[CT]introduction

70 Shâh Shojâ` used the word Mahmud with a double meaning: as an adjective (i.e., praiseworthy) and as his brother's name.

71 Ghani, Bahs dar âsâr-o afkâr-o ahvâl-e Hâfez, p. 208. Trans. Wheeler Thackston.

72 Ibid., pp. 208-10.

73 Ghani (ibid., p. 22) cites a poem of Salmân-e Sâvoji, in which Salmân complains about not receiving his share of the Shirâz levies, to demonstrate that there had indeed been an agreement to pay tribute to the Jalâyerids from Shirâz.

74 Ibid.

75 . M. Farrokh, ed., Mojmal-e Fasihi (Abridged history of Fasihi) (Mashhad: Tus Publishing, 1339), p. 97. Two other chroniclers allow us to better situate the fall of Shirâz: Mahmud-e Kotobi (d. 1402), a former bureaucrat in the services of the Mozaffarids, and Hâfez-e Abru (see cat. no. 22), writing in the early fifteenth century. Kotobi gives a lengthy account of the incident including two dates framing the event: A.H. 765/1363-64, when the Jalâyerid forces arrived at the outskirts of Esfahân and pressured Shâh Mahmud to march toward Shirâz, and "Esfand A.H. 765," when Shâh Shojâ` set out from Abarquh to Kermân after being ousted from Shirâz (Kotobi, Târikh-e âl-e Mozaffar, pp. 87, 91). The second date is misleading, for it mixes the solar month Esfand with a seemingly "lunar year." As suggested to me by C. Adle, chances are that Kotobi was actually referring to the fiscal year A.H. 765. Fiscal years were based on a solar calendar to concur with harvest cycles, and because the lunar year is shorter than the solar year, the fiscal year usually lagged behind and had to be adjusted every thirty-three years. This hypothesis is further strengthened by considering the events that occurred between those two dates, including the first battle in Sar-e Châh, the subsequent retreat of Shâh Shojâ` to Shirâz and a second failed attempt to stop his opponents, and finally the lengthy siege of Shirâz, described as "very lengthy" by Kotobi (p. 89). In his "Geography" (1415-17), Hâfez-e Abru estimated the siege of Shirâz at eleven months, which would push the fall of Shirâz to A.H. 766/1364. The recapture of Shirâz by Shâh Shojâ` is cited by both historians as occurring on the twenty-fourth of Zol-qa`dé A.H. 767/August 6, 1366. Between his flight from Shirâz and its recapture, Shâh Shojâ` spent most of his time in Kermân. That stay is estimated by Hâfez-e Abru at thirteen months (British Library Or. ms. 931b, fol. 150a), which supports the fiscal-year interpretation of Kotobi's date. The flight from Abarquh to Kermân occurred in Esfand (corresponding to Jomâda I) A.H. 766/March 1364. Kotobi estimated Shâh Mahmud's reign in Shirâz as two years (p. 95), which would account for eleven months of A.H. 767 and a good part of A.H. 766. In consideration of all these accounts, the fall of Shirâz into the hands of Shâh Mahmud must have occurred in the second quarter of A.H. 766 (winter 1365).

76 Shâh Shojâ` was reported to have arrived in Tabriz at the beginning of autumn (Hâfez-e Abru, Zeyl-e jâme`ottavârikh, p. 248), and he left by winter. The year A.H. 777/1375 began on June 2, the same month that the mirror was made. Shâh Shojâ` was most certainly still in Esfahân, preparing his campaign against Tabriz (Kotobi, Târikh-e âl-e Mozaffar, p. 104).

77 Shâh Shojâ` praised his own beauty in his poems (Ghani, Bahs dar âsâr-o afkâr-o ahvâl-e Hâfez, p. 358), although he was described in contemporary chronicles in slightly derogatory terms (according to the perceptions of the day) as "torkak" (Ahmad b. Hosayn b. `Ali-ye Kâteb, Târikh-e jadid-e Yazd [New history of Yazd], ed. I. Afshar [Tehrân: Iran-zamin Press, 2537], p. 164) and "tork-chehré" (Khândamir, Habibossiyar, vol. 3, p. 292), terms implying Turco-Mongol features.

78 The decipherment of the talismanic inscriptions are beyond the scope of this study. But to illustrate the process, one can consider the squares, which are divided into four rows and four columns for a total of sixteen squares, each with a number. The sum of the numbers in each row, each column, and the diagonals is the same. Furthermore, if the corresponding letter of each number in the abjad system is considered, the rows or columns can be related to verses of the Qorân, the invocation of which was supposed to enforce the wishes inscribed on the back of the mirror. For example:

7 14 9 4

12 1 6 15

2 11 16 5

13 8 3 10

All rows, columns, and diagonals add up to thirty-four. For more on the subject, see G. C. Anawati, "Trois talismans arabe[s?] en provenance du Mali," Annales Islamogiques 11 (1972), pp. 287-339.

79 The vizier's wife was Shâh Shojâ`s cousin through her mother and her father; see Kotobi, Târikh-e âl-e Mozaffar, p. 33.

80 Ibid., p. 95.

81 The word sâyen, or sâ'en in Arabic, means "the keeper," but in Mongolian it is an adjective meaning "good," as it was the posthumous surname of Bâtu Khân, founder of the Golden Horde.

82 Because of their ancestor Ilkâ, the Jalâyerids are also known as the Ilkânids (not to be confused with the Il-Khânids).

83 Hâfez-e Abru emphasized Shaykh Hasan's Hulâgid relationship as a "cousin to Soltân Abu-Sa`id" (Hâfez-e Abru, Zeyl-e Jâme`ottavârikh, p. 197) and stated that he was known as Oljatâyi, by the name of his mother Oljatây, daughter of the Il-Khân Arghun (p. 237).

84 The manuscript was neither a joz` (a division representing a thirtieth of the Qorân) nor a complete section, but a selection of verses, as evidenced by sura 18 following sura 6.

85 See, for instance, the colophon of a Qorân in the Walters Art Gallery, Baltimore (W559), dated A.H. 723/1323, reproduced in James, Qur'ans of the Mamluks, no. 50. Bayâni, who had once seen the complete manuscript of these selections of the Qorân, attributed it to the fourteenth century; Bayâni, vol. 4, p. 97.

86 The name Tamerlane, or Tamburlaine, as written by Christopher Marlowe, was a corruption of the Persian Teymur-e Lang.

87 For further principles of the yâsâ, see L. Bouvat, "Essai sur la civilization Timuride," Journal Asiatique 208 (1926), pp. 193-299; G. Vernadsky, "The Scope and Content of Chingis Khan's Yasa," Harvard Journal of Asian Studies 3 (1938); D. Ayalon, "The Great Yasa of Genghiz Khan: A Recapitulation," Studia Islamica 38 (1973), pp. 107-56.

88 Changiz Khân had divided his empire among his four sons, each division called an ulus, or nation. Transoxiana and Eastern Turkestân became the ulus of his second son, Chaghatây.

89 A major conflict between the yâsâ and the shari`at concerned their different systems of taxation. The qupchur, a hated poll tax levied by the military elite, was equated by the Muslims with the jezyé, an Islamic tax on non-Muslims. The Mongol tamghâ, a tax set on trade and industry, replaced the Islamic zakât, but at a much higher rate. In addition, arbitrary levies were demanded by different Turco-Mongol entities. See I. P. Petrushevsky, "The Socio-Economic Condition of Iran under the Il-Khans," Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975-), vol. 5, pp. 534-36.

90 J. Saunders, The History of the Mongol Conquests (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1977), p. 95.

91 Teymur married Sarây Malek Khânom of the harem of the Khân Qazan, a Changizid ruler of the ulus of Chaghatây. Gurkân is the Persian pronunciation of the Turkish word kragen (son-in-law).

92 Mirzâ Mohammad-Haydar Dughlât, A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia Being the Tarikh-i-Rashidi, trans. E. Denison Ross, ed. N. Elias (reprint; London: Curzon Press and Barnes and Noble, 1972), p. 83. The story is actually related by Soltân Abu-Sa`id Mirzâ to Yunos Khân. Suyurqhâtmish Khân was a descendant of the Great Khân Ogdây.

93 J. Aubin, "Comment Tamerlan prenait les villes," Studia Islamica 19 (1963), pp. 83-122.

94 For a later illustration of these towers as mentioned in the Zafarnâmé, see I. Stchoukine, Les peintures des manuscrits safavis (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1959), pl. 27.

95 L. Golombek and D. Wilber, The Timurid Architecture of Iran and Turan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), vol. 1, pp. 255-60.

96 See Asnâd va nâmehâ-ye târikhi, az avâel-e dowrehâ-ye Eslâmi tâ avâkher-e `ahd-e Shâh Esmâ`il-e Safavi (Historical documents from the early Islamic period up to the era of Shâh Esmâ`il), ed. Sayyed `Ali Mo`ayyed-e Sâbeti (Tehrân: Tahuri Publishers, 1346), p. 356.

97 See, for instance, Lentz and Lowry, fig. 19, cat. nos. 13, 15.

98 Qâzi Ahmad-e Qomi, Golestân-e honar (Garden of talents), ed. A. Soheyli (Tehrân: Bonyâd-e Farhang-e Iran, 1352), p. 16. See also cat. no. 45.

99 V. Minorsky, trans., Calligraphers and Painters: A Treatise by Qadi Ahmad, Son of Mir Munshi (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, Freer Gallery Publications, 1959), p. 64.

100 Ibid., p. 142.

101 Recently in Iran attempts have been made by several modern calligraphers to imitate whole pages as well as single lines of this Qorân. Furthermore, a few older copies have surfaced. A full page sold at Sotheby's on October 10, 1988 (lot 168), seems to be a later eighteenth- or nineteenth-century copy (perhaps prepared as a calligraphic exercise) since it lacked the aya marking between ayas 37 and 38; the calligraphy was of different style (especially the diacritical marks) and written on one side only, although the paper was finished on both sides. Because they have been split in two, authentic pages have an unfinished side.

Apart from recent copies, only one group of older Qorân fragments has the same type of paper and ornamentation, the same text dimensions, and the same calligraphic style as the manuscript of `Omar-e Aqta` under discussion here. To this group belong the seven pages in the Mashhad shrine (see The Arts of Islam, exh. cat. [London: Hayward Gallery, 1976], no. 558; see also Muhammad Mahdi Harâti, Manifestation of Art in Writing Bismila [Mashhad: Printing and Publishing Foundation of Âstân-e Qods-e Razavi, 1988], p. 193); fragments in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (18.17.1-.3, 18.26.12-.13, 1972.279; see The Arts of Islam: Masterpieces from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, exh. cat. [New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1982], p. 171); three double-lines, including one sura heading, ex-Bayâni collection, in the Ahuan Gallery, London; three pages reproduced in Lentz and Lowry, cat. nos. 6a-c; and some single and double lines in private collections.

102 This estimate of the number of folios in a complete Qorân, plus the usual additional fly leaves, was extrapolated from the text length of these two pages. The approximate weight of one ton, extrapolated from the average specific weight of a few large-sized manuscripts, substantiates Qâzi Ahmad's account that the Qorân had to be carried in a cart.

103 Samarkand had been a major center for high quality paper production, and the bulk of the paper for this enterprise most likely came from there, although other sources cannot be ruled out. See J. Pedersen, The Arabic Book, ed. Robert Hillenbrand (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), pp. 60-67.

104 The Qorân stand is reported to have once been in the main dome sanctuary of the mosque, before its collapse. I have relied on measurements provided in Lentz and Lowry, fig. 26, which refer to the horizontal overall dimensions of the middle base.

105 The thickness of the 340 folios would have been approximately 30 centimeters. Taking into account the very large size of the pages and the width of the binding, the total thickness can be estimated at 35 to 40 centimeters, the same as that separating the two blocks of stone. These blocks are shorter than the base and have a 45-degree slant. A Qorân page that would rest on this stand would measure approximately 215 by 140 centimeters. The text size of 165 by 99 centimeters would leave 25 centimeters at the top and bottom (almost the exact height of a single line) and some 40 centimeters for the two side margins, logical margins in proportion to the text size.

106 See Lentz and Lowry, p. 27.

107 The Qorân might have been transferred to Teymur's tomb, a relatively safer place than his by-then crumbling mosque, but nothing warrants Fraser's claim that the manuscript was meant to be deposited there.

108 See J. B. Fraser, Narrative of a Journey to Khorasan in the Years 1821 and 1822 (London, 1825), p. 574.

109 Bâysonghor's brother, Ebrâhim-Soltân, who lived to be forty-one and led a relatively calmer life in his fiefdom of Shirâz, left two copies of selections from the Qorân which are now preserved in the Pârs Museum, Shirâz. Although they are large (65 by 45 centimeters and 81 by 61 centimeters), they number a few pages only (see M. Lings, The Quranic Art of Calligraphy and Illumination [London: World of Islam Festival Trust, 1976], nos. 81-82).

110 Bâysonghor seems to have been more talented in the more cursive sols script than mohaqqaq. This tendency is visible in the style of Ebrâhim-Soltân, who might have studied calligraphy with the same masters as Bâysonghor.

111 See J. Woods, "The Rise of Timurid Historiography," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46, no. 2 (1987), p. 82. After Teymur conquered Damascus in 1401, Ebn-e Arabshâh's family was forcibly moved from there to Samarkand.

112 Sharafoddin `Ali-ye Yazdi, Zafarnâmé (Tehrân: Amir-e Kabir Press, 1336), vol. 1, p. 19. Yazdi even claimed that Teymur insisted on the recordings being "accurate and without exaggeration."

113 Nezâmoddin-e Shâmi, Zafarnâmé (Tehrân: Bâmdâd Publications, 1363), p. 11.

114 The body of the manuscript with only eight illustrations remaining was sold from the Kevorkian collection by Sotheby's on April 7, 1975, lot 187, and is now in a private English collection.

115 Ibid.

116 Yazdi, Zafarnâmé, vol. 1, pp. 349-50.

117 In the preface, Hâfez-e Abru boasted that his travels had taken him to Transoxiana, the Central Asian steppes, Khorâsân, central and western Iran, Georgia and Armenia, Anatolia, and the whole of Asia Minor, Iraq, Afghanistan, and northern India; see Hâfez-e Abru, Zeyl-e jâme`ottavârikh-e Rashidi (Continuation of Rashidoddin's jâme`ottavârikh), ed. K. Bayâni (Tehrân: Anjoman-e Âsâr-e Melli Publications, 1350), p. 52.

118 Ibid., p. 18; Woods, "The Rise of Timurid Historiography," p. 97. This work is also referred to as Kolliyyât-e târikhi-ye Hâfez-e Abru (General historical works of Hâfez-e Abru).

119 Hâfez-e Abru, Zeyl-e jâme`ottavârikh, p. 32.

120 Zobdatottavârikh-e Bâysonghori sometimes refers to the entire Majma`ottavârikh prepared for Bâysonghor.

121 See Woods, "The Rise of Timurid Historiography," p. 97; and Encyclopédie de l'Islam, 2d ed. (Leyden: E. J. Brill, 1960-), vol. 3, p. 60.

122 See, for instance, R. Ettinghausen, "An Illuminated Manuscript of Hafiz-i Abru in Istanbul," Kunst des Orientes 1 (1950), pp. 30-44; Lentz and Lowry, p. 334; and R. Hillenbrand, Imperial Persian Painting (Edinburgh: Scottish Arts Council, 1977), p. 79.

123 Some sizable sections are missing, including the histories of the Saljuqs, the Khârazm-Shâhs, and the Turks.

124 The dibâché text matches that quoted by K. Bayâni as from an Istanbul manuscript (Topkapi Sarây Library, H.919) copied in 1480, with only minor differences. For example, the Istanbul manuscript erroneously identifies Al-Moktafi as the nineteenth caliph; he is correctly named as the seventeenth in the present manuscript. See Bayâni's introduction to Hâfez-e Abru, Zeyl-e jâme`ottavârikh, p. 22.

125 Bayâni (ibid., p. 34) enumerates two introductions: a general one referring to both Shâhrokh and Bâysonghor, and an introduction to the first part (rob`) in the name of Shâhrokh only. Ettinghausen ("An Illuminated Manuscript of Hafiz-i Abru in Istanbul," p. 43) reproduces a page with an illuminated heading that was once part of the present manuscript (then in the Kevorkian collection), and the first lines there exactly correspond to the general introduction for Bâysonghor.

126 One copy is in the library of the Iranian Parliament in Tehrân (a gift of Sayyed Mohammad-e Tabâtabâ'i), no. 4654/30962; see Hâfez-e Abru, Zeyl-e jâme`ottavârikh, p. 38. V. Rosen (Les manuscrits persans de l'institut des langues orientales [1886, reprint; Amsterdam: Celibus N.V., 1971], pp. 59-62) also gives two other manuscripts: no. 273 of the Institute of Oriental Languages, St. Petersburg (A) and one from the Museum of Oriental Art, Moscow (B). Both have the same preface, which states the commission date as A.H. 828/1425 and refers to the replacement volume of Rashidoddin, and the same organization and divisions.

127 Hâfez-e Abru, Zeyl-e jâme`ottavârikh, pp. 38-39; and Rosen, Les manuscrits persans, pp. 60-62. In many passages of his writings, Hâfez-e Abru referred to three Teymurid rulers: Teymur, Shâhrokh, and Bâysonghor. Teymur is called Sâheb Qerân, but the term "prince" is used both for Shâhrokh and Bâysonghor; in the Zobdatottavârikh Hâfez-e Abru mentions that he identifies Shâhrokh with the expression "saltanat-sho`âri" (literally, the one who has donned the robe of kingship) to differentiate between the two. For Bâysonghor he used mostly "shâh-o shâhzâdé-ye a`zam" (exalted king and prince); see Hâfez-e Abru, Zeyl-e jâme`ottavârikh, p. 49.

128 Once compiled, Hâfez-e Abru's part one was used for subsequent editions. Little was changed from one work to another (most of part one actually came from the 1417 work for Shâhrokh). Therefore the "part ones" of the manuscripts referred to by K. Bayâni with a starting date of 1425--British Library, Or. ms. 2774; State Public Library, St. Petersburg, no. 273; Malek Library, Tehrân, no. 4356; and Iranian Parliament Library, no. 4654/30962 (ibid., p. 32)--and versions A and B reported by Rosen (Les manuscrits persans, pp. 59-62) are actually copies of the replacement volume of Rashidoddin's Jâme`ottavârikh. Those without reference to the work's commission in 1426 are copies from the works prepared for Bâysonghor (as C in Rosen). The difference is well shown by Rosen in the textual comparison undertaken between manuscripts A, B, and C; see Rosen, Les manuscrits persans, pp. 54-113.

129 R. Ettinghausen, "An Illuminated Manuscript of Hafiz-i Abru in Istanbul," p. 32. The similarity in content between the Topkapi manuscript and cat. no. 22 is based on a list of contents of the Topkapi manuscript compiled by Prof. J. Woods, University of Chicago.

130 Although the original volume one of the Jâme`ottavârikh was lost, it seems that Hâfez-e Abru had access to other copies. As Rosen points out (Les manuscrits persans, p. 69), the original volume one of the works of Rashidoddin contained the history of the Mongols up to the reign of Uljâytu, but later historians reshuffled the order, and volume one began with the history of mankind. Rosen also gives an almost complete list of section headings.

131 See Lentz and Lowry, no. 27.

132 See also ibid., no. 28, for a colophon-type page with an illustration related to the killing of the last `Abbâsid caliph in which the narrator speaks of the caliph's grandson as being alive. The narrator is obviously Rashidoddin and not Hâfez-e Abru.

133 For comparison of this replacement volume with some surviving Jâme`ottavârikh manuscripts see D. T. Rice, The Illustrations to the World History of Rashid al-Din, ed. B. Gray (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1976); B. Gray, The World History of Rashid Al-Din (London: Faber and Faber, 1978); and Sotheby's, July 8, 1980, lot 244. The surviving manuscripts have been rebound and trimmed; nevertheless, the sizes are fairly similar: 43.6 by 29.1 centimeters, line width approximately 24.5 centimeters, for the manuscript of the Rashidiya Foundation (ex-Royal Asiatic Society); and 45.1 by 34.2 centimeters, line width 25.4 centimeters, for the Edinburgh manuscript (Edinburgh University Library, Ar.20). The Topkapi replacement volume is larger, measuring 54.2 by 37.7 centimeters. See Ettinghausen, "An Illuminated Manuscript of Hafiz-i Abru in Istanbul," p. 42.

134 The conflict also reflected the opposing interests of the traditional tribal leaders, such as the Ommayad, who had gained much favor during the caliphate of `Osmân, and the provincial companions of the Prophet who rejected the centralizing efforts of `Osmân.

135 J. K. Poonawala, "`Ali b. Abi Tâleb," in Encyclopaedia Iranica (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975-), vol. 1, p. 842.

136 There are a number of words missing throughout the text.

137 See Gray, The World History of Rashid Al-Din, pls. 1-3.

138 The text is a complete copy of a portion of p. 188 of Rashidoddin's section on the Esmâ`ilis, Fâtemids, and Nazârids of the Jâme`ottavârikh, ed. M. T. Dânesh-Pazhuh and M. Modaressi-ye Zanjâni (Tehrân: Bongâh-e Tarjomé va Nashr-e Ketâb, 2536), which is based on a 1314 manuscript.