 Although
the production of these texts tentatively suggests that there could have been a
wider interest in reading such pious texts, further evidence is, so far, unavail-
able.
Related Manuscripts: The Khalili and İnebey Juzʾ
The evidence that I have presented above strongly indicates that the illumi-
nated copy of Anīs al-Qulūb was produced in Konya in the first half of the four-
teenth century. In the following sections, I present two more manuscripts—
one of which was previously unknown to scholarship—that feature notable
visual similarities to the illuminations of Anīs al-Qulūb. Both manuscripts are
incomplete, multi-part Qurʾāns, and neither contain any information about
dating, production or patronage. The first manuscript is a thirty-part Qurʾān
of which the second and thirteenth juzʾ have survived.62 Only the thirteenth
juzʾ (hereafter referred to as the ‘Khalili juzʾ’) contains illuminations. The sec-
ond manuscript is also a thirty-part Qurʾān which has five surviving parts: juzʾ
6, 10, 14, 16 and 20.63 Of these, only juzʾ 14 (hereafter referred to as the ‘İnebey
juzʾ’) contains substantial illuminations.
The contents of the surviving parts of the two manuscripts do not overlap
and it is possible but ultimately unclear whether the sections are actually
part of one thirty-juzʾ Qurʾān. The manuscripts are nearly the same size and
length,64 and the dimensions of their textblocks are virtually identical. Both
60 Sara Nur Yıldız, “Aydınid Court Literature in the Formation of an Islamic Identity in
Fourteenth-Century Western Anatolia,” in Islamic Literature and Intellectual Life in Four-
teenth- and Fifteenth-Century Anatolia, ed. A.C.S. Peacock and Sara Nur Yıldız (Würzburg:
Ergon Verlag, 2016), 197–241, 202.
61 Ibid; Abdülbaki Çetin, “Aydınoğlu Mehmet Bey’e Sunulan Tezkiretü’l-Evliyâ ve Kısasu’l
Enbiyâ Tercümeleri Üzerine,” Atatürk Üniversitesi Türkiyat Araştırmaları Enstitüsü Dergisi
55 (2016): 59–92.
62 ms qur 433 ( juzʾ 2) and ms qur 132 ( juzʾ 13), Khalili Collection, London. David James,
The Master Scribes: Qurʾāns of the 10th to 14th centuries ad (London: The Nour Foundation
in association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press, 1992), 193–199.
63 ms Genel 5059 ( juzʾ 6), ms Genel 5060 ( juzʾ 10), ms Genel 5062 ( juzʾ 14), ms Genel 5063
( juzʾ 16) and ms Genel 5064 ( juzʾ 20), İnebey Kütüphanesi, Bursa.
64 The Khalili juzʾ measures 232mm by 165mm and contains 49 folios. The İnebey juzʾ
measures 224mm by 165mm and contains 52 folios.

textblocks measure 155 mm by 101 mm and are formed from five lines of black
muḥaqqaq script. A comparison of the two manuscripts’ sūra headings and
basmalas shows that their scripts are indeed very similar [figs 9–10]. The paper
of both manuscripts is also fairly similar in appearance though it is not possible
to tell whether they are exactly the same. Both are light cream, smooth and
quite fibrous, and feature very faint horizontal laid lines.
Both volumes in the Khalili Collection are covered in original brown leather
bindings that feature brown, block-printed leather doublures with, unusually,
an anthropomorphic and zoomorphic design.65 This is a different binding to
those of the sections in the İnebey Kütüphanesi, which may or may not be
original [fig. 11]. These coverings are made of dark brown-black leather though
the doublures are made of thick paper, which presumably would originally
have been leather (as is the case with other original bindings from this period).
Both manuscripts are skilfully illuminated in palettes of gold, blue, red,
pink, and green66 and feature illuminated frontispieces and framed open-
ing text pages, which will be discussed momentarily. Sūra headings in both
manuscripts are written in gold muḥaqqaq outlined in black [see figs 9–10], and
every fifth and tenth verse is, respectively, marked by palmette-shaped and cir-
cular marginal vignettes (though these do vary somewhat in style across the
manuscripts). The full-page frontispiece illuminations of both the Khalili and
İnebey juzʾ are strikingly similar to the illuminated title pages of Anīs al-Qulūb
[figs 12–13; see also fig. 2]. All three decorated pages are characterised by a cen-
tral polylobed medallion (though the page from Anīs al-Qulūb is the only one
which contains an inscription), which is incorporated into a square frame that
is flanked by head and tailpieces and then bordered by a wide, decorated band.
Although the specific motifs differ somewhat between the three illuminated
pages, all conform to the same basic structure and also feature a similar type of
‘line-and-circle’ strapwork. In the Khalili juzʾ, this particular form of strapwork
appears on either side of the head- and tailpieces inscriptions [see fig. 12]. In
65 James, The Master Scribes, 196–197. James notes that the central figure in the block-printed
design is wearing a ‘Turkish hat’.
66 It appears as though the head- and tailpiece inscription of the Khalili juzʾ are also written,
unusually, in silver. There have not so far been any substantial investigations into the
presence of silver pigment in Islamic manuscripts, though Priscilla Soucek has suggested
that its occasional presence in Ilkhanid manuscripts may derive from the Armenian arts of
the book, which often featured both gold and silver pigments. Priscilla Soucek, “Armenian
and Islamic Manuscript Painting: A Visual Dialogue,” in Treasures in Heaven: Armenian Art,
Religion, and Society, ed. Thomas F. Mathews, Roger S. Wieck and Priscilla P. Soucek (New
York: Pierpont Morgan Library, 1998), 129.

114 jackson
figure 9 Beginning of Sūrat al-Raʿd (Qurʾān 13:1), with Sūra heading and basmala, ca. 1300–
1350. London, Khalili Collection, ms qur 132 (Qurʾān juzʾ 13), fol. 19a.

figure 10 Beginning of Sūrat al-Naḥl (Qurʾān 16:1–2) with Sūra heading and basmala,
ca. 1300–1350. ms Bursa, İnebey Kütüphanesi, Genel 5062 (Qurʾān, juzʾ 14), fol. 17a.
photo: i̇n ebey kütüphanesi

116 jackson
figure 11 Binding, Qurʾān (juzʾ20), ca. 1300–1350, ms Bursa, İnebey Kütüphanesi, Genel 5064.
the İnebey juzʾ, the strapwork forms the main border [see fig. 13] and in Anīs
al-Qulūb, it is present above and below the central medallion [see fig. 2]. There
are also parallels between the headpiece of the Khalili juzʾ and headpieces in
Anīs al-Qulūb [fig. 14; see also fig. 4].
Although the basic forms are identical, there are some differences in the
illumination of the three manuscripts. For example, the Khalili and İnebey
juzʾ are more colourful by comparison, featuring red and pink, which do not
appear anywhere in the copy of Anīs al-Qulūb. Furthermore, the illuminated,
framed text page of the İnebey juzʾ [fig. 15] is quite different from the framed
text pages of the other two manuscripts [see figs 3 and 14], and in fact bears
a distinct resemblance to illuminated text pages attributed by Elaine Wright
to fourteenth-century Shiraz.67 The four-petalled flowers present in the border
of the Khalili juzʾ’s frontispiece [see fig. 12] also do not feature in either of
the other two manuscripts or any manuscripts produced in Konya, but do
appear in Ilkhanid illuminated manuscripts produced in early fourteenth-
century Tabriz.68 The visual connection between manuscripts produced in
Konya on the one hand and the Jazira and Persia on the other has been noted
above.
67 Wright, The Look of the Book, figs 3 and 6.

68 For example, ms Arabe 2324, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris. See Ben Azzouna
and Roger-Puyo, “The Question of the Formation,” Table 1.

figure 12 Left half of a double illuminated frontispiece, Qurʾān (juzʾ 13), ca. 1300–1350. London,
Khalili Collection, ms qur 132, fol. 1a.

118 jackson
figure 13 Right half of the illuminated frontispiece, Qurʾān (juzʾ 14), ca. 1300–1350. ms Bursa,
İnebey Kütüphanesi, Genel 5062, fol. 1b.

figure 14 Illuminated headpiece and framed text page with the beginning of Qurʾān juzʾ 13
(Qurʾān 12:53–54), ca. 1300–1350. London, Khalili Collection, ms qur 132, fol. 1b.

120 jackson
figure 15 Left half of a double illuminated headpiece and framed text page showing the
second page of Qurʾān juzʾ 14 (Qurʾān 15:2–3), ca. 1300–1350. ms Bursa, İnebey
Kütüphanesi, Genel 5062, fol. 3a.

Based on the extent of the similarities between the two Qurʾān juzʾ and the
copy of Anīs al-Qulūb, it is certainly possible that the two former manuscripts
were also produced in or near Konya. However, due to elements of the illumina-
tion that are seen in manuscripts from the eastern Islamic world, it is also pos-
sible that the manuscripts were produced there instead. It is not clear whether
the two juzʾ were part of the same manuscript. If so, it is possible that they were
decorated by different artists. If not part of the same manuscript, they were very
likely produced in the same workshop due to the number of physical parallels.
Either way, these manuscripts serve to reinforce the point that manuscript pro-
duction centres, including those in Bilād al-Rūm, were in fact connected to each
other through the transregional mobility of artists, techniques and motifs.
Conclusion
This paper has discussed one illuminated manuscript, the unicum Anīs al-
Qulūb, an early thirteenth-century text by Burhān al-Dīn al-Anawī that was
dedicated to the Seljuk sultan ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāwūs I in around 1210. Through
comparing the manuscript’s codicological and decorative properties to con-
temporary manuscripts that were produced in Konya, I have suggested that
the copy of Anīs al-Qulūb was almost certainly produced in Konya as well,
most likely in the first half of the fourteenth century. In particular, elements of
the manuscript’s illumination display notable similarities to the decoration of
some manuscripts from late medieval Konya. I have also briefly considered two
further, undated manuscripts that display compelling similarities to the illumi-
nation of Anīs al-Qulūb. I believe that both were probably produced in early-to-
mid fourteenth-century Konya. However, like Anīs al-Qulūb, they display some
significant aesthetic links to fourteenth-century Tabrizi and Shirazi illuminated
manuscripts, and it is possible that evidence unearthed in the future may make
a Jaziran or Persian attribution more plausible.
The example of Anīs al-Qulūb attests to the historical and aesthetic rich-
ness of late medieval illuminated manuscripts from Konya. Rather than being
a mere periphery from the central Islamic lands, Konya was an active cen-
tre of manuscript production populated by diverse local and migrant artists,
who created a distinctive style of illumination that I have termed the ‘Konya
school’—a school that was nevertheless connected to other production cen-
tres, like Tabriz and Shiraz, probably through the travels of said artists. Indeed,
I have attempted to situate the decoration of Anīs al-Qulūb in both its local and
transregional artistic contexts, with Konya as one point in a wider network of
cities that were spread across the Islamic world.

122 jackson
Although they have been previously neglected, relatively speaking, in

Islamic art scholarship due to their lack of illustrations and obvious dynastic
connections, some of this material exhibits a level of creativity and sophisti-
cation that arguably rivals the contemporary arts of the book of other Islamic
lands. It is perhaps all the more surprising that such manuscripts were pro-
duced in a time of profound political instability, when Rūm Seljuk rule had all
but distintegrated. Due in part to the continuation of economic life and the
rise of ambitious bureaucrats and religious figures to fill the power vacuum left
by the absence of an imperial framework, Konya seems to have maintained its
position as a regional centre of the arts of the book in the late medieval period.
It was not until the Ottomans firmly took control of the wider region that artis-
tic production shifted to the ateliers of Istanbul.
Acknowledgements
The research leading to this article was conducted during the fieldwork for my
doctoral dissertation, “Patrons and Artists at the Crossroads: The Islamic Arts
of the Book in the Lands of Rūm, 1270s–1370s”. This fieldwork was generously
supported by the hh Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani Graduate Scholarship
and the Barakat Trust. I am also very grateful to the staff of the Süleymaniye
Kütüphanesi, the İnebey Kütüphanesi, the Mevlana Müzesi, the Khalili Collec-
tion, the Chester Beatty Library and the Bibliothèque nationale de France for
allowing me to examine the manuscripts discussed in this article. I am espe-
cially thankful to my doctoral supervisor, Zeynep Yürekli-Görkay, for her help
and advice in navigating collections in Turkey and for her guidance in relation
to my thesis topic. Finally, sincere thanks to Yui Kanda and the anonymous
reviewer for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

An Illuminated Manuscript of Early Fourt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Illuminated Manuscript of Early Fourt

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Illuminated Manuscript of Early Fourt

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Islamic Manuscripts 8 (2017) 85–122