A. Alikberov & E. Rezvan

IBN ABI KÍIAZZAM AND IJIS KITÁB AL-MAKHZOII{ ZTHE MAMLUK MILITARY MANUAL

The article is dedicated to the 15th-century Mamluk illus-trated manuscript on the art of war from the collection ofthe Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy ofSciences in St.Petersburg. The manuscript is titled Kitàbol-mafrlzun fi djami' al-funun (Inv. No. C 686) and re-presents the work of the 14th-century author Ibn AbiKhazzàm.

The creation of the manuscript dates back to the 50s-60s of the 9th/15th century, when [arbàsh al-Silahdar al-MálikI al-AshrafI, a Mamluk military authority, orderedcopies of several works on military art for his library. Fol-lowing the example of sultan Qa'it-Bey, he ordered also acopy of the Kitàb al-malfuzun.. The years that have passedsince then have scattered al-Ashrafl's library all over thervorld. Two manuscripts from that library - Kitàb al-rnafrlzun by Ibn AbÍ Khazzam and al-Tadbiràt al-sul-tànïyya by Muhammad b. al-Nasirl (Inv. No. C 726) havebeen again reunited in the Institute collection.

A. P. Butenev (1787-1866), the Russian envoy toTurkey, bought this manuscript in Constantinople inApril 1832; two years later he presented it to the Asiatic\Íuseum of the Imperial Academy of Sciences (now theSt. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies).According to the inscription on folio 107a of the manu-script, the MS was in Vienna in 1809 and was studiedthere by Count W. de Rzewusky.

Thus Krlaó al-maf;h:zun became the object of scholars'attention as early as the beginning of the 19th century. Thetreatise was often quoted and referred to []. Two illustra-tions from the manuscript (frg. 50, 52) were reproduced inGustave le Bon's book "La Civilisation des Arabes", in thechapter titled "Sciences physiques et leurs applications" in1884 [2]. In 1936 some other illustrations from the manu-script in photographs (fig.3, 5, l5) and engravings(ftg. 41 , partiallv), as well as a photograph of a fragment ofthe text (page 80b), were reproduced in V. V. Arendt's ar-ticle dealing with the so-called "Greek hre" [3]. Two illus-trations (fig. 50, 52) were used by A. Y. Hassan andD. R. Hill in their "Muslim technology. An illustrated his-tory", Cambridge University Press (1986).

The treatise represented by our manuscript was popu-lar enough in comparison with other works of the samegenre. Its popularity is conÍrmed, in particular, by the ex-

istence of several copies dating back to the 9th/15th -10th/161h centuries. The manuscripts mentioned belowhave different titles and are of different size. Unfortu-nately, up to no\,v we have been unable to obtain the copiesof all the manuscripts. The teÉological analysis, as well asour attempts to establish any correlationts between the ex-isting versions of the teÉ and to find out the main sourcesof the tex1, its original title, etc. are basing mainly on thestudy of the manuscript fragments to which we have ac-CESS.

At present the following manuscripts are known:

No. 1. The St. Petersburg manuscript titled Kitàb al-maf,hzin "Íi bamt al-funun It contains 108 folios (thepagination ofits 216 pages is ofrecent origin). The generalformat of the codex: 30 x 20 cm (the format of the textwithin the frame is 25.5 x 14.8 cm, there are 15 lines perpage) and 83 illustrations. The manuscript represents thewhole text of the treatise.

No. 2. The Paris manuscript Ar. 2824 @ibliotèqueNationale de Paris) Íilled Kitàb al-mafrfuzun djàmi' al-funin, copied in 875114'10, apparently for the MamlukSultan Qa'it Bey. The general format of the codex is30 x 20 centimeters. It has 90 folios with 15 lines peÍ page,50 illustrations besides the diagrams of manoeuvres. Themanuscript contains the whole teÍ of the treatise. 11 foliosof this manuscript were published by L Mercier as a briefpresentation of miniatures and text fragments.

No. 3. According to de Slain catalogue, the combinedmanuscript (Inv. No. Ar. 2826) from Biblioteque Nationalecopied in 986/1578-79 contains the same text. Themanuscript contains 112 folios. The general format of thecodex: 28 x 19 cm, 2l lines per page, 50 illustrations. Thetreatise has no title, and its incipit differs from the incipitofthe previous one.

No. 4. The so called Cairo-London manuscript. No t!tle, dated to the end ofthe 15th century (the dating is basedon the analysis of its miniatures and paleography). The textis very close to the St. Petersburg version. This manuscripthad a really dramatic fate. In 1928 'Isa al-Ma'luf happenedto see in Cairo 92 folios from this manuscript(16,5 x 24 cm,15 lines per page, 46 color miniatures). Thefolios were bound in casual order. The same year the

22 tY[anuscripto ()vientolio, vor,. i No. I JULy lees

manuscript was bought by the French antique dealer JacobAsheroff. Later he sold three folios from the manuscript tothe Museum of Islamic Art. Cairo. and another three fo-lios - to a private collection (one of them was publishedby M. Mostafa in "Bustan"). Most of the remaining folioswas sold by Asheroff to several collections in differentcountries. British collector Edmund de Ungern boughtmost of them in Switzerland, Paris (from Asheroff him-self;, Cairo (from the collection of Sherif Sabry Pasha) andin other places. Now he has the greater part of the manu-script (78 folios), 3 folios are still preserved in the CairoMuseum of Islamic AÍ (Inv. No. 18019, 18235, 18236).3l miniatures, 23 diagrams and 10 presentations of differ-ent tlpes of weapons from this manuscript are available to-day. Most of the miniatures were published byM. Mostafa [4].

No. 5. The Istanbul manuscript Ar. R. 1933 from theTopkapi-Saray library. It is titled Kitàb mabmu' jï 'l-rumh

wa-ghayrihi The manuscript was copied in 8'7111466, i. e.nearly at the same time as MSS No. 1 and No. 2. The textis also very close to the text of the St. Petersburg manu-script. It has 97 folios, 17 lines per page, 55 coloredminiatures, including 22 diagrams and l0 presentations ofdifferenl types of weapons.

No. 6. According to C. Brockelmann [5], the catalogueof Nuri Osmanie kutubhane defteri mentions manuscriptNo. 3915 writtenby one Khazzàm or Ibn AbÍ Khazzàm. AÍpresent, unfoÍunately, we have no other information on it.

No. 7. D. Haldane mentions another manuscript whichis close to the Paris MS Ar. 2824 and is preserved in theChester Beatt-y Library in Dublin. The manuscript is notcataloged. We hope that in the nearest future we shall getaccess to this MS.

The analysis of the available information enables us tocome to the following hlpothetical conclusions:

As far as we know, M. Mostafa and E. J. Grube, whopublished the materials of MS No. 4, have never men-tioned the St. Petersburg copy. Yet, the comparison of thetexts and illustrations (several similar or close codicologi-cal features - size, number of lines per page, number ofminiatures and their contents) definitely shows that theseare parallel copies of the same work made nearly simulta-neously. Manuscript No. 4 was intended for, so to say,"utilitarian" use, while the St. Petersburg manuscript wascopied for the library of a high Mamllk offrcer. This con-clusion is confirmed by the colophon, miniaturesand calligraphy standards of the St. Petersburg manu-script which are more refined than those of the Cairo-London MS.

The St. Petersburg version is also very close to the Is-tanbul MS Q.,lo. 5). The title of the Istanbul copy (Kitàbmadjmu' fi

'l-rumh wa-ghayrihi) is much more in confor-mity with the contents of our treatise than its general title*Kitàb al-maf;fuzun". The texts of the manuscripts, how-ever, coinside very closely (though aÍe not identical).Manuscripts No. I and No. 5 can represent a different ver-sion of the same treatise, distinct from the parallel copiesrepresented by manuscripts No. I and No. 4.

On the other hand the two Paris manuscripts (No. 2and No. 3) differ from the St. Petersburg MS in the mannerof presenting the material. They have some discrepanciesin terminology and even in the way of describing militaryexercises. At the same time many passages are almost

identical. It is obvious that the St. Petersburg and the ParisMSS had the same prototlpe. Probably they are related notas copies or versions of the same treatise but as a prototlpeand the result of a thorough revision, and even could betreated as two different works by the same author.

Basing on the preliminary analysis of the codicologicalinformation (the St. Petersburg manuscript contains morefolios than all the others and has almost the same numberof lines per page and letters of the same size) and on thecorrelation of textual differences one can assume thatmanuscript No. 1, as well as MS No. 2, represent a re-worked version ofthe text.

The full title of the Istanbul manuscript (Kitàh madj-mu' "fi

'l-rumh wa-ghayrihi wa fihi kitàb wàdih fi-ramyli-l-Tabarï) makes it possible to establish hlpotheticallyone of the main sources of our treatise.It is Kitàb wàdih fi-ramy wa'-l-na&shàb by Ahmad b. 'Abdallah MuhI al-Dlnal-Tabarl (d. 6941 1295).

A thorough comparative critical and textologicalanalysis of all known copies of the manuscript available isthe subject of our future work. The authors of this articleexpect that further analysis can produce some interestingand unexpected results.

One of the most interesting problems is that of theauthorship. Like the problem of correlations between theexisting versions of the text it could be the subject of fur-ther studies. We thought it useful, neveÍheless, to presentthe results ofour preliminary research in this paper.

The text itself gives no clue to its author's identity. Itcan be presumably established on the basis of a compara-tive analysis of several manuscripts.

Ms No. 2 is the only one which mentions the author:al-shaikh Muhammad Ibn Khizám. Most studies devoted toour treatise follow de Slane's identi$ing him with Mu-hammad b. Ya'qub Ibn AkhI Khizám. The shuhra of lbnAtli Khizàm belongs to the dynastv of al-furusiyyaauthors active in the 3/9th-,1/l0th centuries [6] As forMuhammad b. Ya'qDb Ibn At[ Khizám himself, he waswidely known as the author of furusiyya treatises writtenby the order of Caliph al-Mutawakkll (232-1'7184'7-41).Historical realities and terminology used in our treatiseshow that it was created in the 8th/l4th century (during theso called late Circassian period), but not earlier [7], No oneof the dynasty mentioned could have written Íl:re Kitàb al-maf,hzun.

The abovementioned Muhammad al-Nasrrr, rvho wasthe officer of the halqa, the guards of Sultan al-Málik al-Ashaf Sha'bàn, provided us with some indirect informa-tion on this matter [8]. In his works he mentioned, amonghis contemporaries, another author of the rvork dealingwith the art of war, titled al-Fawà'id al-jalila fi

'ulum al-furisiyya wa-l-rimàya wa amràd al-khail. His name wasMuhammad b. Ya'qub al-Khuttah, known as Ibn AbIKhazzám, who died, according to Muhammad b. Mangly,beforc 78211380 [9]. The subject of our treatise is veryclose to that by Muhammad b. Ya'qrlb al-Khuttah [10].Another work by this author [l] gives his full name: al-shaikh al-fàdil Muhammad b. Khazzàm (or: Khizám). Thelatter variant of shuhra mentioned by the author's contem-porary Muhammad b. Mangly appears to be more reliable.As for lhe kunya "Abu" in the author's name, it is impor-tant to note that another author of an al-furusiyya work,'AlÍ b. 'Abd al-Rahman b. KhuQhalI (d.18211380), men-tioned the Ki t àb by Ibn AbI Khazzam in his work I i 2].

{. ALIKBEROV & E. REZVAN. Ibn Abí Khazzànt and his Kitàb al-makhzin. The Mattluk Militarv Manual L )

*#1fit'l q*\b$rlr;ffpxËd':, Ë#'cÉe.p-É:ai \ ) &U

Fis. I

1 A f lbanuseripto ()vientolio. vOr-. 1No. IJULv 1995

- .Trc

i*xy;ï 'i:f

uá;k$

;;. "!r,

Fis.2

{. ALIKBEROV & E. REZVAN' Ibn Abí Khazzam and his Kitctb al-makhzin; The Mamluk Militarv Manual 25

r r r à )I j . t -

4 u t ! ; '

Ë# A1' :$S4.-=.Ji4uíi, *pï i;',i]*r

, . ' , ï - ' i .1 I , \ /o : : í . ' ' . ] .

1 . ' ;

-t J -r glS;;;7c:-J-*-'.1 '11;'3<t**\ .' ' '?

, . 3 n 0 í .

+-#.;i

' l o 2 " í ê / t a , t i , ' - a /

Lfurl.j"jyj\ *- -q=;\, -r ffi;x/ * - - / - r 3 \ * - * ? , , , . '

l [ ' . 1 ' , n - ' , 1 - i t r ' n r . , . * ^ { ? l ' . 0 ' r ' 1 ' li\*-j-f tls: e{''*a' r*;Y!i4r J=u*-à

í l /

Fíg. 3

26 f lbqnuseripto ()cientolio, VoL. 1No. I JULv 1995

ritr

í

1l.*'-'ll' l i

l l

It. t ii{!

r li ;i

LI

l l

n l

Fig.4

A. ALIKBEROV & E. REZVAN. Ibn Abï Khazzàm and his Kitàb al-makhzun: The Mamluk Military Manual 2'�7

This mistake has occured, probably, because the origi-nal book by Ibn Akht Kbizam entitled Kitàb 'ilm al-

furusiyya wa'l-baytara had been used by Ibn AbI Khazzàmas one of his sources, especially when he described exer-cises with a lance. In this field lbn AkhI Khizám was agreat authority.

Several other works by Muhammad b. Ya'qub Ibn AbIKhazzàm al-Khuttall, the possible author of our treatise,are mentioned in different sources [13].

As for the treatise itself, one of the problems is: if it ispossible to consider this rvork as the original text writtenby Ibn AbI Khazzám? ApaÍ from the problem of the roleand place of compilation in Muslim medieval literary tïa-dition, rve should say that Ihe furusiyya genre itself wasvery speciftc. The furilsiyya works, being the manuals ofthe art of war and text-books for arranging military courtfestivals, constantly contain one and the same descriptionsof nearly the same exercises and weapons. Authors-compilers, who rvidely used the works of their predeces-sors, might not regard their texts as their personal contri-bution. Like military manuals, these compositions wereintended to pÍeserve the experience and achievements ofseveral generations of war-leaders. It is no ntere chancethat only one copy of Kitàb al-maf;lpun mentions theauthor's name. On the other hand, the combined manu-script Ar. 2826 from Bibliotheque Nationale presents thervork ofa katib who copied and united under one cover thetext of our treatise and that by Lajin al-Husamr al-Tara-

bulusÍ (d.'7 38 I 133'7 -8), titled Ki t àb al-maf;hzun li- arb àbal-funun. Such a combination of two works in one volumecan easily explain how the text of one MS could be takenfor a single work under one title.

H. Rabie shows that Lajin al-Tarabulusl's furusiyyatreatise "was the original which later furusiyya mastersutilized with some variations". He points out also that weknew only one archery master who described the buttïyya,and it was Ahmad b. 'Abdallah al-Tabar1 [i4]. The latter isthe author of one of the main sources of tl:re Kitàb al-makhzun . It is obvious that Mamhtk offrcer Ibn AbIKhazzàm al-KbuttalI has written a manual meeting thepractical needs of the Sultan guards and mamluks. It was akind of a manual for their training, and also for arrangingfurusiyya festivals. He tried to borrow the best passagesfrom the works of his predecessors, mostly from those byal-TabarÍ, al-Tarabulusl and Najm al-dIn al-Ahdab (helast one rvas among the best authorities infunun al-naft).He used the name of one of his main sources (the work byal-TabarI) as the title of the manual. Al-Kluttall was thecompiler and the editor of this manual. That is, probably,why his name is not mentioned in our manuscript. Hesurely added to the rvork some amount of new materialsfrom his own experience. We hope that while prepearingthe critical edition of the text we shall be able to find amore definite solution to some of the problems, includingthe problem of correlation between all the available manu-scripts of al-Khuttalt's treatise.

N o t e s

1. W. cie Rzelusky, Mínes de l'Orient, v, (Vienna, 1809), pp. 189,248, Ch. Fraehn, "An die Conferenz der KaiserlichenAcademiede WissencshaÍten", óas Asiatiche Museum, ed. M. Dorn. (SPb, 1846), pp.450-2; A. Olenin,'Notice sur un manuscrit du Musee

Asiatique de lAcademie lmp. des sciences <le St. Petersbotxg", íbid,pp.452-60', M. Reinaud, "De I'art militaire chez les Arabes au

moyen áge", -I,4, Quatrieme seri", XU, Septembre 184S, pp. 193-237, S. I. Romocki, "Geschichte der ExpiosivstoÍïe", I, Geschichte der

Sprengsstofchimie, der Sprengtechnik und des Torpedowessens (Br1, 1895), S 76-8.- 2. G.le Bon, "La Civilisation cles Arabes" (P., 1884), pp. 512-3. Sketches made from the illustration of the Paris manuscript are

used here as well (p. 5 I 0).3. V. V. Arenát, "The Greek hre (combat-fire technique before the invention of írre-arms)",The archives of the history of science

antl technologt, (in Russian), D( (1936), pp. 183, 195-6,200-1 . See also E. Grube, "Pre-Mongol and Mamhk painting", IslamicPainting and th,e Arts of Book, ed. B. W. Róinson (L., 1979), pp.77, 118, note 358, J. T. Reinand & I. Fave, "Du feu grégois, des feu

cle guerie et les origines cle la poudre à canon' (P., 1845), pl. I, frg. 1 and 8, pl. III, hgs. 7-10; R. Ettinghausen, "The uses of sphero-conial vessels in thé Muslim Eàst", JNES, XiV (1965), pp.218-9; M. Rogers, 'Aeolipiles again", Forschungen zur Kunst Asíens. InMemoriam Kurt Erdmann, ed. Aslanapa & R. Naumann (Istanbul, 1969), pp. 147-58.

4. On the history of this manuscript ancl location of its fragments see: E. J. Grube, "Pre-Mongol and Mamluk painting", p. 117,note353; Mohamecl MostaÍa, "An illustrated manuscript on chivalry from the late Circassian Mamluk period", BIE,LI (1969-70)pp. 1-13 (English) and pp. 1-14 (Arabic text); idem, "Miniature paintings in some Mamluk manuscripts", BIE, Lf', pp.5-15,pis. f--ag.'tvl. trloitafa rfuài"a this manuscript in details and planned to publish it. By 1979, when Grube's work (Pre-Mongol and

Mamluke painting) appeared, the manuscript has not been published. We do not knolv *'hether it rvas published during the past fewyears. See also: iáem,-"Darste1lung des taglishen Lebens in der islamischen Kunst, mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der agyptischenkunst", Bustan. Ósrcryeichísche Zeitschriftfur Kultur, Politik, und Ií/irtschaft der islamischen Lander, II (Wien, 1960), fig.22,p'39',idem, ';Unity in Islamic Art. Guide to the second temporary exhibition', Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo (Cairo, 1958), p. 39, figs 36-8,p.26, Nos. iO-S; B. Grube, "Pre-Mongol and Mamluk painting", pp. 73-81, 115-9, pl. tr, 12 (.91-), tr, 8. Unfortunately, not all ofihe above mentioned works were available to us during the preparation of this publication. It is evident now, however, many featurescoÍlmon to the St. Petersburg manuscript and manuscipt No. 3 allow to establish a more exact date for the latter in comparison to the

clate suggested by E.. Grube ind B. Robinson ("middle or the second half of the fourteenth century" (or possibly a little later. - Ed.) -

E. Grube, "Pre-Mongol and Mamluke painting", p. 81 ) and to attribute to the second half of 9th/15th century.5. C. Brockelmarur . Geschichte der Arabíschen Litteratur, i (Weimar-Berlin, 1898), p. 243; Supplementband, i (Leiden, 1937),

o . 4 3 2 .

6. Catalogue des manuscripts arabes par M. le Baron de Slane, (P., 1883-1895), p. 10; 'Aly benAbderrahman ben Hodeil El An-

cialausy, La Pàrure des Cavaliers et I'Insigne des Preux, Trad. francaise precedée d'une etude sur les sources des hippiatres arabes.. parT \rÍereierrP Tihra. ieorientai istePaulGeuthner,1924),pp.XI-X[,435-4,C.Brockelmann,GeschichtederArabischenLíttera-

t 1 . ' L r v r q a r ! \

tur, r, 243, Supplementband, t, 432.7. Severài chapters of the treatise are dedicated to the Íbrmulas of gun-powder and means of throwing flame, as weil as to hand

fire-arms anC artillery. Though naft and bàrud (gunpowder) appeared in the region in 5/1 1th century, the art of making mixtures forflame throwing, the so-calledfunun al-naft, developed only in 7/13th-8/14th centuries.

28 fílonuscripto ()vientolia, vor-. I No. I JLrLy 1ee5

Another evidence supporting dating our text to the late Circassian period could be found on Íblio 69b of the manuscript, in the de-.^..tptt9l of a special spear with a hook and loop at the end (al-rumh Ui-t-gaitl which was designed for throwing down ênemy ridersfrom their horses (ramy al-fiaris mil al-faras) (see also folio 82 b). A Mamlnk historian of the late bircassian periodl Ibn Iyás, mentionedthis weapon in his treatise, describing the Ottoman invasion into Egypt and Syria, as something new and unusual (Ibn Iiyás, Badà,í al-Zuhur,ed. M. Mostafa, v(Cairo, 1972),p.131.

8 DeSlane, Catalogue,2832,C. Brockelmann., GeschíchtederArabischenLitteratur,ii,p. 136; Supplementband,ii,p. 167.9. Mercier, La Parure,433.

10. Flugel, p. 546.11. Kifib al-khail al-baitara. See: Flugel, p. 546.12. Mercier, La Pantre,433.1 3. Mercier, La Parure, 435-436.14. H. Rabie, "The training of the Mamluk fais", War, Technologt and Socíety in the Middle East, ed. V. J. parry & M. E. yapp

(L. ,1e75), pp. 153-63.

I l l u s t r a t i o n s

Fig. 1. Fol. 110 a. The Exercise of Mounted Formations Called "the Indian Spiral" (maydan halaziln hindí) (firsL stage)Fig. 2. Fol. 145 a. "The Lance Game on the Ground (lu'b al-ntmh 'ala,l-'arctl.

Fig. 3. Fol. 177 a. The Warrior with a Lance Performing the "Strike of Buttrya', .Fig. 4. Fol. 184 a. The Polo Game.

RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCESTHE INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES

ST.PETERSBURG BRANCH

ryAolnusic uip tn OrientorlioJntev nationa I ./ ouv n al Íoe ()cientr,l rYtJnnq se ript Q ese oecll

Vol. 1 No. 1 Julv 1995

á . . , iI i r l j i : r ' r ;1 r : i a r

{7

76ese4.)t. /t ete rs b rl rg-,$ e lsi n ki

CONTENTS

Yu. Petrosl'an. Editor's note

T E,YTS AND MANUSCRIPTS: DESCNPTION AI{D RESEARCH . 5

O. .{kimushkin. The Sources of "The Treatise on Calligraphers and Painters" by QágI Ahmad QumI 5\I. \'oroblova-Desyatovskaya. An Unique Manuscript of the "KáSyapaparivaÍa-sltra" in the Manuscript

Collection of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy ofSciences. 12

I. Petrosy'an. On Three Turkish Manuscnpts from the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of OrientalStudies Collection. The Problem of Authorship 17

.{. Alikberov & E. Rezvan. Ibn Abi Khazzàm and his "Kitàb al-makhztn": The Mamluk Military Manual 2lE.T1.omkin. Unique Sanskrit Fragments of the "Sutra of Golden Light" in the manuscript collection of

St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies. Russian Academv of Sciences 29

7-O THE HISTORY OF OruENTAL TEXTOLOGY.

E.K1'chanov. Wen-hai Bao-1un: the Book and its Fate

P RE S EI,{TING TH E CO LLECTIOI{S.

\I. Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya. Tibetan Manuscripts of the 8-l lth centuries A. D.Collection of the St. Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies .

Tsuguhito Takeuchi. Kh. Tib. (Kozlov 4): Contracts for the Borrowing of Barley

in the Manuscript4649

3 9

3 9

46

53

53

56

68

O IU E I,ITA L MAAIU S C RI P T S AN D N E W I I{ F O RMAT I O I{ T E C H ]{ O LO G I E S

\Ial. Polosin & E. Rezvan. Asiatic Museum Proiect: l. Data-Base on Muslim Seals

P RE S E NTING TH E MANU SC RI PT

A. Alikberov & E. Rezvan. 'Adjá'lb al-Ma!$nqát by Zakargà' al-Qazwlnl (d. 68211283): 16th-centuryIlluminated Manuscript from the St. Petersbure Academrc Collection .

t]OOK REVIEW

CoIor p lates: oAdÍa' Ib al .Makhl iqàtbf 7,àkariye'àt,Qaz*ini (d.682/1t83),MSD 370from the coltection of St.. PetersU.ur8 nrly.fr of the Institute of Oriental Stutlies,

Russian Academy of Sciences (see p, 56).

, . ' , " 'Ftontcovei:Fol. 34a. ïhe ArChangel il2ràÍ1, ,160 i 124 +r+r,, , , , , , ,

: ,, Back cover: ,,, ' ,, ,

Plate 1. Fol. 13b, ïhe Plánet Vertus, 225x145 rwn. ::rri::::::::Plate 2, Fol. 35b, The Angel$ of thEiSecond HEàven; ,171 x 94:mm.