Enigmatic Charms: Medieval Arabic Block Printed Amulets in American and European Libraries and Museums (Handbook of Oriental Studies: Section 1; The Near and Middle East) [Illustrated] 9004147896, 9789004147898

Citation preview

ENIGMATIC CHARMS

HANDBOOK OF ORIENTAL STUDIES HANDBUCH DER ORIENTALISTIK SECTION ONE

THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST EDITED BY

H. ALTENMÜLLER · B. HROUDA · B.A. LEVINE · R.S. O’FAHEY K.R. VEENHOF · C.H.M. VERSTEEGH

VOLUME EIGHTY-TWO

ENIGMATIC CHARMS

ENIGMATIC CHARMS Medieval Arabic Block Printed Amulets in American and European Libraries and Museums

BY

KARL R. SCHAEFER

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2006

On the cover: 1978.546.37. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, gift of Nelly, Violet and Elie Abemayor, in Memory of Michael Abemayor, 1978 (1978.546.37) © 2005 The Metropolitan Museum of Art

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.

ISSN 0169-9423 ISBN-10: 90 04 14789 6 ISBN-13: 978 90 04 14789 8 © Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

To the memory of my parents Helen Greene Schaefer (1916–2001) Karl George Schaefer (1912–2004)

CONTENTS Preface ............................................................................................................................ Introduction ................................................................................................................... The Historico-religious Context of Arabic Block Printing ............................................ The (Re)discovery of Arabic Block Printing .................................................................. Calligraphy and the Issue of Dating the Arabic Block Prints ........................................

ix 1 7 21 41

BLOCK PRINTED AMULETS IN EUROPEAN LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS

Key to Transcriptions of Arabic Texts ........................................................................... Ägyptologisches Museum und Papyrussammlung Berlin .............................................. Cambridge University Library, Michaelides Collection ................................................ Cambridge University Library, Taylor-Schechter Geniza Collection ........................... Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, Ireland ........................................................................ Gutenberg Museum, Mainz, Germany ......................................................................... Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, Institut für Papyrologie ........................................... John Rylands Library, University of Manchester .......................................................... Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Papyrussammlung ................................................ Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg ................................................. Wren Library, Trinity College, Cambridge ....................................................................

55 57 67 81 97 103 111 113 115 157 163

BLOCK PRINTED AMULETS IN AMERICAN LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS

Columbia University Library, Papyrus Collection ......................................................... Lilly Library, Indiana University, Bloomington ............................................................. Los Angeles County Museum of Art, The Madina Collection of Islamic Art, A Gift of Camilla Chandler Frost .............................................................................. Metropolitan Museum of Art, Department of Islamic Art, New York, New York ....... Scheide Library, Rare Books and Special Collections, Firestone Library, Princeton University ..................................................................................................

169 177 181 187 219

List of Locations and Accession Numbers for Known ”arshes in Europe and the United States ........................................................................................................ List of Works Consulted .................................................................................................

225 235

Index to Qur’anic Chapters (Suras) and Verses (Ayat) Appearing in the Texts of the Amulets ................................................................................................................ Index ..............................................................................................................................

241 243

Plates ..............................................................................................................................

245

PREFACE What began as a relatively minor task—one only tangentially related to my primary purpose at the time—has grown into something of some substance, I hope. Much of what I have encountered in my study of medieval Arabic block prints has been beyond my modest talents to analyze and elucidate. The results of this effort, therefore, while going to press with my name on the title page, owe much to the encouragement, advice and assistance of an entire phalanx of friends, scholars, and librarians. Especially librarians. The genesis of this work lies in the suggestion offered to me in 1994 by Patricia H. Marks, then editor of the Princeton University Library Chronicle, that I compose an article on the unique example of Arabic block printing held by the William H. Scheide Library at Princeton. In this regard, I must thank Mr. Scheide, again, for granting me permission to publish his artifact, as well as William Stoneman, former Librarian of the Scheide Library, and Paul Needham, current Scheide Librarian, for making the block print available to me for close study. Dr. Don Skemer, Curator of Manuscripts in Firestone Library’s Department of Rare Books and Special Collections provided encouragement and, through his own research on European amulets, the outlines of a historical context for the present study. The publication of the Scheide block print resulted in a very attering review and enthusiastic encouragement from Dr. Geoffrey J. Roper, late of the Islamic Bibliography Unit at Cambridge University Library. He urged me to continue my study of Arabic block printing and to that end made slides of Cambridge’s two collections available to me. Over the intervening years, he has not ceased to provide valuable insight, leads on previously unknown or recently discovered examples, bibliographic assistance, hospitality, and friendship. Dr. Stefan C. Reif, Director of the Taylor-Schechter Geniza Research Unit at Cambridge also provided timely help and advice about how to proceed with reproduction rights for images of that part of Cambridge’s important collection of Arabic block prints. Dr. Reif, Dr. Ben M. Outhwaite, and D.J. Hall, Deputy Librarian at Cambridge University Library, also granted permission to publish the images of the block prints in their collections. Ruth Long and her colleagues in the Photographic Department there carried out the digital photography with consummate professionalism. Because the examples of medieval Arabic block printing are so widely scattered, archived as they are in more than a dozen university libraries, museums and private collections, the generous assistance of the librarians and curators I have had the good fortune to meet cannot be overstated. In addition to those people I have already mentioned, I am deeply indebted to the librarians and museum archivists who not only facilitated my study of objects known to reside in their institutions, but allowed me to have virtually unfettered access to their collections of Arabic materials. This generous degree of freedom enabled me to identify two previously unknown examples of the craft and to create a more reliable census of the total number of extant Arabic block prints. Several institutions in Great Britain and Ireland are in possession of Arabic block printed amulets and my rst foray into an investigation of a larger grouping of block prints was centered on these places. At Cambridge University Library, in addition to the people mentioned

x

PREFACE

above, I would like to thank Jill Butterworth and G.D. Bye who provided valuable technical assistance and helpful information. For enabling me to examine the block print at the John Rylands Library at the University of Manchester, my gratitude goes to Dr. Peter McNiven, former Head of the John Rylands Research Institute, and his colleagues on the library staff, particularly Ms. Anne Young, Dr. Dorothy Clayton, Ms. Carol Burrows and Ms. Anne M. Clarkson. My August 1999 visit to the Chester Beatty Library in Ballsbridge, Dublin was made most pleasant by its then Director, Dr. Elaine Wright, and her attentive staff. Dr. Wright’s predecessor, Dr. Anna Contadini, is also due my thanks for her provision of a photograph of the Chester Beatty block print. For permission to publish the Chester Beatty Library’s example of Arabic block printing, I thank the current director, Dr. Michael Ryan and Ms. Sinéad Ward of the Rights and Reproductions ofce. Most recently, long after my return from England, the existence of yet another Arabic block print was brought to my attention—again by Geoffrey Roper. He put me in contact with its (re)discoverer, Petra Sijpesteijn, currently at Oxford University, who came across it in the Wren Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. My thanks to Dr. Sijpesteijn, and to David McKitterick and Joanna Ball, Librarian and Sub-Librarian, respectively, of the Wren Library for their prompt assistance in obtaining a slide of the piece, for their continued interest in my project, and for permission to publish the unique example in their collection. My thanks to Jonathan Smith, also of the Wren Library, for providing a detailed prose description of the block print, and for allowing me to study it rst-hand. The second phase of my research led me to continental Europe where another cadre of librarians and curators was instrumental in advancing my project. The important collection held by the Erzherzog Rainer Papyrussamlung at the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (ÖNB) was opened to me by its collegial and engaging Leiter, Professor Dr. Hermann Harrauer in January of 1999. His interest in my project, and his knowledge of what those rare investigators who preceded me had discovered, have been extremely valuable to me. Dr. Cornelia Römer, current Director of the Papyrussammlung, has been equally interested in my work and I thank her for her permission to publish the ÖNB’s important Arabic block print collection here. In Berlin, I had the good fortune to make the acquaintance of two scholars who made my visit to the Ägyptisches Museum und Papyrussammlung, Charlottenburg, productive and rewarding. In anticipation of my visit, Dr. Ingeborg Müller had prepared the museum’s one known block print for my study in very pleasant surroundings. Then, with the cooperation of Dr. William Brashear, who, sadly, has since passed away, I was allowed to peruse the museum’s holdings of Arabic manuscript pages, among which I discovered a second, previously unknown example of block printing. For that marvelous experience, I am deeply indebted to them both. Mr. Jürgen Liepe undertook the task of making available to me digital images of the two Berlin block prints. I gratefully acknowledge here his contribution to this study. A similar degree of access was granted me by Dr. Volkmar Enderlein, Director of the Museum für Islamische Kunst on Bodenstrasse, Berlin. Although my search of those archives was not similarly rewarded, I want to thank him and his staff for their willingness to let me have a look. In Heidelberg, the library of Ruprecht-Karls-Universität had been reported as holding as many as six Arabic block prints. Prof. Dr. Dieter Hagedorn, at that time Director of the Bibliothek des Instituts für Papyrologie, and James M.S. Cowey, a member of the library’s staff, permitted me to spend an afternoon looking through their collection of some three thousand Arabic manuscript leaves, among which I found another previously unknown block print. Also

PREFACE

xi

in Heidelberg, Professor Dr. Raif Georges Khoury of the Seminar für Sprachen und Kulturen des Vorderen Orients was kind enough to spend some time providing background on the fate of Prof. Adolf Grohmann’s unnished work on Arabic palaeography and the artifacts relating thereto. For permission to publish the Heidelberg block print, I thank Dr. Andrea Jördens, Director of the Seminar for Papyrology, and Dr. Thomas Kruse. In Holland, Jan Just Witkam, Head of the Oriental Department, Leiden University Library, was able to provide me with some very useful information about the block print held by Mr. J.W.Th. Van Meeuwen (now in the collections of the Gutenberg Museum, Mainz, Germany). In the United States, this project has been helped along by several librarians and museum curators. The contributions of my former colleagues at Princeton have been mentioned already. Additionally, Roger S. Bagnall of Columbia University and Rudolph S. Ellenbogen, former Curator of Rare Books in Butler Library at Columbia, provided me with access to the sole block print in their archives. Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged. Jean W. Ashton, current Director of Rare Books and Special Collections is due my thanks for permission to publish Columbia’s block print here. Ms. Tara C. Craig, Reference Services Supervisor, assisted in obtaining the image of it. The Department of Islamic Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City gave me permission to study their important collection of Arabic block prints on two separate occasions. For this courtesy, and for publication permission, I would like to thank the head of the department, Dr. Stefano Carboni. Dr. Marilyn Jenkins-Madina, now retired, and Holly Shaffer also gave me a cordial reception and generous assistance. Saundra Taylor, Curator of Manuscripts, and Francis E. Lapka of Public Services in the Lilly Library, University of Indiana, provided me with the opportunity to study their block print. Lilly Library’s permission to publish their block print is acknowledged, with my thanks. Alessandro Pezzati, Reference Archivist, and Charles S. Kline of the Photographic Archives, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, helped to establish that the single block print in the collections of that institution is no longer to be found there. A small number of Arabic block prints are (or were, until recently) in private collections. The owners of these examples were, without exception, extremely gracious in allowing me to examine the pieces they hold. I have already mentioned Mr. William Scheide, whose collection resides at Princeton. Dr. Ma{an Z. Madina, Professor Emeritus of Columbia University, very kindly allowed me to study and make slides of his collection. He took the time to read through my research and to listen to my plan for a catalogue of the known block prints. Dr. Madina’s two block prints were subsequently (in 2002) acquired by the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Dr. Linda Komaroff, Curator of Islamic Art and Department Head, Ancient and Islamic Art at that institution, generously granted permission to publish these two ne examples. The assistance of her two colleagues, Ms. Megan Knox and Giselle Arteaga-Johnson, is also noted, with gratitude. Likewise, Mr. J.W.Th. van Meeuwen of the Hague in the Netherlands enthusiastically embraced my project and provided me not only with generous access to his block print, but also a slide and technical reports on the composition of the amulet’s paper. He, too, has been an enthusiastic and interested supporter of my work. As noted above, his medieval Arabic block print is now owned by the Gutenberg Museum. Permission to publish that magnicent example was kindly granted by the museum director, Dr. Eva Hanebutt-Benz; the image was obtained through the kind ofces of her colleague Dr. Claus Maywald-Pitellos, Curator. My contact at the Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg, Mr. Daniel

xii

PREFACE

Bournemann, was instrumental in helping me obtain the photo of that institution’s example of Arabic block printing. At various times during this project, I have received generous nancial support which enabled me to continue my investigations. Dr. Michael R. Cheney, formerly Associate Provost and Director of Research at Drake University, made funds available for travel to collections in the United States; the Center for the Humanities at Drake and two of its previous directors, Prof. Richard O. Abel and Prof. Andrew Herman, provided me with the means to visit collections in the United States as well as in Great Britain and Ireland. The Drake University Center for the Humanities also provided funding for the purchase of some of the images. My ‘grand tour’ of Europe, undertaken to study Arabic block printed amulets in the collections of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna, the Ägyptisches Museum and the Museum für Islamische Kunst, both in Berlin, the library of the Institut für Papyrologie, Ruprecht-Karls-Universität in Heidelberg and of Mr. J.W.Th. van Meeuwen in the Hague, was supported most generously by a grant from the American Philosophical Society, and I want to express my deepest gratitude to that illustrious body for its contribution to this project. I hope they feel that their patience in awaiting the publication of this work has been rewarded. My success in winning the APS grant is due in no small measure to the wise counsel provided by Iris Cofn, formerly of Drake University’s development ofce. Her knowledge of grant writing proved to be invaluable. Without the monetary assistance of the American Philosophical Society and Drake University, this work could not have been completed. Dr. James Keenan of the Classical Studies Department at Loyola University of Chicago generously shared his research on thirteenth century Fayyum, the locus of discovery for many of the block printed amulets treated below. Over the course of my work on the various pieces that comprise this catalogue, I have been helped in numerous ways, wittingly or unwittingly, by other scholars, colleagues and friends. Their interest and encouragement have sustained my efforts over the long course of this project. Andras Riedlmayer of the Fine Art Library, Harvard University, Michael L. Bates, Curator of Islamic Coins at the American Numismatic Society, Jere L. Bacharach, Director of the Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, Dr. Christopher Wright of the Department of Manuscripts in the British Library, Sheila Canby, Assistant Keeper of Islamic Art and Antiquities at the British Museum, Ursula Dreibholz, Dr. Chris Murphy, Area Specialist (Turcica) at the Library of Congress, all helped at one time or another in providing leads to obscure holdings, verifying references and keeping me from chasing mirages. Early on, Dr. Dana Sajdi shared her knowledge of many of the Metropolitan Museum’s block prints with me, transcribed some of their texts, and helped in deciphering of some of the more difcult lines of the Scheide tarsh. Dr. Mohammad H. Faghfoory lent his expertise with Arabic manuscripts to that endeavor as well and his continued strong interest in this project has helped to sustain it. Dr. Cornelia al-Khaled read through transcriptions of the Scheide and Metropolitan Museum texts and made helpful suggestions. Amy Namowitz Worthen cast an expert engraver’s eye on the amulets in the Metropolitan Museum, offering keen insights about how the print blocks might have been made. Her enthusiastic interest and ready sharing of her observations are much appreciated. Prof. Phillip Chen of Drake University, a master print maker, introduced me to the processes involved in making a print by hand and in so doing enabled me to gain a deeper understanding of certain features of the nal product. Wajih Halawa, a young man with an impressive range of useful talents, proofread my transcriptions

PREFACE

xiii

and interpretations of virtually all the amuletic texts, created a useful electronic database for information about the block prints, and suggested possible sources in which some of the more obscure prayers and textual formulae might be found. Matt Esposito of Drake University’s Department of History helped me formulate an approach to a treatment of the historical context of Arabic amulets. Allen Scult of Drake’s Department of Philosophy and Religion and my friend and former colleague Barbara Hodgdon, now at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, provided invaluable critical readings and proofreadings of large sections of the text. At Brill, Trudy Kamperveen and Caroline van Erp held my hand, provided astute guidance and knowledgeable assistance, and shepherded this work through the publication process with the skill and expertise for which that publisher is properly renowned. My sincere thanks goes to them for their efforts. Finally, I am grateful to my colleagues in Cowles Library for their interest in my project and their patience in awaiting its completion. I am certain that they thought, at times, that it would never come to fruition. The electronic expertise of Marc Davis and Bruce Gilbert at a late stage of the manuscript’s genesis are particularly to be noted. One person who never doubted that it would see the light of day is Vibs Petersen, whose condence in my ability to see this work through never wavered and whose support, wisdom, guidance, and commitment to the highest scholarly principles have sustained and inspired me for more than twenty years. My thanks to her cannot ever be adequately expressed. In the nal analysis, however, the ultimate responsibility for what is recorded between these covers is mine and any shortcomings, omissions or errors are to be laid at my feet alone.

INTRODUCTION Printing, as we understand the term today, refers to the mechanical reproduction of text and images. For the past ve hundred and fty years, and until the advent of electronic printing, the reproduction of text has been accomplished most often through the use of moveable type. To create a page of printed text, reverse images of each letter of the alphabet, in various sizes, and styles, along with all the requisite punctuation marks and textual embellishments, are individually cast in metal. These letter forms—the type—are then arranged to form words, sentences and paragraphs. The resulting assembly constitutes a matrix for a printed page. The matrix is then installed in a machine, a printing press, where the type is coated with ink. A sheet of paper is positioned so as to make contact with the matrix and the machine is activated, putting pressure on the paper and the matrix so that the ink is transferred from the matrix to the surface of the paper. The paper is then removed and, if the work has been done properly, an exact replica of the text in the matrix appears on the paper. In manufacturing a book, this process is repeated until the required number of copies of each page has been produced. Early printing presses were hand operated and closely resembled the wine presses from which they were adapted. During the industrial revolution in eighteenth and nineteenth-century Europe, water, steam and, ultimately, electrical power were exploited to increase the speed with which printing could be accomplished and the amount of printed material produced. Not only were the presses gradually improved, so also were the methods by which the type was created. Throughout much of the history of printing by moveable type, the arrangement of the type relied on the hand setting of individual letters. Eventually, most typesetting, particularly that for newspapers, popular magazines and books came to be performed on machines that created entire lines of type. The sophistication of the machinery used to create the printed page has increased greatly over the past six centuries. The speed with which the type was cast and set grew exponentially to the point where text could be printed almost on demand. Until the advent of electronic computing and ink jet and laser printing, printing with moveable type was generally accomplished by some variation of the processes described above. However, printing was not always produced in this way. Studies of printing history that address the pre-Gutenberg evolution of printing and alternate printing methods have often been overshadowed by those emphasizing the invention of moveable type. And while the successful commercialization of printing with moveable type is rightly attributed to its European developers, that step was preceded by centuries of experimentation across numerous lands and cultures. Evidence of such activity exists and can be found in dozens of museums and libraries across the world. The impulse to create multiple copies of a single pattern, design, or mark certainly was not limited to one people, nor, indeed, to one medium. Long before moveable type appeared, repetitive patterns were being imprinted on cloth and impressed in wet plaster. The ancient Egyptians did this with ceramic cylinder seals; the Koreans, Japanese and Chinese also with carved wooden blocks, beginning around 700 CE.1 Among many medieval cultures, 1

On this, see Pow-Key Sohn, “Printing in China” (pp. 211–213) and “Early Korean Printing,” (pp. 217–231) and Luther Carrington Goodrich, “Two new Discoveries of Early Block Prints,” (pp. 214–216) all in Der Gegenwärtige

2

INTRODUCTION

semi-precious stones were incised with the names or insignia of their owners; these were pressed into hot wax to seal documents or coated with ink to place marks of ownership on manuscripts and books. Molds and later, metal stamps, were made to mint metal coins bearing the likenesses of emperors, kings and queens and their names and titles. The mass production of words and texts stretches some considerable distance into the past, long antedating the appearance of the rst page printed by means of moveable type. While any direct connection between the production of coins, stamped cloth or block printed images and the printing of texts remains speculative,2 the essential principle underlying the creation of such objects—the fashioning of a mirror image of the form or text to be printed—is the same as that for printing on paper. The primary difference between printing with moveable type and earlier analogues lies in the fact that the former is accomplished through the use of individually cast letters and the latter by carving or etching by hand—or by casting—an entire text or image into a at surface, a printing block. Printing with wooden blocks, also known as xylography, was a painstaking and timeconsuming process. Pierce Butler, curator of the typography collection in Chicago’s Newberry Library during the 1920s, provides a vivid picture of the task in The Origin of Printing in Europe: To engrave a stamp large enough to produce a whole page must have been a slow and difcult operation. The workman, after drawing the picture or text in reverse on his block, would have to cut down the wood in such a way as to leave this graphic pattern as an elevated surface. Every portion of the block that was intended to remain blank in the imprint must be gouged away sufciently to prevent its touching the paper and transferring ink to it. This required sharp tools and a sure hand to guide them. The hollow letters would be especially difcult. The white center of even the tiniest character had to be cut out quite deeply, yet without marring the rim that inclosed [sic] it. If the tool slipped even slightly, it might shave off portions of the surface needed in the imprint, and so the whole block would be ruined unless the workman could devise means for repairing it. His desire to save damaged blocks, upon which days of labor had already been expended, must have been a constant spur to his ingenuity. We can imagine him driving pegs, making inlays, and gluing new sections to salvaged portions with ever greater skill and delicacy.3

Despite the limitations posed by the tools, the workers’ skills and the properties of the materials from which the blocks were carved, such work was done, often with elegant results—witness the numerous block printed artifacts on view in libraries and museums world-wide. BLOCK PRINTING IN ASIA AND Its TRANSMISSION TO THE WEST A substantial amount of physical and textual evidence exists which illustrates the role of the inhabitants of Asian lands in printing history, and specically in block printing. The Japanese Stand der Gutenberg-Forschung, (Stuttgart, 1972). All three cultures seem to have been at roughly the same level of printing technology in the eighth century CE. The letters “CE” following dates given in this work are the abbreviation for the Common (or Christian) Era, and replaces the older form “AD” (Anno Domini). 2 At least insofar as Arabic block printing is concerned. The work of Naveh and Shaked, in Magic Spells and Formulae ( Jerusalem, 1993) suggests the possibility that someone made the connection between the images produced by the reverse of an incised amulet and the creation of letters, but tangible proof of such a connection has yet to be discovered. Examples of Hebrew amulets incised on metal are numerous as evidenced by plates 1–18 showing amulets 16–32 in Magic Spells and Formulae. However, if, when and where the jump was made from engraved metal amulets to printing matrices remains an unresolved issue. 3 Pierce Butler, The Origin of Printing in Europe, (Chicago, 1940), p. 34.

INTRODUCTION

3

and Chinese were the originators of the technique of block printing as well as being pioneers in the manufacture of paper: the coincidental emergence of two technologies superbly suited to one another perhaps helps to explain why printing rst appeared in that part of the world. Moreover, the vast bureaucratic and educational institutions of the Chinese governments made extensive use of paper and printing in carrying out their responsibilities, with the result that paper and knowledge of its manufacture spread to the furthest reaches of Chinese inuence, to Central Asia, into the lands of the Muslim Middle East and, ultimately, to Europe. Europe’s indebtedness to Asia for its role in introducing paper—rst to Italy and then to the rest of Europe—has long been acknowledged.4 The art of papermaking was transmitted from the Chinese to the Arabs sometime around the middle of the eighth century CE, possibly through the capture of Chinese paper makers as prisoners of war; yet however the transfer of papermaking technology occurred, it was an immediate success. Adopted by the Arabs for use in their own rapidly developing and far-ung governmental, commercial and nancial institutions, paper use surpassed that of all other writing materials within two centuries in all but the most remote regions. Through trading contacts, paper came to the notice of Europeans sometime in the eleventh century. And by Gutenberg’s time, its use in Europe was common. For hundreds of years, it was assumed by those in the West that printing was invented in Europe. Indeed, many books written on printing, even within the past ten years, still give the impression that moveable type originated there; fourteenth-century European block books and Gutenberg’s moveable type have been brought forth to support such a claim. Only at the beginning of the twentieth century, with the discovery of incontrovertible proof of Chinese printing that pre-dated Gutenberg, was this notion displaced. In 1907, Sir Aurel Stein discovered, in a cave in China, a block printed book bearing a date equivalent to the year 868 CE,5 nearly six centuries before Gutenberg. Well crafted, the work indicates a level of skill commensurate with a long tradition of practice. By the early 1100s, that is, less than a century and a half from the original creation of Stein’s discovery, printing with moveable type was already well into in the experimental stage in China.6 What is fascinating about this progression of events is the disconnection that seems to occur between the history of paper and that of printing. At some point, as the two technologies crept westward across the Central Asian steppes, their lockstep progress seems to have been interrupted. There are strong indications that the invention of printing both in China—and later in Europe—followed closely on the heels of the invention of paper. Why, then, when the invention of paper is so readily attributed to the Chinese, has there been less attention paid to their contribution, and that of other non-Europeans, to the development of printing? More to the point for this present project, the intermediary role played by the Arabs in the transmission of papermaking technology to Europe is recognized while similar recognition has not been accorded to the Arabs with regard to printing technology.

4 The classic study on the history of papermaking is Dard Hunter’s Papermaking: the History and Technique of an Ancient Craft, (New York, 1978). Useful for the advent of paper in the Middle East are Helen Loveday, Islamic Paper: a Study of the Ancient Craft, (s.l., 2001) and Thomas Francis Carter, The Invention of Printing in China and its Spread Westward, 2nd ed., (New York, 1955). Most recently, one may consult Jonathan M. Bloom, Paper Before Print: the History and Impact of Paper in the Islamic World, (New Haven, 2001). 5 For an image of the so-called Diamond Sutra, go to: http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/diamond.html. 6 For a readable account of this history, see Lucien Febvre and Henri-Jean Martin, The Coming of the Book: the Impact of Printing, 1450 –1800. Translated by David Gerard, (London, 1990), pp. 71–76.

4

INTRODUCTION

In part, this may be the result of a Euro-centric worldview. Certainly a number of factors led to the rapid and pervasive expansion of printing in Europe and the resultant cultural transformation it helped to bring about. As I have mentioned, it is in Europe that printing with moveable type achieved its rst and perhaps greatest commercial success—with much, if not most, of that success due to Johann Gutenberg’s invention. However, that same success has often obscured the historical importance of printing technology which not only preceded Gutenberg but also occurred outside of Europe. Even today, when knowledge of the existence of earlier printing is fairly widespread, books with titles such as John Man’s Gutenberg: How One Man Remade the World with Words7 continue to appear. No matter that these works (and Man’s is no exception) acknowledge the existence of printing—even moveable type printing—before Gutenberg, the titles alone suggests that the man named therein is the person responsible for the invention of printing. We now know this not to be the case and yet the myth that he invented printing is perpetuated while awareness of earlier methods of printing in other parts of the world remains in the shadows. Block printing is one of these methods and, as the immediate precursor of moveable type printing, one of the most signicant for understanding the evolution of the printing craft. That medieval Arabs were engaged in the printing of texts with wood blocks has been a matter of historical record for more than one hundred years. Despite awareness of this within certain academic circles, scant attention has been paid to the known examples of Arab block printing and no effort has been given to any systematic inquiry of it. As I will detail further in a subsequent chapter, public attention was rst drawn to the existence of Arabic block printing in the mid-1890s with the inclusion of several examples in an exhibition of Egyptian Arabic artifacts mounted in a Viennese museum. A catalogue of the exhibition, complete with an illustration of one of the block prints, was published. Scholarly articles briey mentioning Arabic block prints had begun to appear already at the beginning of that decade. Yet, eleven years later, one Andre Geiss would write a two-part article, from Egypt, describing how the French under Napoleon had introduced printing to Egypt.8 Perhaps, at the time, Messr. Geiss was unaware of the Arabic block prints; news traveled much more slowly in those days, and after all, he was in Egypt, while the exhibition of Arabic block prints took place in Europe. However, some willful denial seems to have been operating here as well, for just one year after the second installment of Geiss’s article appeared, he wrote another short piece for the same journal9 in which he took issue with the contention that medieval Arabs knew about printing. That claim had been made by Josef Hammer Purgstall, who published a brief article describing a medieval Arabic treatise which seems to refer in one instance to an activity which sounds suspiciously like printing.10 Geiss sounds haughtily dismissive in responding to such an idea: 7 New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2002. This is only one of hundreds of books published on Gutenberg. Other titles would include: Wolfgang Dobras, Gutenberg, Man of the Millennium: From a Secret Enterprise to the First Media Revolution, (Mainz, 2000); Michael Pollard, Johann Gutenberg: the Story of the Invention of Movable Type and How Printing led to a Knowledge Explosion, (Watford, Herts, UK, 1994), among many others. 8 Andre Geiss, ‘Histoire de l’Imprimerie en Égypte,’ Bulletin de l’Institut égyptien 5th ser., 1 (1907), pp. 133–157; 5th ser., 2 (1908), pp. 195–220. 9 “Note sur l’Origine de l’Imprimerie Arabe en Europe par F. Bonola Bey,” Bulletin de l’Institut égyptien 5th ser., 3 (1909), pp. 74–80. On Bonola Bey’s article, see below. 10 On this article, see below. Josef von Hammer Purgstall, “Sur un passage curieux de l’Ihathet,” Journal Asiatique 4th serie, v. 20 (1852), pp. 252–255.

INTRODUCTION

5

It is impossible, given the evidence, to assert that the Arabs, even though they were the masters of Spain until 1469, could have known the art of Gutenberg, which was not introduced until 1468, even though it was invented about 1440. This [i.e. the Arabic] work can be nothing more than a copy of a European treatise on printing, the appearance of technical books on this industry having occurred only very recently.11

As I will show, the Arabs of the medieval Middle East were, indeed, involved in the production of block printed texts. Contrary to the notion that the technology of printing somehow bypassed them, the Arabs have left substantial evidence that block printing was a craft with which many in the medieval Islamic world (ca. 900–ca. 1400 CE) were familiar. The most common texts to have survived are amulets—that is, amulets are the type of document most frequently found to date in museum and library collections and are the primary focus of this study. Depending on how one construes the rare and problematic allusions to block printing found in Arabic historical and literary texts, however, the craft was employed to meet a variety of purposes, several examples of which are described and analyzed in this volume. Block printed Arabic texts from fourteen institutions and private collections are represented here, a total of fty-ve individual pieces exhibiting diverse levels of creative skill, artistic execution and literary accomplishment. In order to place our knowledge of these pieces in context, I survey the current state of research about them and identify those medieval Arabic texts which may contain information about the practice of block printing. In addition, I have drawn up a census of the pieces in each collection indicating what has been published about those amulets that have been studied. As I have mentioned, virtually all studies to date are focused on individual examples or small groups and, with rare exceptions, they fail to provide sufcient direction for investigations on a more elaborate scale. Although I have limited my study to collections, libraries, and museums in Europe and North America, I am aware that Arabic block prints are to be found in similar institutions in the Arabic speaking world. Given the necessary resources and sufcient time, I hope to undertake a similar volume that considers those examples in the future. The overarching intent of the material presented here is to promote interest in an area of medieval Islamic cultural history that I believe to have been sorely neglected or, at best, underappreciated. This foray represents a modest attempt to provide a resource for broader and more sophisticated research into the area by future scholars. By shedding some light on this body of material culture, I hope to provide an impetus to further study in the eld of Arabic printing history and a fuller appreciation of the people and cultures that produced the artifacts illustrated here. To that end, I provide, in addition to the catalog of block prints comprising the central part of this study, passages from the relevant Arabic historical and literary texts that refer to (or which can be construed as referring to) block printing in the medieval Islamic world

11 Andre Geiss, “Observations de M. Geiss a la suite de la note de M. Bonola Bey,” Bulletin de l’Institut égyptien 5th ser. 3 (1909), p. 84. “Il n’est guère possible, avec les données actuelles, d’admettre que les Arabes, même maitres de l’Espagne jusqu’en 1469, aient connu l’art de Gutenberg qui n’y fut introduit qu’en 1468, quoique inventé depuis 1440.” “Cet ouvrage ne peut non plus être une copie d’un traité européen de l’imprimerie, l’apparition des livres techniques de cette industrie étant beaucoup plus récente.” English translation mine. A similar translation is offered by H.A. Avakian, in ‘Islam and the art of printing’ in Uit Bibliotheektuin en Informatieveld, (Utrecht, 1978), pp. 259–60.

6

INTRODUCTION

and a complete bibliography of those scholarly works published to date on Arabic block printing. The latter includes works dealing with the re-discovery of examples as well as scholarly treatments of individual pieces and collections. In short, what I have wanted to provide here is a source book that will serve as a starting point for more detailed and focused investigations. Should just one such study be undertaken, my own effort will have been amply rewarded.

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING Given the scant coeval historical evidence for medieval Arabic block printing and the even more limited archaeological data for the provenance and vintage of surviving examples of block printed amulets bearing Arabic script, any attempt to understand their role or place in the societies that produced them is speculative at best. Innumerable examples of handwritten and three-dimensional (i.e. pendants, signet rings, plaques, bowls, etc.) Arabic amulets from the medieval period are extant and for this larger group of cultural artifacts a much more substantial body of scholarship exists.1 However, if we are willing to accept what I would suggest is a reasonable hypothesis: that the block printed amulets served essentially the same role in medieval Islamic cultures as the handwritten variety—to offer protection against a variety of dangers or to assist their wearers to achieve specic spiritual or material ends—then it should be possible to draw some conclusions about them. In order to accomplish this, it is necessary to place these artifacts in their appropriate context. Calligraphic and limited archaeological evidence2 suggests that workers in Arabic block printing were active roughly between 900 CE and 1430 CE, although other kinds of amulets had been in use for quite some time prior to this. It is beyond the scope of this study to offer a history of amulets in the Middle East; rather, this chapter, in general terms, will focus on that era known as the Late Antique. That period is calculated to begin approximately with the birth of Christ and to end with the Islamic conquest of the Middle East at the beginning of the seventh century CE. It is not my intention to present an exhaustive examination of those centuries but rather to give the reader a sense of the intellectual, theological and sociological currents that arguably had an impact on the production and use of amulets at that time, and that perhaps provided some of the conditions necessary for their adoption and continued employment in the period of Muslim cultural hegemony which followed the decline of Byzantium. With regard to amulets as a cultural phenomenon, it is important to remember that such objects, popularly believed to provide their owners with a prophylactic or apotropaic effect against a variety of real or imaginary dangers, or to endow them with certain abilities or powers, have long been a feature of life in the Middle East (as they have been elsewhere). Their production and use pre-date Judaism, Christianity and Islam by millennia. Over time, they have appeared in a variety of forms and were created from a broad range of materials. 1 Any listing of relevant works must include E.A. Wallis Budge’s Amulets and Superstitions, originally published by Oxford University Press (1930), reprinted by Dover Publications (1978). This work has the virtue of placing Arabic amulets in the context of amulets from other Near Eastern cultures, both ancient and modern. Friedrich Bilabel and Adolf Grohmann’s Griechische, koptische und arabische Texte zur Religion und religiösen Literatur in Ägyptens Spätzeit, (Heidelberg, 1934) is very useful as are the two articles by Tewk Canaan, “Decipherment of Arabic Talismans,” Berytus: Archaeological Studies, v. 4 & 5 (1937). One should also consult Jean Marquès-Rivière’s Amulettes, Talismans et Pantacles dans les traditions orientales et occidentals, (Paris, 1972) and the Catalogue of Islamic Seals and Talismans by Ludvik Kalus, (Oxford, 1986). The works of Peter Schienerl on jewelry and ornamental amulets, some of which are cited herein, are also very valuable. More relevant works are listed in the bibliography at the end of the present volume. 2 Only a few examples of block printed Arabic amulets have been found in situ in archaeological excavations. To my knowledge, the only examples of excavated block prints to have been published to date are found in Wladyslaw Kubiak and George T. Scanlon, Fuɢʢ Expedition Final Report, Vol. 2: Fuɢʢ-C, (Winona Lake, 1989).

8

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

Organic items—animal skin, feathers, bones, pollen, herbs, wood—as well as minerals, precious and semi-precious stones, metal and paper have all been employed at various historic and pre-historic junctures to avert misfortune from—and afford protection or advantage to—their owners. In some cases, the power attributed to an amulet was perceived to be inherent in the object itself. Such an object was believed to be possessed of a spirit or supernatural power and therefore required no human embellishment in order to reap its benet. A tiger claw fashioned into a necklace, for example, might be seen to embody that animal’s strength or speed, and to confer those properties on the person wearing it. In other instances, the object was more elaborate, incorporating such elements as a carving or engraving in the form of the spirit—in animist cultures, a bear, for example—whose aid was being sought. A further enhancement might be the inclusion in the composition of the amulet of an item associated with that particular power. In this manner, zodiacal amulets frequently featured pendants or inlays of a particular stone associated with the planet whose power the amulet represented. Additional decoration in the form of ‘magic’ symbols, alphabetic characters and the like, engraved into or painted onto the object, are also not uncommon. Over time, amulets tended to become increasingly elaborate in their appearance, design, and symbology. Across the ages, while talismanic objects continued in use, amulets composed of words, in articial or occult as well as common alphabets, became increasingly popular. As one researcher notes,3 the advent of the written word immeasurably enhanced the power of those members of the religious establishment who formulated prayers to enlarge the umbrella of sacred protection for members of their communities. Since ancient times, priests and other holy persons had uttered verbal assurances of divine guardianship over the heads of congregants or into the ears of individuals. Once such assurances could be written down in physical form, it became possible to extend, both in range and duration, the power of the Word to keep evil away. Bearing the appropriate formulae in writing on one’s person came to be seen as a way of perpetuating the invocation to whatever spirit or deity was believed to provide the desired sanctuary, relief, or cure sought.4 In the late antique period, many cultures in the Middle East shared a belief in supernatural powers and, more importantly, in the ability of humans to exert some inuence over those powers. These beliefs can be traced back to much earlier times. The ancient Egyptians left an assortment of objects thought to impart protection from, or control over, supernatural forces. Ceramic scarabs and the ankh, the crucix with the distinctive loop at the top, are just two of the most recognizable examples,5 but written amulets were produced as well. Babylonians, Phoenicians and Assyrians made amulets of clay:6 some were in the form of animals, others represented fantastic creatures; still others were textual. The Romans and Greeks produced curse tablets comprised of thin lead sheets onto which wishes for harm to an individual were

Peter W. Schienerl, Schmuck und Amulett in Antike und Islam, (Aachen, 1988), pp. 10–11. Buddhist prayer wheels operate in somewhat analogous fashion. In that practice, prayers written on paper are placed in a specialized container which is then spun about an axis. Each revolution of the wheel equates to one recitation of the prayer; the more the prayer is spun, the more repetitions are made and the power of the prayer is thereby magnied. 5 Recent works in this eld include Carol Andrews, Amulets of Ancient Egypt, (London, 1994) and Geraldine Pinch, Magic in Ancient Egypt, (London, 1994). 6 See E.A. Wallis Budge, Amulets and Superstitions, (New York, 1978), pp. 82–126 & 250–257. 3 4

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

9

inscribed.7 These were rolled in the manner of scrolls and worn under the clothing. The Eastern Romans and Christians of the rst centuries following the birth of Christ often wore bullae, hemispheric objects of wood or metal which carried magic signs and inscriptions and which sometimes contained compartments into which were placed powders or other substances thought to provide the wearer protection against magic.8 The purpose of all such devices was to ward off evil in all its multiplicity of forms.9 The Jews created, used and apparently dealt in protective amulets. Many of their amulets were comprised of—or contained passages from—sacred texts and were written on paper, painted onto ceramics or engraved on metal.10 Coptic Christian Egyptians composed textual amulets as early as the second century CE and their work incorporates many of the elements of neighboring cultures.11 In similar fashion, the Arabs of the pre-Islamic era sought protection from unseen forces through the use of charms. One of these, the tamÒma (pl. tamÊxim), was a white or black speckled stone worn on a cord around the neck; it was used to protect children from the evil eye.12 Extensive archeological and literary evidence proves that the Arabs continued to make use of amulets after the advent of Islam. That they incorporated into these amulets elements of the Islamic belief system is borne out by evidence contained in surviving examples from this time as well as in texts relating to their creation and use.13 How amulets evolved in this period has much to do with the social, religious and cultural dynamics at work in the Middle East at the time of the rise of Islam. For Muslims, as well as for Christians and Jews, the essential issue regarding the employment of amulets was intimately related to the nature of the relationship between humans and God. At one time or other, clerics of all three of the monotheistic religions expressed concern about the use of amulets to invoke divine intervention and affect the lives of people. It is perhaps an indication of the pervasiveness of popular recourse to amulets that the leadership of all three religions felt obligated to address the matter. The religious landscape of the Late Antique period was complicated by a political climate dominated by a protracted conict between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sasanian Empire, which ruled in Persia. By the middle of the seventh century of the Christian era, these two superpowers of their age had been engaged in intermittent warfare for the better part of a century, with neither able to gain a decisive advantage over the other. In the years just prior to the advent of Islam, their conict had devolved into a war of attrition. In this contest, both the Sasanians and the Byzantines engaged client groups to carry out raids and incursions against enemy territories. The employment of Arab tribal confederations created 7 Emilie Savage-Smith, “Introduction: Magic and Divination in Early Islam,” in Magic and Divination in Early Islam, Emilie Savage-Smith, ed., (Aldershot, Hants, 2004), p. xxi. 8 Budge, Amulets and Superstitions, pp. 14–15. On Byzantine amulets, see Jeffrey Spier, “Medieval Byzantine Magical Amulets and Their Tradition,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes v. 56 (1993), pp. 25–62. 9 Budge, Amulets and Superstitions, p. 14. 10 On this, see Naveh and Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, ( Jerusalem, 1985), pp. 13 ff., as well as their subsequent work, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, (Jerusalem, 1993). A study of the texts of Hebrew amulets is found in Theodore Schrire, Hebrew Magic Amulets: their Decipherment and Interpretation, (New York, 1966). 11 Marvin W. Meyer and Richard Smith, eds., Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, (Princeton, 1999). 12 T. Fahd, “TamÒma,” EI2, V. 10, p. 177 and J. Ruska and B. Carra de Vaux, “Tilsam,” EI2, V. 10, p. 500. 13 On this, see David Pingree, “Some of the Sources for the GhÊyat al-ÆakÒm,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes v. 43 (1980), pp. 1–15.

10

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

further complications for the two empires and ultimately did little to alter the outcome of the wars. It took the arrival of powerful Muslim Arab armies from the south in the mid-600s to break the stalemate. In the seventh and eighth centuries CE, Muslim Arab armies pushed vigorously outward from the Arabian Peninsula, east into Iraq, Persia and Central Asia, west into Egypt and North Africa, and northeast into the lands of the eastern Mediterranean coast. In every direction, they encountered ancient established civilizations that, once subdued, brought the conquerors into contact with new ideas, new technologies, and new forms of cultural expression. In the rst ush of imperial power, the Arabs seized upon these trappings as a type of validation of their own recently acquired authority. Greek philosophy, particularly theology, gave them the tools with which to defend and promulgate the tenets of their faith. The adoption and continuation of Christian medicine as practiced under the Sasanids of Persia provided them with the means to treat diseases, physical ailments, and injuries more efcaciously than they had been able to do until then. A knowledge of structural engineering and architecture acquired from Greek engineers and builders enabled the Muslims to create distinctive houses of worship, a variety of other civic and military buildings, and, ultimately, their own architectural vernacular. The mosque, that distinctive Islamic structure one nds in virtually every Middle Eastern city, came to serve not only as a locus for Muslim religious practice but also as a symbol of the ascendancy of Islam and its role as the preeminent religious and cultural force in that part of the world. Islam emerged into a world characterized by a mosaic of competing, often conicting, religions. Although monotheism was making serious inroads on the spiritual landscape, none had cornered the market on people’s religious sensibilities, and, in fact, there was arguably more diversity in the beliefs held in the region in this period than there had been for some time heretofore. Christianity, a mere seven centuries old in the mid-600s of the present era, was still wrestling with such fundamental theological issues as the nature of Christ. Little more than three centuries had passed since the conversion of the Emperor Constantine and the establishment of Christianity as the ofcial religion of the Byzantine Empire. Though by this time widely practiced, Christianity was scarcely unied in its doctrine and numerous confessional variants were competing vigorously to gain adherents and, through them, greater legitimacy. The two largest factions were the Nestorians and the Monophysites. The Nestorians held the view that Christ was at once human and divine, both parts of his nature being perfect and inseparable; the Monophysites countered that Jesus had but a single nature and that it was divine.14 The relative fortunes of these two positions ebbed and owed; despite efforts to settle the dispute rationally, most notably at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 CE, there were periodic campaigns of suppression during which adherents of one group or the other suffered expulsion or yet more severe sanction. Converts and champions, sought by each side, included the major political gures of both the Byzantine and Sasanian Empires, as well as the Arabs who dwelt at the margins of those two polities. In addition, a number of other confessions embracing varying measures of Christianity, Gnosticism and even paganism—the Manichaeans,

14 For readable accounts of this history, see F.E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism: a History of the Near East from Alexander the Great to the Triumph of Christianity, (New York, 1970) and Allah’s Commonwealth: a history of Islam in the Near East 600–1100 AD, (New York, 1973) and the bibliographies listed in those two works.

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

11

Daysanites and Sabians are the most prominent—were attempting to promulgate their own particular theological viewpoints with varying degrees of success.15 Christianity in the sixth and seventh centuries CE was in the ascendant. However, pagans were still to be found practicing their rites in numerous locations throughout the region. They, too, continued to profess a multitude of beliefs ranging from imperial cult polytheism, to worship of localized deities and spirits, to a dualistic ‘theology’ which postulated a struggle between the forces of a luminous and ethereal purity against those of a dark and malevolent materiality. One must consider that the ‘paganism’ of late antiquity was not the paganism of the Classical world. As Jonathan Berkey puts it, “paganism—or more accurately, some of the paganisms of late antiquity—had moved a good distance from the religion of Homer and Ramses, and in many respects shared a good deal with the Christian and Islamic traditions which replaced it.”16 Although polytheism within the Byzantine Empire was ofcially and vehemently suppressed in the middle of the sixth Christian century,17 polytheists continued to be found across Southwest Asia, not only in remote regions of the Byzantine Empire but also in the Sasanian Empire. The most notable of these were the so-called Sabians of Harran, whose theology, a complex blend of polytheism, Gnosticism, and Hermeticism, completely ummoxed the Muslims at the time of their initial contact, toward the beginning of the ninth century CE.18 It must be remembered, too, that the Arabs of this time were themselves no more than a few generations removed from polytheism; it was Muhammad, after all, who ordered the removal of pagan images from the Ka{ba in Mecca after his triumphant Muslim forces seized that city in 630 CE. Remnants of pagan practice no doubt lingered in many places in the Arabian Peninsula, even after Islam was formally declared the one true faith there. To the east, in Persia, Zoroastrianism, a reformed type of Magianism, had experienced a renaissance under the Sasanians. The then-reigning Shah, Khusraw I (531–579), restored it as the state religion in the aftermath of a challenge to the state from a lapsed Zoroastrian priest named Mazdak, who preached a radical social brand of Manichaeism that sought to communize all property and level all social classes.19 Zoroastrianism is a prophetic religion with a revealed scripture that, not unlike Christianity, offers salvation to the souls of its adherents. According to its belief system, humanity can be redeemed through the understanding that 15 Peters, Allah’s Commonwealth, pp. 267–269 and passim and Michael G. Morony, Iraq After the Muslim Conquest, (Princeton, 1984), pp. 403–404. See also the relevant articles in Encyclopaedia of Islam: On the Daysanites, A. Abel, “DayÉanÒyya,” EI2, V. 2, p. 199; on the Manichaeans, C.E. Bosworth, “MÊnÒ,” EI2, V. 6, p. 421; on the Sabians, T. Fahd, “ÂÊbixa,” EI2, V. 8, pp. 675–678, esp. section 2, and the sources cited in the bibliographies for each of these entries. 16 Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600–1800, (Cambridge, 2003), p. 33. 17 Peters, Harvest of Hellenism, pp. 715–718. 18 The classic study of this group was done by D.A. Khvolson, Der Ssabier und der Ssabismus, (St. Petersburg, 1856–); also reprinted twice: Amsterdam and New York, both 1956). See also the article on the Sabians in the Encylopaedia of Islam cited above in note 15, as well as another EI2 entry, F.C. De Blois, “ÂÊbix,” V. 8, pp. 672–675, and the references listed there. The Harranians were ultimately able to convince the Arabs that they were the Sabians mentioned in the QurxÊn and therefore protected as one of the ‘people of the Book,’ those monotheistic religions acknowledged by Islam as possessing divinely revealed scriptures and therefore special dispensation to continue following their beliefs and performing their rituals. 19 Seen as heretical and a threat to the state, it was crushed by force. See A.J. Carnoy, “Zoroastrianism,” Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, James Hastings, ed., (New York, 1908–1926), V. 12, p. 867. Also, in the same work, R.A. Nicholson, “Mazdak,” V. 8, pp. 508–510. For a more recent treatment, see Peters, Harvest of Hellenism, pp. 663–668.

12

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

there is in it something of the divine light that wants to return to its source. Only through proper conduct of one’s life can such a reunion be effected.20 It is unclear just how widely practiced the religion was at the time. Certainly the fall of the Persian Empire to invading Arab Muslim armies in the mid-eighth century and the perceived economic and social advantages of conversion to Islam hindered that religion from further growth. Into the mix, in the eastern and southern regions of the Sasanian state, adherents of Buddhism could be found and their presence persisted well into the early Islamic period.21 And if this were not enough, an Indian cultural component, bearing the marks of Hellenism inscribed upon it in the time of Alexander the Great, echoed in the background.22 Judaism, the oldest of the monotheistic religions in the Near East, had been an established presence in the region for some time. In the urbanized areas of the late antique period, its fortunes had depended on the relative strength and tolerance of the Persians and later, the Romans. In the aftermath rst, of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE, and second, the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 132 CE, many Jews had ed eastward to the Persian Empire, where they were favorably received. Some Jews, however, remained within the territories of the Eastern Roman Empire where, particularly after the establishment of Christianity as the state religion, they were alternately tolerated and persecuted, the latter circumstance nally culminating, in the third decade of the sixth century CE, with the denial of any legal standing to Jews living in the Byzantine realms.23 Outside the urban centers, however, Judaism continued to be practiced and Jewish communities could be found not only in the Byzantine and Sasanian states but in those areas beyond their sway as well. Jewish groups lived in the Arabian Peninsula; we know that one reason for Muhammad’s departure from Mecca for the oasis of Yathrib (MadÒna) in 622 CE was to arbitrate a dispute involving Jewish tribes resident there. Although numerous Jewish communities, even cities, existed in Iraq, the demographic center of Judaism at that time was Persia, where, for several centuries, Jews had found a welcome in varying degrees of warmth and where their numbers were most likely the greatest.24 The seeds of this mélange of cultural and religious practices were sown on elds furrowed by the great plow of Hellenic civilization. Having fallen on lands in possession of rich indigenous intellectual and theological traditions, these seeds sprouted into remarkably dynamic exchanges and syntheses of beliefs, ideas and philosophies. Some of the resultant fruits of this cross-pollination were sterile hybrids, incapable of propagating themselves and destined to wither quickly and die. Others were strengthened and invigorated, their progeny rendered more vibrant and vigorous for having struck root in the fertile loam of venerable intellectual and cultural traditions and nding nourishment there. For a time, there was a great deal of uidity among the religions, particularly between Judaism and Christianity, but also, in varying degrees, among other religions. To add to the complexity of this phenomenon, and to carry the analogy one step farther, many of the offspring of these religio-social saplings fell to earth in

20

A.J. Carnoy, “Zoroastrianism,” pp. 862–868. The Barmacids, a Buddhist family originally from the eastern province of Khurasan, served the early Abbasid caliphs as viziers and patrons of literary translation activity. See Peters, Allah’s Commonwealth, pp. 158 ff. 22 See Pingree, “Some of the Sources for the GhÊyat al-ÆakÒm,” p. 2. 23 Peters, Harvest of Hellenism, pp. 716–717. 24 See Morony, Iraq After the Muslim Conquest, pp. 308–309 and Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam, pp. 13–14. 21

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

13

the hinterlands, far from their parent stock and, if they germinated at all, grew “in attenuated and problematic form.”25 This syncretistic impulse, the willingness (if not eagerness) to engage in exchanges of ideas and practices, was powerful; particularly with regard to popular practices, it seems, there were many similarities in the modes of expression of those beliefs.26 To a remarkable extent, pagans, Jews and Christians had, for some time, been participating in each other’s religious—as well as secular—lives, despite concerted efforts by rabbis and priests to enforce rm confessional boundaries. As late as the fourth century CE, Jews were still proselytizing in apparently successful attempts to attract new adherents, although certain Jewish authorities opposed the practice. Conversely, some Christians saw no confessional indelity in worshipping at Jewish temples, or being buried in Jewish cemeteries. Such evidence adds considerable weight to the argument that, among certain people, there was a perception that differences between Judaism and Christianity were inconsequential.27 These two religions held much of scripture and tradition in common and this, no doubt, contributed to the sense among certain of their adherents that there was greater similarity than dissimilarity between the two. At the same time, and overlapping with the arrival of Islam, efforts began to be undertaken by the clergies of the various monotheistic religions to demarcate the religio-social landscape more sharply. The religious leaderships of Christianity and Judaism seem to have been seeking to create more distinct religious boundaries for the adherents of their faiths, perhaps in order to establish ownership over certain religious traditions, but certainly in order to extend the political and legal authority of the clergy over the broader community.28 It is perhaps obvious that for Jews and Christians, who shared a sacred text and certain traditions, this must have been a vexatious undertaking. However, the impulse toward the establishment of stricter communal boundaries also embraced the Zoroastrians. During this time, their clergy also tried to distance their faith from Judaism,29 which was, in Persia, the principal ‘rival’ to Zoroastrianism. The necessity of establishing clear boundaries was certainly more pressing in cities where large numbers of people belonging to a variety of faiths dwelt in close proximity to one another. Many cities in the Near East, especially those situated in the contested regions that lay between the two warring states, had suffered serious declines in population and economic power in the early centuries of the Christian era. However, the advent of Islam brought about a rapid and far-reaching re-urbanization in territories that the Muslims seized from Byzantium and Persia. The consolidation of Muslim Arab political power over much of Southwestern Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean lands resulted in the re-settlement of many Arabs in existing urban centers and the foundation of a number of new cities. Two settlements, Basra, established in 636 CE, and Kufa, founded in 638 CE, were at rst military encampments, but quickly developed into important towns. In addition, at least three new cities were founded by Muslims in the medieval period: Baghdad in 762 CE; Cairo in 969 CE; and, further west, FÊs (Fez) in about 1069 CE. As Jonathan Berkey has recently observed, the cities were homes to a strong merchant class whose inuence and power often connected cities with one another. Berkey, The Formation of Islam, p. 5. Berkey refers to this phenomenon as a “religious koiné.” The Formation of Islam, p. 16. 27 For a more thorough treatment of this topic, see Berkey, The Formation of Islam, pp. 16–19. 28 See Morony, Iraq After the Muslim Conquest, specically chapters 11 and 12 on the Jews and Christians, respectively. 29 Berkey, The Formation of Islam, p. 15. 25 26

14

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

Through their travels and personal connections, they helped to communicate religious as well as secular ideas. Their activities encouraged the development of traditions that reached across the inter-urban distances and helped to lessen the parochialism of scattered populations.30 In addition to (and no doubt overshadowing) the innumerable inter- and intra-confessional theological disputations, other broader, more catholic forces were at work across the Near East in late antiquity. Their inuence transcended the bounds of religion, ethnicity, linguistic afnity and political afliation. One of the most inuential of these was Gnosticism, a body of ideas that posited a dualistic vision of the universe and challenged other ways of knowing with “absolutist claims for a secret gnosis at the expense of both rational discourse and an open revelation.”31 Arising in the second Christian century, its origins are unclear. As it developed, Gnosticism manifested itself in subtle shadings of meaning and interpretation. In general terms, it held that creation was the result of the interplay of two forces: light and purity against darkness and materiality.32 A disruption between these two forces, according to Gnostic mythology, resulted in a portion of the light falling into the darkness, which constitutes the substance of the perceivable universe. This light was absorbed in varying proportions, according to a strict tripartite hierarchy, by humanity. Those people imbued with greater shares of light were the elect and were vouchsafed redemption upon their deaths, at which time their portion of the light would return to and become one with its source. A second group had to work for its salvation by avoiding the temptations of the world. People of this class were obliged to live cautiously and in denial of a prescribed list of pleasures and comforts if their souls were to win salvation. At the lowest rung stood those whose lot it was never to be redeemed. According to the Gnostic conception of the cosmos, the supreme being,33 the power of purity and light, was remote and communicated with humanity, when He chose to do so, through prophets. The management of the cosmos and the oversight of the affairs of the world, however, were the responsibility of intermediaries or factota of a sort, whose homes were the seven celestial bodies—the sun, Mercury, Venus, the Moon, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Human affairs were conducted under the inuence of these bodies and the twelve zodiacal signs, all of which, being part of the material world, were viewed as demonic in nature, but also as potentially helpful.34 The inuence of these several bodies was projected by means of rays emanating from them and it was to this aspect of the cosmic machinery that humans who possessed the necessary knowledge could gain access. Gnosticism appealed to many people across religious and cultural divisions. To varying degrees, it inuenced the theological and philosophical discourses of Christians, Jews, Magians, perhaps the residents of India, and, ultimately, the Muslims. It took both secular and religious forms, but, most importantly for the present study, what it preserved for certain and not insignicant segments of those increasingly monotheistic cultures was the concept that, for those Berkey, The Formation of Islam, p. 5. Peters, Harvest of Hellenism, p. 671. 32 This and what follows is a grossly oversimplied account of Gnosticism. For much more succinct and no doubt clearer explanations of this late antique phenomenon, see Peters, Harvest of Hellenism, pp. 648–662 and Morony, Iraq After the Muslim Conquest, specically the chapter there entitled “Pagans and Gnostics,” pp. 384–430. 33 Who is known by various names, depending on the religious community in question. For example, to the Marcionites, he was the “Redeemer;” to the Sabians, the “First Cause.” See Morony, Iraq After the Muslim Conquest, p. 402 ff. 34 Morony, Iraq After the Muslim Conquest, pp. 411, 413. 30 31

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

15

who knew the requisite techniques and languages, the lines of communication between the divine and the material world worked in both directions and not exclusively for the prophets. Those claiming to know of alternate ways of communicating with God and, most particularly, knowledge of methods of exercising inuence over His actions, came to be revered by certain segments of the several religious communities, although those claiming such abilities were generally scorned as frauds or reviled as pagans by the leaders of those same communities. In the midst of all this was magic. “Magic,” a culturally burdened and rather infelicitous term, is the word employed by those who have studied and written about the religious history of late antiquity to describe philosophies and bodies of practice which were used, among other things, to inuence those powers and forces which were thought to exist beyond the visible world. According to some philosophies, these powers resided in the planets; for others, specic, earth-bound geographic locations were thought to harbor supernatural beings. In either case, the power those entities possessed could be drawn upon for good or ill by those who enjoyed a special relationship with them, or by those who had discovered the means by which their powers could be harnessed to the will of their familiars. The pre-Christian world had its share of oracles, seers, and diviners who professed the ability to communicate with deities and spirits. People who practiced this esoteric craft continued to do so well into the early Islamic period. The existence of so-called sorcerers and magicians, the challenges they presented to monotheism, and the manner in which they were dealt with, are well chronicled in the contemporary accounts.35 The major religions all believed in the existence of one kind of supernatural being or other—angels, demons, jinn36 and the like. However, their existence, once acknowledged, constituted something of a problem for those who professed a belief in a solitary, omnipotent divinity. This god was characterized by his prophetic representatives as operating at a further remove from quotidian human affairs and as being much more chary regarding His choice of earthly interlocutors than the pagan deities he supplanted. Thus, claims to the ability to carry on intercourse with God came to be portrayed, especially by Christian and Jewish clerics, as fraud, charlatanry, or worse, blasphemy. Those who made such claims were accused of preying on the gullibility of the common folk, not to mention being dangerous to the teachings of the particular faith in question. Increasingly, the resort to such measures, smacking as they did of the “pagan” practices from which they derived, came to be seen as anathema to acceptable monotheistic religious behavior. In spite of this, there were apparently many people who had need of reassurance that they could bring their personal concerns to the attention of the Almighty or, failing that, to His lieutenants and, once having done so, to have their requests acted upon. If the desired satisfaction was not to be found with the clergies of the monotheistic confessions, then people who, by virtue of a popularly endowed sanctity or recognized success in obtaining divine—or at least supernatural—assistance for others, would be addressed. The practitioners of such skills had a variety of tools at their disposal: potions, invocations in secret languages, instruction in modes of personal conduct that would gain favor with spirits—and the fashioning of amulets.

On this, see Morony, Iraq After the Muslim Conquest, pp. 416–417. The jinn (pl. ajnÊn) (like the genie of Sindbad’s lamp) are creatures believed by some Muslims to be real; their existence is attested in the QurxÊn. They are both male and female, good and bad, Muslim and non-Muslim. They are capable of mischief as well as acts of benevolence toward humans. See D.B. MacDonald, “Djinn,” EI2, V. 2, pp. 546–548. 35 36

16

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

Just as some Christians attended Jewish religious services, there were Christians and Jews who attended worship having come directly from an amulet maker or soothsayer and who apparently saw no theological contradiction in having done so. In his valuable study of Iraq in the period immediately after the Islamic conquest, Michael Morony relates accounts of Nestorian Christians who consulted sorcerers, sought amulets and made animal sacrices. Even priests were involved on occasion, but not even their expulsion by church leaders seems to have dimmed the ardor of those who felt the need to avail themselves of such solutions.37 Although the Jewish and Christian religious leadership had serious problems with practitioners of ‘magic’ and tried to suppress them, they seem ultimately to have adopted the more pragmatic approach of making room for some magic within their systems of belief. This was not done without difculty, nor was such an approach universally approved, as one study on Jewish mysticism in this period has shown.38 At least among Jews, there was a difference of opinion with regard to the acceptable methods of soliciting spiritual assistance. Some held that divine assistance was earned by strict observance of the commandments; others believed that help could be obtained through prayer or by intoning the divine names.39 Faced with the widespread acceptance of these and similar practices among large segments of their respective populations, the clerics of both the Christian and Jewish faiths seem to have decided that it would be better to allow these practices, as long as certain rules were observed. It was in this way that the use of ‘magic’ came to be, if not permitted, then at least tolerated by the religious establishments, as long as it was wrought for good and not for evil and so long as it relied on Holy Writ, the Holy Names, and Jewish or Christian symbols as the grammar of its power. Thus it was that passages from the Torah and the Bible began to appear in written amulets, where they were used to invoke the assistance of the divine to achieve specic ends for the supplicants who requested them, although this practice, too, was controversial.40 Magic could be used to battle demons, evil spirits and the like—the existence of which had already been acknowledged—particularly since they were commonly understood to be the root causes not only of misfortune and danger, but of illnesses. The belief that illness was an indication of a sick soul or evidence of the commission of a sin was congruent with the idea that unseen forces or powers affected human activities; the equation of evil and illness transcended confessional boundaries. The adjuration of divine (i.e. good) power by means of ‘magic’ to counter such forces was judged to be acceptable both theologically and philosophically by many elements of the three main monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism. Into the midst of this polyglot, religiously polymorphous milieu the Arab Muslims inserted themselves, quickly becoming immersed in the debates and adopting many of the practices of the indigenous populations. No doubt they already were aware of some of the issues being bruited about by Jewish and Christian theologians. For instance, the QurxÊn contains a number of allusions and references to religious differences between Jews and Christians. Moreover, both Christians and Jews had been living among the Arabs for some time and Arab nomads and traders were frequent visitors to the lands of the Byzantines and Persians. All these interacMorony, Iraq After the Muslim Conquest, pp. 416–418. Rebecca Macy Lesses, Ritual Practices to Gain Power: Angels, Incantations, and Revelation in Early Jewish Mysticism, (Harrisburg, PA, 1998), p. 51. 39 Lesses, Ritual Practices to Gain Power, p. 51. 40 See Peter Schäfer and Shaul Shaked, eds., Magische Texte aus der Kairoer Geniza, v. 2, (Tübingen, 1997), p. 5. 37 38

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

17

tions certainly afforded the Arabs the opportunity to learn something about the nature of their theological discussions, however imperfect and lacunary that understanding may have been. As the Arabs moved in ever greater numbers into the settled areas of the former Byzantine and Sasanian Empires, they were increasingly exposed to the syncretistic forces that had been at play among the Christians, Jews, and the Zoroastrians, among the speakers of Greek, Pahlavi, Aramaic, Kurdish and the other languages spoken in the region, and among the various ethnic groups that spoke them. While they most certainly found many of the religious and cultural practices they encountered strange—and many no doubt anathema to their own religious beliefs—they were at the same time selective in the imposition of their own ways on the indigenous peoples. A strong impulse toward practicality seems to have governed many of these decisions. For example, the pre-Islamic political arrangement between Persians and the Jewish and Christian communities in their midst, under which adherents of these religions were granted political authority over the internal affairs of their groups, was continued after the Arabs took political power in Sasanian Iran.41 This arrangement was eventually extended throughout the Islamic realms and applied to Sabian and even Zoroastrian communities. The willingness of the Muslim Arabs to adopt ideas and practices they encountered in their expansive conquests of the former imperial realms of Byzantium and Sasanid Persia, and beyond, extended to material matters also. Principles of Byzantine city planning and architecture lent much to the development of cities founded by the Arabs and the mosques they built therein. Greek science, especially in the areas of mathematics, astronomy, and medicine formed the basis of numerous advances achieved by later Muslim scientists in these elds. An early encounter between Arabs and the Chinese, perhaps the consequence of an armed conict, resulted in the transfer to and enthusiastic adoption of papermaking technology by the former.42 This process of selective adaptation commenced in the earliest stages of contact between the Muslim Arabs and these other groups and continued long after the conquests had been completed.43 Once begun, it seems, the habit of borrowing became just that. While the most widely known evidence for Arab Muslim cultural borrowing lies in the corpus of Arabic translations from Greek and Sanskrit, the cultural appropriation was much broader and pervaded all aspects of life, from the crafts and ne arts to the mundane; from medicine and literature to habits of dress and eating. Not surprisingly, such borrowing was not limited to the practices of others; in many instances, the Arab Muslims adapted their own pre-Islamic practices to post-Islamic realities. Justication for some of these adaptations was found in the QurxÊn; in other cases, customary usage was recognized as a validating principle. In still other instances, the rationale for adopting a specic belief or practice was found through resort to a previously borrowed concept or practice. One of the most noteworthy examples of this last case would be the employment, by early Arab Muslims, of Greek logical and theological constructs to defend the precepts of their faith against non-Muslim challenges to it and to develop their own Islamic theology. Berkey, The Formation of Islam, p. 92. Paper, a mid-eighth century importation from China, gave the Arabs a marvelous vehicle for disseminating their sacred text, the QurxÊn, widely and at a relatively modest cost. Would the QurxÊn have been so widely distributed in the medieval period had it not been for the availability of papermaking technology? Recall how reproduction of the Bible (and other books) increased signicantly after paper and printing were introduced in Europe. 43 Berkey notes, for example, that as late as the Fatimid period in Egypt (10th century CE), Muslims were chanting the QurxÊn in styles which imitated Christian chants. See The Formation of Islam, pp. 197–198. 41 42

18

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

The use of amulets, I would argue, falls into this nal category. Amulets were in wide use among the pre-Islamic Arabs and, like those employed by pagans elsewhere, their function was to gain the assistance of unseen forces to achieve certain desired outcomes over which supplicants had no other kind of power. Their subsequent employment by monotheists—Jews and Christians—continued a tradition of belief in their power that stretched back to the time of the ancient Egyptians. Rooted in the widely held notion that unseen powers inuenced the affairs of humanity and that those powers could, in turn, be inuenced by appropriate human actions, the wearing of amulets appears to have been one of those socio-cultural behaviors that transcended theologies and, in certain cases, even deed them. For the Arabs, the idea that such powers existed and that some people could exert inuence over them derived, in part, from the traditional belief, conrmed by the QurxÊn, of the ubiquitous presence of the jinn, and in part on the Neoplatonic idea of a network of ‘sympathies’ among all elements of the perceivable universe,44 which was adopted from late antique Hellenistic thinkers. Neoplatonists also introduced the idea of theurgy, the adjuration of divine power. Although not, strictly speaking, ‘magic,’ theurgy was understood to be a method of harnessing divine powers in a way that was acceptable, in the view of some—but not to Muslims.45 Muslims rejected the practice of theurgy apparently because it involved planetary powers, something Islamic theology held to be anathema. However, Islam did ultimately accept the use of ‘magic’ under rather strict conditions. Binding supernatural beings to human purposes was permitted as long as the goal was not to bring harm; this validated the use of amulets so long as they followed certain rules and incorporated specic religious formulae in their texts. This type of magic, {ilm al-simÒyÊx,46 or ‘white magic’ was carried out, in Islam, by practitioners who were regarded by members of the public as possessing the appropriate sanctity, skills, demeanor, and perhaps lineage to do so. Many of the people so recognized, in the Islamic period, were, like their predecessors of other religious persuasions, people of local note, recognized for their exceptional piety and personal reputations. The pagans had their oracles; the Christians their saints and seers; the Jews their kabbalists.47 It was to such people that some members of the public turned for assistance in bending divine will to their purposes or to invoke the aid of various other unseen forces. Islam produced its own strains of mystics. Some, like the earlier incarnations, received their bona des through a sort of popular acclamation.48 Their ‘holiness’ was never acknowledged ofcially by any organized religious body and their spheres of inuence tended to remain tightly circumscribed. A few won repute from a wider audience and an even smaller number came to be recognized as ‘saints’ by many, if not most, members of the Muslim community.49 It was 44 Touc Fahd, “La magie comme ‘source de la sagesse,’ d’après l’oeuvre d’al-Buni,” in Charmes et Sortilèges Magie et Magiciens, Rika Gyselen, ed., (Bures-sur-Yvette, 2002), p. 62. 45 Jewish mysticism, particularly, employed this practice. See Lesses, Ritual Practices to Gain Power, (Harrisburg, 1998), p. 56. 46 Touc Fahd, “La magie comme ‘source de la sagesse,’ ” pp. 62 & 63, and G.H.A. Juynboll, “Si˜r,” EI2, V. 9, p. 569. 47 See Lesses’ study, Ritual Practices to Gain Power, on early Jewish mystical practices, already cited above. 48 A phenomenon which can be found yet today in many parts of the Islamic world. For a recent study of this, see Helle Hinge, “Islamisk folkereligiøsitet,” Diwan 1 (1995), pp. 14–19. 49 Formal Islamic doctrine does not recognize “saints,” nor does it provide for the elevation of people to sainthood. Popular Islamic practice, however, has frequently conferred such status on select people and their tombs and graves punctuate the Islamic landscape to this day. The resting places of many such people have become pilgrim-

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

19

to such people that those desirous of gaining supernatural assistance would turn for special prayers and handwritten amulets that addressed their individual concerns. Organized Islamic mysticism appears within two centuries of the establishment of Islam.50 Already in the mid-eighth century CE, organized groups of ÉÖfÒs —those who wear wool—are found contemplating the nature of the individual’s relationship to Allah and devising means to achieve spiritual unity with the Deity. The development of such abilities took many years of study and devotion as well as indoctrination to secret knowledge, the gnosis that allowed one to open the path to spiritual union. Signicantly, this training was predicated on the ability to read and write, skills essentially lacking in the general population of the time. Sus, then, were also people to whom one could turn to solicit divine aid. Since such aid often included the composition of protective amulets, Sus, possessing the requisite esoteric knowledge and the ability to write, were the resource of rst resort when amulets were called for. By no means must we think that acceptance or approval of the use of amulets was immediate or universal among the Muslim Arabs, however. According to Islamic lore, the Prophet Muhammad himself had been a victim of enchantment and held sorcery to be an expression of evil.51 While the QurxÊn itself is silent on the matter, codied ˜adÒth declare that sorcerers were liable to be put to death for practicing their art.52 Over time, however, Islamic thinkers reasoned that both good and bad magic existed and that only the practice of bad magic—that used to bring about harm—was proscribed. The subject of magic was no small matter for the medieval Muslims. Scholars of the caliber of Ibn KhaldÖn and al-GhazÊlÒ thought it worthy of serious consideration and several centuries would pass before magical ‘work’ was acknowledged to have a certain validity. Two works of al-BÖnÒ (d. 1225 CE), Shams al-Ma{Êrif al-Kubrá and Miftʘ al-UÉÖl al-Æikma, went a long way toward establishing magic as a legitimate practice by making a convincing case that the QurxÊn was its foundation, and its practitioners, sages.53 Yet despite such an imprimatur, the esoteric nature of magic and the secretive habits of those who performed it meant that the entire enterprise perpetually trod on thin ice. Tolerance of the practice of ‘white,’ or “natural” magic ({ilm al-simÒyÊx ) by Muslims was a very wary tolerance, always bounded by suspicion and scrutinized with a skeptical eye. Those familiar with the arcane arts of acceptable magic, after all, were also privy to knowledge of its malevolent applications. The essential difference between good and bad magic was the purpose to which it was put. As Juynboll has succinctly stated it, The practice of this [i.e. ‘natural’] magic is tolerated insofar as it causes no harm to others. But when the magician inuences nature with the object of doing harm, he is exercising prohibited age destinations for generations of penitents. On visitations to such shrines, see the article “ZiyÊra,” EI2, V. 11, pp. 524–539, but particularly the rst section by J.W. Meri, “1. In the central and eastern Arab lands during the pre-modern period.” 50 The literature on ÉÖsm is extensive. Classic expositions on the topic include works by Reynold A. Nicholson, The Mystics of Islam, (London, 1966); J. Spencer Trimmingham, The Su Orders in Islam, (Oxford, 1971); and Julian Baldick, Mystical Islam, (New York, 1989), along with innumerable articles in the periodical literature and chapters in other works. See also B. Radtke, “TaÉawwuf: 1. Early development in the Arabic and Persian lands,” and W.C. Chittick, “2. Ibn al-{ArabÒ and after in the Arabic and Persian lands and beyond,” EI2, V. 10, pp. 313–324 and the sources cited there. 51 G.H.A. Juynboll, “Si˜r,” EI2, V. 9, p. 569. 52 G.H.A. Juynboll, “Si˜r,” EI2, V. 9, p. 569. ÆadÒth are the codied reports of the sayings and actions of Muhammad, based, according to Muslim belief, on rst-hand accounts of reliable witnesses to those utterances and events. They constitute the second most important basis of Islamic law, after the QurxÊn. 53 Touc Fahd, “La magie comme ‘source de la sagesse,’ ” pp. 61–63.

20

THE HISTORICO-RELIGIOUS CONTEXT OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

magic. This . . . implies recourse to demoniacal inspiration (black magic) and to the invocation of the planets (theurgy). It is by the awareness of the causal mechanism which rules nature and by penetrating the afnities which bind mankind and the cosmos closely together that the magician attempts to inuence the course of natural events, harnessing the forces emanating from the causality and relativity which he establishes between beings. This is why the magician’s art is no business for amateurs; an innate predisposition, rich and multifarious knowledge, and consummate skill in handling composition, conjunction, mixture and combinations are indispensable. To obtain his objective, the magician sets in motion two procedures aimed at constraining higher forces to place their efcacy at his disposal.54

This, then, is a part of the cultural context within which we should place the study of amulets in general and block printed amulets in particular. Amulets constitute the embodiment of the ‘magical’ practices outlined above. For those who believed in their efcacy, amulets served as sources and reminders of protective or helpful powers harnessed for a specic personal purpose. They were worn on one’s person so that the protective powers, the lines of cosmic sympathy, would always be woven about their object. Depending upon the desired outcome, the amulet was meant to protect the wearer from specic threats or dangers, or to assure the successful achievement of a specied goal. Put differently, the wearing of an amulet drew a veil of focused energy or power about the wearer; indeed, the Arabic term for amulets, ˜ijÊb,55 indicates just such a function. Finally, the creation and use of amulets had long been a feature of popular religious practice in the Near East. Their popularity transcended confessional, ethnic and linguistic boundaries and their employment continued over time, despite periodic attempts by clerics of the various religious establishments to control or even halt the practice. Like many other features of the religious and social landscapes of the time, amulets were subject to powerful syncretistic impulses that led to the development of amulets that were, if not acceptable to the several religious hierarchies, at least grudgingly tolerated as a necessary concession to those members of the communities who did not view the wearing of an amulet to be a violation of the precepts of their professed faith. More to the point, it is clear that Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and, ultimately, Islam, created spaces for these prophylactic devices within their theologies. In this context, block printed amulets comprise a subset of the much broader phenomenon of amulets. With regard to their purpose, it is likely that both handwritten and block printed amulets were created with the same ostensible intentions. What remains to be discovered is whether the people who composed handwritten amulets also crafted the block printed variety.

54 55

G.H.A. Juynboll, “Si˜r,” EI2, V. 9, pp. 569–570. J. Chelhod, “ÆidjÊb,” EI2, V. 3, p. 361.

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING As a locus of cultural synthesis in the pre-modern era, the Middle East has few, if any equals. The meeting and melding place of numerous societies over long spans of time, the region has served as both crucible and conduit for a variety of inventions and innovations—intellectual as well as material. One need only consider the numerous arenas of human thought to realize that advancements in philosophy, mathematics, medicine, literature, music, art or religion cannot properly be appreciated without giving careful consideration to their evolution in this part of the world where, among many other endeavors, abundant archaeological evidence speaks to continual—if occasionally erratic—advances in urban design and development, textiles, architecture, engineering, ceramics and glass production. Such synthetic processes seem to have been at work in the realm of printing as well, but awareness of the role played in the development of this craft by medieval Arabic speakers— and possibly its transmission to Europe—has long been limited to specialists in Arabic paleography and historians of printing. Even among such specialists, evidence for the existence of printing in the medieval Islamic world has long been treated either as—at best—an oddity, a curiosity, or—at worst—as so unlikely a concept that alternate explanations had to be found for the rare, puzzling textual references to it. Despite the existence of a considerable number of allusions—some tantalizingly vague, others admittedly dubious—to the practice of printing in the Arabic historical and literary record, no systematic investigations of the Arabic blockprinting phenomenon have materialized. The history of typography in the Middle East has received much greater attention and such studies have overshadowed the more modest investigations of earlier Middle Eastern printing techniques.1 Several Arabic texts written between the tenth and fourteenth centuries contain passages which can be understood as referring to a process which, I would argue, is block printing. Perhaps the earliest and certainly one of the more obscure and more suggestive passages of these appears in the Fihrist, a bio-bibliographic work composed in Baghdad at the end of the tenth century by Ibn al-NadÒm (d. 385/995 or 388/998) and constituting a catalog of books known (by its author) to have been written in Arabic up to his time.2 In chapter (maqÊlah) eight, devoted to magicians and sorcerers, Ibn al-NadÒm relates that he received a report about certain

1 A brief bibliography of books and articles on Arabic typography in the modern period would include: Josée Balagna, L’imprimerie arabe en occident (XVIe, XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles), (Paris, 1984); Wahid Gdoura, Le Début de l’Imprimerie Arabe à Istambul et en Syrie, Évolution de l’Environnement Culturel (1706–1787), (Tunis, 1985); Miroslav Krek, “The Enigma of the First Arabic Book Printed from Moveable Type,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 38:3 (1979), pp. 203–212; John A. Lane, R. Breugelmans & Jan Just Witkam, eds., The Arabic Type Specimen of Franciscus Raphelengius’s Plantinian Printing Ofce (1595), (Leiden, 1997); P.J. Nasrallah, L’Imprimerie au Liban, (Beirut, 1948); and Hendrik D.L. Vervliet, Cyrillic and Oriental Typography in Rome at the End of the Sixteenth Century, an inquiry into the later works of Robert Granjon, (Berkeley, 1981). Most recently, there is Huda Smitshuijzen AbiFarès, Arabic Typography: a comprehensive sourcebook, (London, 2001). An international symposium on printing in the Middle East was held in Mainz, Germany in 2002 as part of the First World Congress of Middle Eastern Studies. The proceedings, published under the title Sprachen des Nahen Ostens und die Druckrevolution/Middle Eastern Languages and the Print Revolution, (Westhofen, 2002), also contains useful articles on the history of Arabic printing and typography. 2 See J.W. Fück, “Ibn al-NadÒm,” EI2, Vol. 3, pp. 895–896.

22

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

magicians (sʘirÒn) in Egypt who had, among the tools of their trade, stamps (khawÊtim).3 Given the lack of any meaningful description of them, the precise nature of these stamps cannot be determined but in light of what we now know about medieval Arabic block printing, statements such as Ibn al-NadÒm’s may warrant closer scrutiny by present-day scholars. Roughly contemporary to Ibn al-NadÒm was Mis{ar ibn Muhalhil al-KhazrajÒ al-YanbÖ{Ò, known as AbÖ Dulaf (. ca. 952 CE).4 A poet familiar with an amorphous community of petty thieves, magicians, professional beggars and practitioners of the shady arts known collectively as the BanÖ SÊsÊn, AbÖ Dulaf composed a panegyric poem on that group. The text of the poem and a translation into English were published in a study of the BanÖ SÊsÊn by C.E. Bosworth.5 In his ‘QaÉÒdah SÊsÊnÒyah,’ AbÖ Dulaf, too, alludes to the production of amulets or charms that involves carving (˜ar) a matrix of some sort. He writes, “And of our number is the one who engraves a pattern [¢arsh] for mass-producing amulets, without shaping them individually and without smoothing them down.”6 These matrices—‘¢arshes’—were used to create the amulets. Again, however, AbÖ Dulaf does not reveal to us the precise nature of the ¢arshes,” and Bosworth’s gloss on the phrase “˜Êr al-¢arsh” provides little clarication: This is the person who hollows out moulds for making amulets, and then ignorant and illiterate people buy them from him. The vendor has kept back the matrix with the pattern engraved in it, and he then sells the amulets to the common people, letting them think that he has written them out individually himself. This mould or pattern is called a¢-¢arsh.7

Bosworth apparently misconstrued AbÖ Dulaf ’s meaning altogether, explaining that the poet was referring to the manufacture of an object—a charm, perhaps—something like a pendant or a piece of jewelry with some design inscribed on it. Bosworth’s use of the terms “mould” and “pattern” when referring to these amulets8 suggest that he had in mind designs rather than texts. That he also refers in the same sentence to amulets written out does little to clarify the matter, although his reference to “illiterate” customers indicates that he thought of the amulets as having textual features. However this may be, Bosworth makes no mention of that assumption in his study of the BanÖ SÊsÊn. Writing a little more than a decade after Bosworth, Richard Bulliet offers a re-evaluation of the poem in question. Taking issue with Bosworth’s interpretation of the passage cited above, he contends that the word ‘matrix’ (¢arsh) does not refer to some device for creating a “threedimensional object,”9 as Bosworth concludes, but rather to a printing block for mechanically 3 Ibn al-NadÒm, Mu˜ammad ibn Is˜aq, Fihrist li-Ibn al-NadÒm: dirÊsah biyÖjrÊfÒyah, bibliyÖghrÊfÒyah, bibliyÖmitrÒyah. Wa-ta˜qÒq wa-nashr Sha{bÊn KhalÒfah, WalÒd Mu˜ammad al-{Awzah, (QÊhirah, 1960–), Vol. 1, p. 623. 4 On this gure, see V. Minorsky, “AbÖ Dulaf,” EI2, Vol. 1, p. 116 and R.W. Bulliet, “AbÖ Dolaf al-YanbÖ{Ò,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, (London, 1982–), Vol. 1, pp. 271–272. For examinations of his relevant writings and his place in the history of Arabic printing, see Richard W. Bulliet, “Medieval Arabic ¢arsh: a Forgotten Chapter in the History of Arabic Printing,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 107 (1987), pp. 427–438. The passage is not unambiguous. The text of the manuscript as transcribed in Hammer-Purgstall’s notice differs signicantly from that published by C.E. Bosworth (See next note). 5 C.E. Bosworth has edited this and a later poem on the same topic in The Mediaeval Arabic Underworld: the BanÖ SÊsÊn in Arabic Literature and Society, (Leiden, 1976). References here and elsewhere in this work to these two poems are taken from Bosworth’s editions of them. See also Bosworth’s article “SÊsÊn” in EI2, Vol. 8, p. 70. 6 C.E. Bosworth, Mediaeval Islamic Underworld, pt. 2, p. 201. The translation is Bosworth’s. 7 C.E. Bosworth, Mediaeval Islamic Underworld, pt. 2, p. 201. 8 This line of reasoning has been proposed by Bulliet, “Medieval Arabic ¢arsh,” p. 430. 9 Bulliet, “Medieval Arabic ¢arsh,” p. 430. Strictly speaking, the paper text is a three-dimensional object and Bosworth’s explanation, cited above, does little to dispel the confusion.

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

23

reproducing the text of an amulet.10 One possible explanation for this misunderstanding is that Bosworth was unaware not only of the existence of Arab block printing but also of its potential for shedding light on the passage in question. Prior to the invention and widespread adoption of printing, texts were written by hand. A person wanting to reproduce a text copied it (or had it copied) by hand from an existing manuscript onto blank pages. Since there was little if any ‘quality control’ over this process, mistakes often crept in, some of which resulted from a badly produced ‘master copy.’ In other cases, the literary and calligraphic skills of the copyist—an ability to comprehend the material and to render it accurately—were at fault. Whatever the case, the copyist would make an attempt to understand the original meaning of a dubious passage and would insert into the new copy a more or less educated guess as to what the original text was. Over the course of years and centuries, these errors tended to be perpetuated and often compounded as successive copyists recopied the text from a variety of master copies. As a consequence, multiple variants of an original text came into being, some so corrupted as to be unintelligible. Examples of such textual variations are frequently encountered by scholars involved in the study of ancient writings and are too numerous to mention. They present one of the most daunting challenges to the literary scholarship of any pre-modern era or culture. This, apparently, is what has occurred with AbÖ Dulaf ’s text. Moreover, in this particular case, the obscurity of the passage is no doubt related—in some degree—to the fact that there was little broad awareness of the existence of block printing among medieval Arab copyists, and certainly even less among those of later ages when the craft seems to have fallen into desuetude. One must also take into account the fact that AbÖ Dulaf ’s poem is replete with the cant and jargon particular to the demi monde of tenth century Iraq and Persia. The exact meanings of many of the words used by that group of people in that time have been lost and cannot always be reconstructed with certainty. With no knowledge of block printing to guide them, copyists were prone to misinterpret a passage referring to an activity they knew little or nothing about and thus ran the risk of misrepresenting that activity in the copies of the texts they were writing. If AbÖ Dulaf ’s account of carving matrices were unique, one might assume the necessity for nding an alternative explanation for the text in question. In other words, if there were only one obscure or corrupted historical text in the entire Arabic corpus that contained a passage that might be interpreted as referring to block printing, then solutions to the problematic wording that ignored such a possibility could be entertained. However, additional puzzling references have been encountered in Arabic writings of this and later periods. In fact, over the past century and a half, scholars have noted several such references, in addition to those mentioned above. This being the case, and in view of the incontrovertible evidence presented by the block prints themselves, we must consider the possibility that such texts are, in fact, describing block printing. Within two centuries of AbÖ Dulaf ’s poem, two further references to block printing occur at opposite ends of the Islamic realms. One passage quite unambiguously relates directly to one of the more fascinating episodes in the history of Ilkhanid Persia.11 The Ál KhÊns, a dynasty descended from the great Mongol KhÊn Chingiz (Genghis), established political control over 10 11

Bulliet, “Medieval Arabic ¢arsh,” p. 430. On the Ilkhanid dynasty, see B. Spuler, “IlkhÊns,” EI2, Vol. 3, pp. 1120–1122.

24

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

Persia, Iraq and eastern Anatolia in the middle of the thirteenth century. In 1294 CE (693 AH), GaykhÊtÖ, the great-grandson of Chingiz, found his realm in severe nancial straits: due to his and his predecessors’ excesses, and to his own lack of nancial acuity, the Persian state treasury had been emptied. Consequently, not only was GaykhÊtÖ’s hold on the throne placed in serious jeopardy, but GaykhÊtÖ had appointed as his vizier Âadr al-DÒn, who apparently also had an unfortunate talent for nancial mismanagement.12 In an attempt to salvage the realm’s crumbling economy, the two men decided to issue paper money in the form of scrip called ch’ao, a term borrowed directly from the Chinese, who had been using paper money since at least the thirteenth century. As head of the state chancellery, Âadr al-DÒn had the task of producing and placing the paper money into circulation; in July 1294, in the city of Tabriz, the use of metal coins and, indeed, precious metal in any form, was outlawed and this paper currency was introduced in its place. The signicance of this event for the present study is that Âadr al-DÒn’s paper currency was printed; indeed, RashÒd al-DÒn’s account clearly speaks of an apparatus (ÊlÊt) used to produce the currency.13 The value of each denomination was printed in the center of a rectangular piece of paper; each bill had a decorative border of Chinese characters and bore the impression, in red ink, of the imperial seal as a sign of the currency’s authenticity.14 Although people who refused to accept the paper money were threatened with execution, merchants and others refused to employ the currency as a medium of exchange. In the face of both passive and active resistance by the general populace, the government was forced, after a very short time, to withdraw it. Not only did Âadr al-DÒn apparently pay for this failed scal experiment with his life, but the paper money was so thoroughly eliminated from circulation that not a single example is known to have survived.15 Knowledge of block printing among medieval Arabic speakers was not restricted to the eastern Mediterranean, although, given the dates of the texts in which the putative allusions to printing occur, one could argue that some time elapsed between its appearance in Egypt and its manifestation in other parts of the medieval Islamic world. A treatise by one Ibn al-AbbÊr (1199–1260),16 a historian and poet who served various rulers in Islamic Spain and North 12 For a detailed, and much more eloquent account of this event, see Karl Jahn, “Das Iranische Papiergeld: ein Beitrag zur Kultur- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte IrÊn’s in der Mongolzeit,” Archiv Orientálni X (1938), pp. 308–340. A revised English translation appears in the Journal of Asian History 4 (1970), pp. 101–135, under the title, “Paper currency in Iran: A contribution to the cultural and economic history of Iran in the Mongol Period.” The original article is supplemented by the appropriate passages in Farsi taken from the relevant historical works of VassÊf (TaxrÒkh-i-VassÊf ) and RashÒd al-DÒn ( JÊmi{ al-TawÊrÒkh), two historians of the period. On VassÊf, see P. Jackson, “WassÊf,” EI2, Vol. 11, p. 174; on RashÒd al-DÒn, see D.O. Morgan, “RashÒd al-DÒn ”abÒb,” EI2, Vol. 8, pp. 443–444 and the sources noted in the bibliographies of these two articles. 13 See Jahn, “Das iranische Papiergeld,” p. 328, note 1. 14 Jahn, “Paper currency in Iran,” pp. 126–127. The great seal was known as the “¹l.” 15 Jahn notes (“Paper currency in Iran,” p. 135) that not even the word “chxÊo” survives in Persian. Paper currency had already been in use in China for some two centuries prior to this event and, from all accounts, it was quite successful there. Marco Polo, perhaps most famously, mentions its broad circulation. For more details on Chinese paper currency, see Thomas Francis Carter, The Invention of Printing in China and its Spread Westward. 2nd ed. Rev. by L. Carrington Goodrich, (New York, 1955) and the sources cited there. 16 KitÊb al-Æulla al-SiyarÊx has appeared in several editions. It is a biographical work on poets. For further information on the work and on its author, see M. Ben Cheneb, “Ibn al-AbbÊr,” EI2, Vol. 3, p. 673. I have consulted the critical edition by Hussain Monés (2nd ed., Cairo, 1984) for the present work. The pertinent passage about printing cited by Joseph Hammer-Purgstall in “Sur un passage curieux de l’Ihathet, sur l’art d’imprimer chez les Arabes en Espagne,” ( Journal Asiatique, 4e. serie, tome 20, p. 255) is taken from the partial edition of the same work by R. Dozy, Notices sur quelques manuscrits arabes, (Leiden, 1847–51).

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

25

Africa, alludes to printing activity. In al-Æulla al-SiyarÊx, under a biographical entry for one Badr ibn A˜mad al-KhaÉÉÒ, the text states:17 He [al-KhaÉÉÒ] was a slave of the Emir {Abd AllÊh who manumitted him and put him in charge of the royal lands. Then al-NÊÉir appointed him to the vizerate, the ofce of gatekeeper, the leadership [council?=qiyÊdah], the horses and the posts. He was without equal in the provinces. The ofcial edicts were written in his house. Then he sent them to be printed (lil-¢ab{). Once they were printed they were returned to him and he sent them to the governors who executed them by his authority.

A little more than a century later, and near the eastern end of the Arab Islamic realms, yet another possible reference to printing among the Arabs appears, written by ÂafÒ al-DÒn al-ÆillÒ (1278–1348? CE). One of the most renowned Arab poets of the fourteenth century,18 his DÒwÊn contains a seventy-ve line poem written in the argot of the BanÖ SÊsÊn (see above), one line of which refers to the creation of amulets by carving or molding:19 And in making moulds for lead in casting amulets and charms (or: in making moulds from tin for turning out amulets and charms?), how often has my hand written on the mould in the script of Syriac and then that of phylactery-writing (sc. in Hebrew)!

Finally, what may be the most intriguing—yet tenuous—allusion to printing activity in the medieval Islamic world occurs in the account of one {Abd al-Ra˜Òm al-JawbarÒ,20 a thirteenth century dervish, alchemist and traveler who, like the two Iraqi poets introduced earlier, was also familiar with the BanÖ SÊsÊn. Sometime between 1232 and 1248, at the behest of his patron, the ruler of an area in what is today southeastern Turkey, al-JawbarÒ recounted21 the various ruses employed at that time by some of the shadier elements of society against the gullible and unsuspecting. In this book, he relates a very intriguing episode which, while not explicitly describing printing, points to a possible use of printing by one segment of the populace. Al-Jawbar writes that he once encountered someone claiming to be an itinerant holy man. Preaching on a street corner to a sizeable audience, this man proclaimed that he had a special connection with Allah. To prove that he could intercede on behalf of his listeners and that his intercession would be heard by Allah, he distributed to the assembly small pieces of paper upon which was written in musk and rose water the most powerful name of Allah. He then gathered up these pieces of paper and, holding them in his hands, he intoned a prayer over them; then as he opened his palms, the pieces of paper rose skyward, bursting into ames. This, said the holy man to the enthralled group, was proof that the prayers had found favor

17 Æulla al-SiyarÊx, v. 1, pp. 252–253. This edition lists al-KhaÉÉÒ under entry number 97. The translation given here is mine. An alternate translation may be found in H.A. Avakian, “Islam and the Art of Printing,” in Uit Bibliotheektuin en Informatieveld, (Utrecht, 1978), p. 259. 18 See W.P. Heinrichs, “ÂafÒ al-DÒn al-ÆillÒ,” EI2, Vol. 8, pp. 801–805. On the poem under discussion here, see especially p. 803, col. 1. 19 This translation is from C.E. Bosworth, Mediaeval Islamic Underworld, pt. 2 p. 298, line 39. The Arabic text appears on p. 49 of Part 2 of that work. The parentheses in the quote are Bosworth’s commentary. N.B. The abbreviation ‘sc.’ in parentheses, for those readers of the post- ibid., idem, op. cit. generation, means ‘to be permitted to know’ (Random House Unabridged Dictionary (2nd ed.)), a contraction—‘scilicet’—from Latin scire licet. 20 On al-JawbarÒ and his work, see S. Wild, “al-DjawbarÒ, {Abd al-Ra˜Òm,” EI2, Vol. 2, p. 250. 21 {Abd al-Rahman al-Djawbari, Le Voile Arrache: l-autre visage de l’Islam. v. II. Traduction integrale sur les manuscrits originaux par René R. Khawam, (Paris: Éditions Phebus, 1980). I have also consulted another edition of this work: {Abd al-Ra˜Òm [sic] al-JawbarÒ, al-MuªtÊr f Kashf al-AsrÊr wa-Hatk al-AstÊr. Edited by {IÉÊm ShabÊrÖ, (Beirut, 1992).

26

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

with Allah. The people immediately rushed forward to purchase great numbers of the remaining copies of the prayer. Although the account differs slightly in the two versions of the text I have read,22 the point I want to make here is that this seems to me to be a most appropriate occasion to use printed texts. On the one hand, the production of large numbers of handwritten copies of talismans seems to be too laborious an undertaking for something that was intended to be destroyed, at least in part. On the other, mechanical reproduction of a large number of simple texts like the ones described by al-JawbarÒ makes such an undertaking almost efcient, even by modern standards. Moreover, the fact that the story concerns a member of the BanÖ SÊsÊn, a group known to be associated with block printing activity, makes such a conclusion very tempting. The passages cited above do not, I am certain, constitute an exhaustive rehearsal of all the medieval Arabic texts that allude to printing; indeed, they may very well refer to other activities as yet unidentied. However this may be, one conclusion seems unavoidable. Most of the texts came to the attention of scholars in part because of their puzzling, obscure references to an activity that appears to have been imperfectly understood by the people who copied the manuscripts in which the passages appear. Taken at face value, it would be very difcult to determine what the original texts were. Only by conducting a thorough comparative analysis of each of the surviving works in question would it be possible to propose correct readings. In the event, the strongest evidence arguing for an interpretation of these passages as referring to block printing comes from outside the texts, from the small but not insignicant number of block printed medieval Arabic amulets now residing in private and institutional collections in this hemisphere and elsewhere. If one takes these amulets into account, then one must, at the very least, reconsider the murky texts in their light. The dawning of modern awareness about Arabic block printing came about quite gradually. Until well into the nineteenth century, it was a widely acknowledged fact—in the West at any rate—that printing with moveable type, or typography, was a European invention. The historical record was clear: the genealogy of the idea could be traced to its roots in Mainz, Germany and the fruit of that idea was to be found in libraries, booksellers’ shops, homes, and churches across the continent. Only after Europeans began to study the cultural production of other areas of the world did they begin to develop an appreciation of those peoples’ contributions to technical and scientic progress. The Chinese were among the rst to be recognized for their invention of paper, gunpowder and the like. The role of the Islamic lands in the transmission and development of these and other technologies took longer to be revealed, no doubt due—at least in part—to the European perception of the Islamic world at that time as backward or, at best, decadent. Given the absence of knowledge in the rst half of the nineteenth century about medieval printed Arabic artifacts, skepticism regarding the existence of printing among Arabs of that time was understandable. However, in 1852, Joseph Hammer-Purgstall (1774–1856)23 wrote Al-Djawbari, Le Voile Arrache, pp. 219–222. A slightly different account is found in the Beirut edition: al-JawbarÒ, al-MuªtÊr f Kashf al-AsrÊr, pp. 142–143. The rst version has the papers rising into the air and bursting into ame; the Beirut edition says only that they rose into the air until they were out of sight. 23 Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph, “Sur un passage curieux de l’Ithathet, sur l’art d’imprimer chez les Arabes en Espagne,” Journal Asiatique 4. Serie, Tome 20 (Aout–Septembre 1852), pp. 252–255. Hammer-Purgstall is perhaps best known as the translator of the Diwan of the Persian poet Haz used by Goethe (1812) in composing his “Westöstlicher Diwan.” See “Hammer-Purgstall,” Der Grosse Brockhaus, vol. 5, (Wiesbaden, 1954), p. 255. 22

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

27

a brief note regarding passages from two Andalusian Arabic manuscripts, one from the thirteenth and one from the fourteenth centuries, which appear to allude to printing.24 Even taking into account some uncertainty about the reading of one particular word in the relevant passage of al-I˜Ê¢ah, the later work, Hammer-Purgstall concludes from the available evidence that some sort of printing in Arabic was being done in the medieval period. To underscore the validity of such a conclusion, Hammer-Purgstall reproduces an impression from a wood block bearing the name of the town of Almería and the date 750 AH (i.e. 1349–1350 CE).25 Judging from the text it bears, the stamp was the property of the city’s customs administration and may have been used to mark goods brought into the market or to validate ofcial documents, or perhaps both. Another forty years then elapsed before the issue of Arab block printing was again treated in the scholarly literature. This was apparently a sufcient span of time for block printing to be considered once more a novelty. In 1890, Josef Karabacek (1845–1918), at that time Director of the Hofbibliothek in Vienna, published an article based on his research into a collection of Arabic and papyrus documents that had been assembled by the library over the previous decade.26 While devoted primarily to a discussion of the importance of Egyptian paper for what it revealed about the history of linen paper production, Karabacek includes a substantial section about a block printed Arabic amulet he discovered among the contents of the collection. The rst shipment of papyri, paper documents, and fragments from Egypt arrived at the Kaiserliche Königliche Österreichische Museum für Kunst und Industrie in Vienna in 1881.27 This and further consignments, arriving in Vienna at intervals over the next several years, were made available to the museum by a Viennese merchant with business connections in Egypt.28 24 “Al-Æulla al-SiyarÊx ’’ by Mu˜ammad ibn {Abd AllÊh ibn al-AbbÊr (1199–1260), already discussed above, and KitÊb al-I˜Ê¢ah f AkhbÊr arnÊ¢ah by Mu˜ammad ibn {Abd AllÊh Ibn al-›a¢Òb (1313–1374). Hammer-Purgstall (loc. cit., p. 255), in what may be a typographical error, mistakenly identies the author of the rst work as Ibn al-AttÊr. A. Geiss commits the same error of identication in his 1909 article (see below). R. Dozy had edited and published a part of Æulla al-SiyarÊx in Notices sur quelques manuscrits arabes (Leiden, 1847–51) and it is this work to which HammerPurgstall is referring. 25 The text reads: “”Êbi{ QaysarÒyat al-MarÒyah {Êm ªamsÒn wa-sab{mÒyah” [Transliteration mine]. HammerPurgstall, Passage curieux, p. 254. Another possibility is that the stamp indicated receipt of payment of the city’s impost or duty on goods. 26 “Neue Entdeckungen zur Geschichte des Papieres und Druckes,” Oesterreichische Monatsschrift für den Orient 11/12 (Nov.–Dec. 1890), pp. 161–170. 27 Today called the Museum für angewandte Kunst. The block prints are now housed in the Papyrussammlung of the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek (ÖNB). The material in the ÖNB collection came to Europe over a period of time. Some of the material, according to Adolf Grohmann (Allgemeine Einführung in die arabischen Papyri nebst Grundzügen der arabischen Diplomatik, Wien, 1924, p. 7), was already in Berlin in 1879. Other elements were purchased with funds provided by Erzherzog Rainer (1827–1913), whose interest in and support of scientic inquiry won him honorary membership in the Austrian Imperial Academy of Sciences in 1861 (see Mitteilungen aus der Papyrsussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek (Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer), Neue Serie, Folge 7, (Wien, 1962) which also bears the monographic title Aus der Vorgeschichte der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Briefe Theodor Grafs, Josef von Karabaceks, Erzherzog Rainers und anderer. Herbert Hunger, editor, (Vienna, 1962), p. 58, note 49). Hereinafter cited as AVPÖN. 28 Otto Theodor Graf (1840–1903) was a merchant with business interests in Egypt. He also acted as a dealer in antiquities, primarily textiles. As a result of these Egyptian contacts, he was able to purchase numerous examples of ancient textiles, as well as documents and literary fragments in Greek, Coptic and Arabic, which he sent back to R.R. von Eitelberger, the Director of the Österreichische Museum für Kunst und Industrie. For a detailed account of the development of the collection, see Adolf Grohmann, Allgemeine Einführung in die arabischen Papyri nebst Grundzügen der arabischen Diplomatik, (Wien, 1924). Much of the history of the early development of the Papyrus collection is also recorded in a series of letters exchanged between Graf, Karabacek, Rainer and others. A selection of these letters has been published in the AVPÖN.

28

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

Karabacek, who had been studying the acquisitions since 1882, was given responsibility for the Arabic materials in these shipments and his early interest in them focused on their value for a better understanding of paper manufacture in the Arab world.29 Adolf Grohmann30 says that most of the Arabic paper and papyri in the collections came from the excavation of “kÖm” (pl. kÒmÊn), or rubbish heaps, outside the villages of the Fayyum and were unearthed by farmers who sought to exploit the nutrient-rich material of these middens as fertilizer for their elds. The medieval Arabic paper, which constituted the uppermost (i.e. chronologically the most recent) layers of the kÖms, would have been the rst to be unearthed. Some of the excavators may have been aware of the value being placed on old documents by Europeans, who, in the nineteenth century, were wandering the Middle East in sizeable numbers. The farmers may have sought to augment their agricultural incomes through the sale of these items to interested Europeans.31 In 1883, Erzherzog Rainer provided funding for an endowment that allowed the Austrian Museum for Art and Industry to house and catalogue the papyri.32 The material now had an institutional home, as well as the resources necessary for its proper study and classication. In January 1885, Karabacek presented a lecture on the Fayyum paper in the Oriental Museum in Vienna and, over the course of the next ve years, he published a series of articles on his observations.33 At some point, now impossible to determine with any precision, Karabacek noticed that several of the items appeared to bear printed text. Closer examination conrmed this suspicion. In an 1890 article, his excitement at this discovery is evident, yet he also sounds somewhat chagrined that the import of his discovery is lost on many people, particularly the French and the Americans, who totally misapprehended the event.34 No doubt due to the 29 Adolf Grohmann, in his Allgemeine Einführung, presents a highly detailed account of Karabacek’s work on the Arabic materials in what came to be known as the Erzherzog Rainer Collection. See pages 5–14 especially, and the extensive annotations thereto. 30 Adolf Grohmann, From the World of Arabic Papyri, (Cairo, 1952), p. 8. 31 In an earlier publication on Arabic block printing (“The Scheide Tarsh,” Princeton University Library Chronicle (Spring 1995)), I stated that many of these artifacts were brought to light as a result of archaeological work carried out in Egypt. This statement was in error. I misinterpreted Thomas F. Carter’s (Invention of Printing, p. 176) assertion to wit: About the year 1880 excavations in the region of El-Fayyum in Egypt, near the ruins of the ancient city of Crocodilopolis or Arsinoë, brought to light great masses of documents. Whether they belonged to refuse heaps or to archives of an earlier age does not seem to be altogether clear. From this nd more than a hundred thousand sheets and fragments of papyrus, parchment, and paper have been brought to Vienna and now constitute the Erzherzog Rainer Collection in the Austrian National Library. to refer to an archaeological excavation when, in fact, this was not the case, as Carter’s recounting of the events shows. 32 See AVPÖN, p. 54 ff. The term “papyri” is used in this section to refer to the documentary material obtained by the museum through the ofces of Herr Graf. However, both papyrus and paper artifacts were included in the shipments. Today, the Austrian National Library, the present owner of the collection, houses these materials in a unit called the “Papyrussammlung,” although both paper and papyrus artifacts are to be found there. In this section of the chapter, the term “papyri” is used to refer to both paper and papyrus objects, reecting the generic usage employed by the early writers surveyed here. 33 Cited in Julius Wiesner, “Mikroskopische Untersuchung der Papiere von el-Faijum,” Oesterreichische Monatschrift für den Orient 9 (Sept. 1886), p. 159, note 1. According to Wiesner, Karabacek’s rst article appeared in the Monatsschrift in 1885. Karabacek wrote another three articles on the importance of the Fayyum paper for the history of papermaking: “Das arabische Papier,” Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer 2/3 (1887), pp. 87–178; “Neue Quellen zur Papiergeschichte,” Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer 4 (1888), pp. 75–122; and “Neue Entdeckungen sur Geschichte des Papieres und Druckes,” Oesterreichische Monatsschrift für den Orient 11/12 (Nov.–Dec. 1890), pp. 161–176. 34 Karabacek, “Neue Entedckungen,” pp. 167–168. Some French and American journals apparently had garbled the news of Karabacek’s ndings and were reporting that what had been discovered were examples of printing

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

29

implications of this discovery for printing history, nineteen examples of block printing were included in the 1894 exhibition of paper artifacts mounted at Vienna’s Austrian Museum of Art and Industry.35 Karabacek wrote the section describing them, and it is he to whom credit is given for uncovering this incontrovertible evidence that medieval Arabs were engaged in block printing. In 1886, the papyrus collection had been moved to the apartment of the founder and recently deceased director of the Museum, Rudolf R. von Eitelberger (1817–1885).36 This site, on one of the upper oors of the museum building, was employed as a repository, conservation laboratory and study center for the papers. In the early 1890’s, the rooms were renovated and re-decorated in preparation for the 1894 exhibition. A representative sample of about one thousand documents was selected for display in glass-covered cases arranged throughout the apartment’s six rooms.37 A catalogue was compiled and printed and, on February 16th of that year, the exhibition opened its doors. For the rst time in ve centuries, Arabic block printing was on display. The catalogue descriptions of the block prints extend to a mere four pages (247–250), including one plate depicting item number 946 (now A.Ch. 12.150). Seventeen of the pieces (929–945) are described collectively under a single heading; the remaining two, numbers 946 and 948, are given separate entries and contain both detailed technical descriptions and German translations of the texts. Whatever potential benet this treatment and this exposure might have had for broader, deeper studies of medieval Arabic block printing, that promise appears to have been stillborn. While Karabacek provides a practical model for descriptions of both physical object and text, and perhaps even for investigations into the social location of the amulets, such a project has done with moveable type on papyrus and dating to the time of the Pharaohs! It is interesting to note that mention of the block printed materials appears some eight years after his work on the Fayyum paper began, reecting his more immediate interest in the papyrological aspects of the collection. 35 See Vienna. Austrian National Library. Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer. Führer durch die Ausstellung, (Wien, 1894), pp. 247–250. See also, Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien. Philosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften, 94. Band, I. Abhandlung, (Forschungen zur Islamischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte, Band I), Adolf Grohmann, “Arabische Paläographie, 1. Teil,” (Wien, 1967). Plate XVI: 1 is a photograph of PERF 946 (= A.Ch. 12.150, the current accession number), apparently an accession number of the same vintage as those assigned to the pieces in the exhibition). I have been able to correlate most of the identifying numbers given in the Führer with the current numbers. See the handlist at the end of this volume for a list of them and references to other publications in which they may be found. The problem of determining the exact number of Arabic block prints held by the Papyrussammlung of the ÖNB has yet to be resolved. I have slides of twenty-one Arabic block prints from the Papyrussammlung, so the “nineteen” of Karabacek’s Führer obviously refers to a selection from the total number of Arabic block prints known to exist in the collection. That there were more than nineteen block prints is indicated by Karabacek himself in his 1890 article (“Neue Entdeckungen zur Geschichte des Papieres und Druckes”) in the Oesterreichische Monatsschrift für den Orient (11/12, Nov.–Dec. 1890) where he states (p. 167) that there were no fewer than thirty-two Arabic block prints in the collection. This same number is given in a letter from Karabacek to Erzherzog Rainer, dated July 26, 1890, in which the author makes mention of thirty-two “Drucke.” Although the letter concerns the purchase of some Hebrew texts, it is clear from the context that the comment refers to Arabic materials already in the collection. (AVPÖN, p. 95, letter no. 68: “Karabacek an Erzherzog Rainer.”) T.F. Carter, in his The Invention of Printing in China and its Spread Westward (2nd ed., New York, 1955, p. 176), states that “. . . the collection contains some fty fragments of block printing . . .” M. Krek (“Arabic Block Printing as the Precursor of Printing in Europe,” ARCE Newsletter 129 (1985)) avers that Karabacek discovered “two dozen” (p. 12) block prints among the thousands of documents comprising the Rainer Collection. Later in the same article (p. 16, note 1) he says that he found six block prints “among six thousand uncatalogued manuscript scraps . . .” It is quite possible, therefore, that undiscovered examples exist in the collection. 36 A. Grohman, Allgemeine Einführung, p. 6. This “Dienstwohnung” was apparently one of the perquisites of the directorship. 37 Grohmann, Allgemeine Einführung, p. 6.

30

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

not, until now, been undertaken. What impression those artifacts in the Viennese exhibition had on their viewers is difcult to ascertain. Did the amulets draw about their display cases a disbelieving crush of people murmuring in amazement, or were they passed over, their signicance discounted because they lacked the impressive scale or visual magnicence of some of the other items on display? Maybe their impact was diminished by the sheer number of items in the exhibition, or perhaps they were regarded, as the earlier discoveries of Arabic block prints seem to have been, as curiosities, briey noted and soon forgotten. Most certainly, a fourpage treatment in a three hundred-page volume did little to emphasize the cultural or historical importance of the block prints. What is fairly apparent from subsequent writings about Arabic block printing is that any broad awareness of its existence, if it ever came into being as a result of the exhibition, evaporated rather quickly. In all fairness to Karabacek, the block prints were not the primary focus of his interest. Throughout his publications on the Rainer collection, as his introduction to the 1894 exhibition catalogue particularly makes clear,38 he saw the collection’s vast trove of papyrus and paper samples, whose manufacture spanned some 2700 years, to be an unmatched resource for the study of papyrus and papermaking in Egypt. While the texts that the papers bore were of great importance in many instances, he was interested primarily in the medium; the messages he was content to leave to specialists in those areas. Perhaps for all these reasons, as well as others, scholarly interest in the block prints seems to have faded even before it sparked. In 1907 and 1908, nearly three decades after the Vienna exhibition, the Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien published a pair of articles by Albert Geiss on the history of printing in Egypt.39 These pieces trace the arrival in Egypt in 1798 of two Frenchmen, Jean-Joseph Marcel and JosephEmmanuel Marc Aurel, both members of the famous Commission Scientique which accompanied Napoleon’s army on its ill-starred “Expédition d’Égypte.” Messrs. Aurel and Marcel were responsible for setting up a printing operation whose purpose was to produce journals in which the reports and discoveries of the French scientists would be published. In addition, the printers would provide the army with posters, broadsides, proclamations and the like in both French and Arabic. Geiss contends that this activity led to the foundation of the Arabic printing enterprise in Egypt, in particular the National Press of Egypt. What is immediately obvious to a reader of these two articles is the author’s focus on the practice of printing with moveable type, the invention of which he attributes to Johannes Gutenberg (ca. 1400–1468). Given this narrow view of the concept of printing, it is perhaps acceptable to argue, as Geiss does, that the two French citizens are “. . . the rst pioneers of printing in the land of the Pharaohs.”40 There is, indeed, no evidence that printing with moveable type was being done in Egypt before the French arrived at the end of the eighteenth century and Geiss is probably justied in claiming that the French were responsible for the introduction of typography to that country. However, if one denes printing as the mechanical reproduction of text by whatever means, then such a statement is rather misleading. Certainly what the medieval Arabs were engaged in with block printing was the reproduction of texts Karabacek, Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer. Führer durch die Ausstellung, pp. xii–xxiii. Albert Geiss, “Histoire de l’imprimerie en Égypte,” Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien 5th ser.: 1 (1907), pp. 133–157; “Histoire de l’imprimerie en Égypte,” Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien 5th ser.: 2 (1908), pp. 195–220. I have already referred to Geiss’s articles in the introduction (see pp. 4–5). 40 Geiss, “Histoire de l’imprimerie en Égypte,” (1907), p. 134: “Deux Français . . . se partagent l’honneur d’avoir été les premiers pionniers de l’Imprimerie au pays des Pharaons.” Translation mine. 38 39

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

31

through a mechanical process, a technology in which typography—the reproduction of text using moveable type—was only a later step in printing’s evolution. In any case, the impression one is left with after reading Geiss’s treatise is that no other method of printing existed in Egypt prior to the arrival of the French army at the end of the eighteenth century. As the block prints discovered in the Fayyum and elsewhere in Egypt make obvious, this was not the case. In 1909, Federico Bonola Bey,41 writing in the same journal as Geiss on the origins of Arabic printing in Europe,42 mentions in passing that his friend Bernhard Moritz, Director of the Bibliothèque Khédiviale,43 has told him that within the collections of that institution are six amuletic “planchettes” dating to the Fatimid period. These objects, he says, are not only rare, but also constitute evidence of an activity conducted by Arabs that, for a very long time, was thought to have been a European art.44 Again, however, the main focus of the article is directed elsewhere, namely on the early history of printing Arabic characters with moveable type in Europe. The existence of some sort of printing activity in the pre-modern lands of the Middle East is accorded a perfunctory glance and the matter is then, once again, dropped. Why this should be is unclear, but one has the impression that the matter is closely tied to the perception of Arab civilization at that time as technologically primitive. Although such a sentiment may not have been widely held, it certainly seems to have had an impact on research in the eld. In a brief notice45 appearing directly after the article by Bonola Bey, Messr. Geiss picks up on the mention of the six “planchettes.” He recalls the 1852 Journal Asiatique article by HammerPurgstall that discussed certain textual and artefactual evidence of block printing in Islamic Spain. However, rather than adducing Hammer-Purgstall’s ndings to support Bonola Bey’s account of additional proof of printing activity among the Arabs, Geiss seeks to discount it by taking issue with Bonola Bey’s translation of the Arabic word “¢aba{a” as meaning “to print.” Arguing that the word also can mean “to impress,” he asserts that this latter denition offers a much more appropriate understanding of the word, given that the printing block in question was used to mark textiles. There is no indication in the original article, nor in the Arabic text discussed there, that such a conclusion is warranted. In fact, the word ‘book’ (Ar. kitÊb) is specically used in conjunction with the word for printing. But for Messr. Geiss, who further suggests that the Arabic text in which the reference to printing is found (al-I˜Ê¢ah) was “probably” speculative rather than descriptive, this point is moot. In any case, he says, it is impossible for the Arabs, even those in Spain, to have known of Gutenberg’s invention.46 But this is really beside the point. The 41 Federico Bonola (b. 1839) was an Italian geographer and author. He served as secretary general of the Khedival Geographical Society in Egypt in the 1890s and was instrumental in founding the Ethnographic Museum in Cairo (1894). See “Bonola (Federico),” Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada Europeo-Americana, tome IX, (Madrid, [1935]), p. 42. 42 F. Bonola Bey, “Note sur l’Origine de l’Imprimerie Arabe en Europe,” Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien 5:3 (1909), pp. 74–80. 43 Today known as the DÊr al-Kutub. See www.darelkotob.org/ENGLISH/HTM/LIBRARY/PAPYRES. HTM. On Bernhard Moritz, see “Moritz (Bernardo),” Enciclopedia Universal Ilustrada Europeo-Americana, tome XXXVI, (Madrid, [1935]), p. 1112. 44 F. Bonola Bey, “Histoire de l’imprimerie,” p. 77. “Ce sont de priers, des talismanes trouvés dans des objets appartenant à cette période de l’histoire arabe. Deux d’entre’eux sont parfaitement conserves, les autres plus ou moins abîmes. Je vous invite à aller les voir, car on regarde toujours avec emotion les reliques très rares d’un art que nous croyions, à une époque si lointaine, réservé à la civilization européene.” 45 A. Geiss, “Observations de M. Geiss a la suite de la note de M. Bonola Bey,” Bulletin de l’Institut égyptien 5:3 (1909), pp. 81–84. 46 “De tout ceci il appert, à mon humble avis, que le passage de l’Ihathet ‘et c’est un livre par son contenu’

32

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

question is not whether the Arabs knew of moveable type printing during Gutenberg’s lifetime, but rather whether they were block printing texts before Gutenberg. Geiss’s incredulity notwithstanding, the evidence for that activity was mounting, however slowly. Another fteen years would pass before the subject of Arabic block printing would again be addressed in the scholarly literature. The gauntlet was taken up in the 1920s by two scholars—one European, one American—who signicantly advanced scholarship on Arabic block printing. Thomas Francis Carter was the rst modern scholar to undertake an extensive investigation into the historical and cultural connections between printing in Asia and Europe. A graduate of Princeton University and Union Theological Seminary, Carter was, at the time of his death in 1925, head of the Chinese Department of Columbia University.47 He had spent a dozen years in China as a missionary and educator and it was during this sojourn that he learned uent Chinese, at the same time developing a keen interest in Chinese history and culture.48 But it was a leisurely tour through Europe on his way home that provided him with a more precise intellectual focus. Stopping in Munich, he met with Friedrich Hirth (1845–1927), who also had taught Chinese at Columbia and had recently retired. Hirth apparently sensed in Carter the qualities required of someone who could pursue the study of the history of printing fruitfully. According to Dagny Carter, Thomas’s wife, Hirth felt that Carter possessed “the languages needed for the research and the patience and ability to put the scattered pieces of evidence together in a coherent account.”49 At the retired professor’s suggestion, Carter delayed his planned return to the United States and spent several months in Berlin so that he might confer with scholars in related elds. He also was given permission to study pertinent archaeological materials recently discovered in Turkestan and brought to Germany. He then visited with several renowned Asian and Middle Eastern scholars of the day, including Paul Pelliot (1878–1945), Bernhard Moritz (1859– 1939),50 and—most important for the present study—Adolf Grohmann (1886–1977). Carter’s meetings with these and other scholars, and the access to scholarly and historical materials that they were able to provide to him, set him on the course of research that resulted in the publication of his landmark book on printing history. In an article which sought to trace the progress of printing technology across Asia from its birthplace in China, Carter51 sketched a broader history of printing technology in which he makes a major contribution to our understanding of the evolution of that technology by expanding the denition of printing to include methods other than moveable type and by

devait probablement se rapporter à un de ces livres traitant, par les formulas plus ou moins cabalistiques, de l’art d’imprimer, tel que nous l’avons souvent vu pour les livres d’alchemie avec leurs recettes fantaisistes pour la recherché de la pierre philosophale.” A. Geiss, “Observations,” pp. 83–84. Geiss’s tone throughout this article strikes me as supercilious and patronizing and, to my mind, belies a certain cultural insecurity about the history of Europe’s (or at least France’s) role in printing technology. See the introduction to the present work, p. 5. 47 “Prof. T.F. Carter Dies,” New York Times (August 7, 1925), 15:7. 48 The engaging account of Prof. Carter’s scholarly awakening is recounted by his widow, Dagny Carter, in her introduction to the second edition of the late professor’s classic work, The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward, (New York: Ronald Press, 1955), pp. xix–xxiv. The synopsis presented in the following paragraphs is based on her recollections. 49 Invention of Printing, p. xxi. 50 On Moritz, see note 43 above. 51 Thomas F. Carter, “The Westward Movement of the Art of Printing: Turkestan, Persia, and Egypt as Milestones in the Long Migration from China to Europe,” Yearbook of Oriental Art and Culture, 1924–1925, (London, 1925), pp. 19–28 (and 10 images on 5 plates).

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

33

positing links between that method and others. Written in the year prior to the publication of his book, The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward,52 Carter’s article places Arabic block printing in the context of what was then known about block printing in China and western Asia. He assembles archaeological evidence of Chinese and Central Asian block printing gathered by such notables as Paul Pelliot and Aurel Stein, and considers this in conjunction with the literary-historical reports of paper money being printed in thirteenth century Persia53 and the relevant evidence contained in collections of Egyptian Arabic block prints in Berlin, Heidelberg and Vienna. Carter is the rst to assert that there is a direct connection between Chinese and Arabic block printing, based on his examination of those artifacts:54 . . . [T]here can be no doubt that these Egyptian block prints show distinct Chinese inuence. They are made like the Chinese block prints, not by pressure, but by the use of the brush; the ink too is the same as that of China and Turkestan. Furthermore, like the earliest prints of China, they consist altogether of charms and of excerpts from religious literature.

The technical and textual similarities Carter saw in both the Chinese and Arabic block prints make a strong case for the argument that the Arabs acquired their knowledge of block printing from China. While no conclusive proof has yet been found to support this contention, Carter’s familiarity with the history of Chinese printing, his rst-hand examination of many of the Arabic block prints found in European libraries and museums and his consultations with a number of the leading authorities of his day lend weight to his conclusion. By expanding his investigation to ll the broader canvas of printing evolution across a thousand years and several thousand miles, Carter’s landmark study presents a more thorough study of the history of printing. Beginning with a review of what was then known about the invention of paper, he discusses the use of seals to make impressions of texts and images in soft surfaces, a process known to have existed in third century BCE China,55 as well as the evolution of that technology into block printing and, eventually, typography. He follows this with an account of how block printing might have been transferred to the Islamic realms, drawing on an impressive array of historical and archaeological sources to make his case. Again, as with his earlier article, Carter’s narrative is augmented by the inclusion of an example of Arabic block printing, this time from the Rainer Collection in Vienna.56 Juxtaposed with a letter written in 1289 from the ruler of Persia to Philip of France and bearing the block printed mark of the Great Seal of Kublai Khan, the image is clearly intended to connect the two objects in viewers’ minds. The second scholar to focus a sharper lens on Arabic block printing was Adolf Grohmann, in 1929.57 That era’s pre-eminent authority on Arabic paleography, Grohmann’s interest in 52 Thomas Francis Carter, The Invention of Printing in China and Its Spread Westward, (New York, 1925); 2nd edition, revised by L. Carrington Goodrich, (New York, 1955). Unless otherwise noted, all references herein are to the second edition. Carter died at age forty-three, shortly after the rst copies of the book rolled off the press. 53 See above, pp. 23–24. 54 Carter, “Westward Movement,” p. 25. Appended to Carter’s article is a plate (18B) showing a block printed Arabic amulet from the collections of the Ägyptologisches Museum zu Berlin (Berlin Egyptological Museum) in Charlottenburg. No. P11970. The amulet is reproduced below in the plates. 55 Invention of Printing, p. 11 ff. Of course, the technology was in use much earlier as attested by the well-known Egyptian cylinder seals which date to Pharaonic times. 56 Verso of plate following page 168. Carter gives the old accession number-946—used in Karabacek’s Guide to the Exhibition (Führer durch die Ausstellung). The item currently bears the number A.Ch. 12.150. 57 Grohmann’s Allgemeine Einführung in die arabischen Papyri nebst Grundzügen der arabischen Diplomatik, (Vienna, 1924),

34

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

the history and development of Arabic scripts led him to a study of the small number of block printed amulets then known to exist in Europe and Egypt. Although that study is only a small segment of a much broader treatment of the history of the book in Islamic culture,58 it is noteworthy for being the rst scholarly effort to understand the role that block printing played in the history of Arabic printed texts. Grohmann’s observations are primarily concerned with the oral and geometric designs that are frequently found on block printed amulets. These designs usually serve to frame—or to separate sections of—the text printed on them. In at least one instance (A.Ch. 7265 in the Austrian National Library), only the designs on the amulet are block printed; the text is handwritten. Grohmann sees similarities between the block printed designs on the amulets and the decorative carvings on Muslim grave markers, suggesting that they derive from a common artistic grammar.59 At the same time, he notes that the use of designs to embellish texts having a religious or quasi-religious purpose is a phenomenon encountered in Christian manuscript texts of the same era. The possibility of cross-cultural inuences in the fabrication of the block printed amulets must therefore, he believes, also be considered. With regard to amulets as a cultural phenomenon, it is important to note, if only briey, that such objects, popularly believed to provide to their owners with a prophylactic effect against a variety of real and imaginary dangers, had long been a feature of life in the Middle East (as they have long been elsewhere). The ancient Egyptians left an assortment of objects thought to impart such protection. Ceramic scarabs and the ankh, the crucix with the distinctive loop at the top, are just two of the most recognizable examples. The Jews created, used and apparently dealt in protective amulets. Many of these are comprised of passages from sacred texts engraved on metal.60 Coptic Christian Egyptians are known to have composed textual amulets as early as the second century CE and their work incorporates many of the elements of neighboring cultures.61 That the Muslim Arabs were aware of amulets and that many of them came to believe in their efcacy can be taken as a given. That they adopted the practice of creating their own amulets, incorporating elements of their own system of beliefs, is borne out by the material evidence of that culture. Most important for the study of medieval Arabic block printing is Grohmann’s observation that the style of script used in the printing blocks can be used to date the texts generated by them. The development of Arabic scripts over the centuries and across geographical space has been traced with considerable precision by Grohmann and other scholars. The use of a specic style of handwriting in a dated manuscript or on a building whose time of construction is known provides a reliable benchmark for determining when that particular script was in use. For example, since the Ku script is known to have been used widely in monumental

pp. 4–14, gives the clearest and most detailed account of the acquisition and disposition of the materials acquired by the Austrians in Egypt. 58 Thomas W. Arnold and Adolf Grohmann, The Islamic Book: a contribution to its art and history from the VII–XVII century, (Paris, 1929). Hereinafter referred to as “Arnold & Grohmann.” The discussion of the role of block printing is found on pages 27–29; examples of Arabic block printing appear on plates 13–15. 59 Arnold & Grohmann, p. 29. 60 On this, see Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, ( Jerusalem, 1985), p. 13 ff., as well as their subsequent work, Magic Spells and Formulae: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, ( Jerusalem, 1993). A study of the texts of Hebrew amulets is found in Theodore Schrire, Hebrew Magic Amulets: Their Decipherment and Interpretation, (New York, 1966). 61 Ancient Christian Magic: Coptic Texts of Ritual Power, Marvin W. Meyer and Richard Smith, eds., (Princeton, 1999).

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

35

architecture in the ninth and tenth centuries CE,62 it is reasonable to conclude that block prints bearing this script were also produced at about that time. Knowledge of the script styles represented on the block prints is crucial since there is, at present, no other reliable method of dating them. As should be clear from the foregoing discussion, evidence for the existence of block printing in the medieval Arabic-speaking world was clearly established by the end of the third decade of the twentieth century. Moreover, dissemination of this knowledge had progressed considerably since Karabacek’s discovery and subsequent publication of the rst block printed amulet. Further proof of medieval Muslim involvement in block printing was proffered in 1938 when Karl Jahn published his article on Iranian paper currency, to which reference has already been made.63 Jahn’s article, which recounts the attempted introduction of paper currency into the late thirteenth century economy of Tabriz in present-day Iran, also makes the point that the paper money was block printed.64 Thus, even for those historians who may have been ignorant of the existence of the block printed amulets, there was ample proof of the use of rudimentary printing technology in the Middle East long before it appeared in Europe. Yet despite the number of publications either specically devoted to medieval Arabic block printing or alluding to its existence as a part of related studies, the topic still had not been addressed in depth. Following Grohmann’s and Jahn’s studies, interest in the block prints seems to have receded to earlier levels. It remained there with only occasional upward ticks in the succeeding decades. While articles on block printing have continued to appear (and indeed one could comfortably argue that the pace of publication about individual pieces has even accelerated recently), they have not, perhaps in spite of their authors’ intentions, generated the critical mass of curiosity necessary to produce a major study. Such a fragmented approach denies us the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon. When considered collectively, these studies unquestionably contribute to a better appreciation of Arabic medieval block printing. Reports by such scholars as Giorgio Levi della Vida, who published a fragmentary block printed amulet from the University of Pennsylvania’s Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology65 in 1944, and Bishr Fares’ brief 1957 notice of an interesting fragmentary block print bearing, in addition to a qurxÊnic passage, the printed image of a fantastic winged gure,66 are very benecial for the attention they have brought to further examples of the art. However, they do little to advance our appreciation for their role in the culture that produced them.

62

Arnold & Grohmann, p. 29. See note 12, above. 64 In his notes to the article, Jahn provides a very detailed account of the scholarship (up to the time of publication of his contribution) on this episode in Islamic history. These sources show that knowledge of the technology used to produce the currency had been known to specialists in the eld for some time. 65 Giorgio Della Vida, “An Arabic block print,” (‘Science on the March’ column), Scientic Monthly 59 (vi), (1944), p. 351. Della Vida’s narrative is based on the works of Karabacek and Carter (who he calls “Carver”). Much of the information he provides, particularly regarding the number of examples held in Vienna, is faulty. He says that Karabacek listed only seventeen block prints in Vienna (he fails to indicate which of Karabacek’s publications he is referring to) when the Führer gives twenty. The two examples supposedly held by the British Museum, if they ever existed, cannot be located at present. 66 Bishr Fares, “Figures magiques, amulette: I” in Aus der Welt der islamischen Kunst: Festschrift für Ernst Kühnel zum 75. Geburtstag am 26.10.1957, ed. Richard Ettinghausen, (Berlin, 1959), pp. 154–155 & g. 1. The inclusion of a gure, to my knowledge, is unique to this amulet, at least thus far. 63

36

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

Small steps toward a broader understanding have been taken, but however insightful these may be, they have been sporadic at best. André Demeerseman, for example, published, in 1954, a monograph on printing in Asia and West Africa in which he attempts to achieve a clearer understanding of the cultural processes at work with regard to the progress of printing technology across the Asia and the Middle East.67 In this effort, he locates Arabic block printing among other cultural and technological developments in medieval and early modern Islam, particularly those—like paper—that came from China. Demeerseman’s work is illustrated with a ne Arabic block printed amulet owned at that time by a prominent Tunisian scholar,68 and not previously published. As with many other studies of this sort, the block print seems to have been adduced less as evidence of a willingness to borrow from other cultures and more as an example of something gone awry in the transmission processes that characterized many other cultural borrowings from the Chinese by Muslims and Europeans. Other cultural transmissions came to Europe via the Muslim world having achieved a sort of precocious ‘adolescence’ that the Europeans could then mold into a remarkably dynamic, useful ‘adulthood.’ This was not the case with block printing. Since no direct connection between Arabic and European block printing has been established, Arabic printed amulets are seen as having had their development short-circuited, as it were, in the Islamic realms. Much of Demeerseman’s monograph is devoted to explaining why it was printing, i.e. typography, that seems to have suffered this fate and why its adoption by Muslims lagged far behind other—especially European-cultures. In the last quarter-century, no fewer than a dozen articles and book chapters dealing to one degree or another with Arabic block printing have been published.69 Another three block printed amulets have appeared in the catalogues of major auction houses and art dealers during

67 André Demeerseman, “L’Imprimerie en Orient et au Maghreb,” Revue IBLA 17 (1954), pp. 1–48, 113–140. Reprinted as a monograph under the same title in the series, Publications de l’Institut des Belles Lettres Arabes 20, (Tunis, 1954). References here are to the latter publication. 68 Æasan ÆusnÒ {Abd al-WahhÊb (1884–1968), a scholar and government ofcial in French colonial Tunisia. On him, see Ch. Bouyahia, “ {Abd al-WahhÊb, Æasan ÆusnÒ,” EI2, Supplement: fascicules 1–2, pp. 11–12. I have been unable to determine with any certainty the present whereabouts of the block print, whose image appears after page 22 in Demeerseman’s “L’Imprimerie en Orient et au Maghreb.” 69 Among these are (in chronological order): Paul Lunde, “A missing link,” ARAMCO World 32:2 (1981), pp. 26–27; Miroslav Krek, “Arabic block printing as the precursor of printing in Europe,” ARCE Newsletter 129 (1985), pp. 12–16; Richard W. Bulliet, “Printing in the medieval Islamic underworld,” Columbia Library Columns 36 (1987), pp. 13–20; Richard W. Bulliet, “Medieval Arabic ¢arsh: a Forgotten Chapter in the History of Printing,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 107 (1987), pp. 427–438; I˜sÊn Ja{far, “al-{Arab {arafÖ al-¢ibÊ{ah qabla Ötinburg,” al-FayÉal 128 (1987), p. 109 [This is the rst substantive recognition of the existence of block printing in the medieval Islamic world that I have been able to nd in any Arabic language publications]; Wladyslaw Kubiak and George T. Scanlon, Fuɢʢ Expedition Final Report, Vol. 2: Fuɢʢ-C, (Winona Lake: American Research Center in Egypt/Eisenbrauns, 1989); Karl R. Schaefer, “The Scheide Tarsh,” Princeton University Library Chronicle 56:3 (Spring 1995), pp. 400–430; Paul B. Fenton, “La communauté juive dans l’Egypte fatimide,” Dossiers d’Archéologie 233 (Mai 1998), pp. 28–33 [This article contains a plate showing the unique medieval Hebrew block print held by Cambridge University Library (p. 30)]; Thierry Depaulis, “Documents imprimés de l’Egypte fatimide: un chapitre méconnu de l’histoire de l’imprimerie,” Bulletin de la Société Archéologique, Historique et Artistique Le Vieux Papier pour l’étude de la vie mœurs d’autrefois 349 ( juillet 1998), 133–136; Institut du Monde Arabe, Trésors Fatimides du Caire: exposition présentée à l’Institut du Monde Arabe du 28 avril au 30 août 1998, (Paris, 1998), p. 155; Karl R. Schaefer, “Eleven medieval Arabic block prints in the Cambridge University Library,” Arabica 48 (2001), pp. 210–239; Paul B. Fenton, “Une xylographie arabe médiévale à la Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg,” Arabica 50:1 (2003), pp. 114–117; Karl Schaefer, “Arabic printing before Gutenberg—Block-printed Arabic amulets,” in Sprachen des Nahen Ostens und die Druckrevolution; eine interkulturelle Begegnung; Katalog und Begleitband zur Austellung, Eva Hanebutt-Benz, Dagmar Glass, Geoffrey Roper & Theo Smets, eds., (WVA-Verlag Skulima, 2002), pp. 122–128.

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

37

that same time.70 In addition, several other notices, published in several different languages and in a variety of formats, from print to the internet, have made mention of their existence in the context of investigations into other aspects of Arabic printing history.71 On the one hand, it is clear from the quantity and variety of writing on medieval Arabic block printing that awareness of it and its importance has, to some degree, broadened of late. On the other, despite this spate of publications, knowledge of the phenomenon still seems not to have entered the public consciousness. Evidence of this can be seen in the titles of even relatively recent publications. Lunde72 entitled his 1981 piece on Arabic block printing, “A Missing Link;” Bulliet, writing in 1987, calls Arabic block printing “a forgotten chapter in the history of printing;” Depaulis, as late as 1998,73 refers to Arab block prints as “un chapitre méconnu” (an unrecognized chapter). Most revealing, perhaps, are newer works on printing in the Middle East that fail to give even passing mention to the existence of this precursor of typography. To give just one example, the edited monograph entitled The Beginnings of Printing in the Near and Middle East: Jews, Christians and Muslims,74 published in 2001, deals exclusively with typography and the point of departure for its narrative is the late fteenth-century Ottoman Empire, a century after the latest known block printed amulet. Moreover, innumerable volumes written on the history of printing continue to focus predominantly, if not exclusively, on the achievement of Gutenberg while ignoring or passing over the contributions of his predecessors. That Arabic block printing can still be characterized in these terms, more than one hundred years after it was rediscovered, is a situation that calls for redress. Much about the techniques and practice of the craft has been brought to light since Josef Karabacek rst conrmed the 70 Sotheby’s, Oriental Manuscripts and Miniatures, (Sale held on 22 October 1993, Bond Street, London). Catalogue item no. 25, “Selected verses from the QurxÊn, xylograph . . .”. (Purchased by Mr. William Scheide and now in the Scheide Collection, Rare Books and Special Collections Department, Firestone Library, Princeton University); Sotheby’s, Arts of the Islamic World, (Sale held on 25 April 2002, Bond Street, London). Catalogue item no. 8. Another example is found in the Schøyen Collection: “The Schøyen Collection: 21. Pre-Gutenberg printing.” http://www. nb.no/baser/schoyen/5/5.18/ Accessed May 29, 2004. Still another block print appeared in a catalog of Sam Fogg, the London-based rare book dealer. Islamic Calligraphy (Catalogue 27), Ramsey Fendall, ed., (London, 2003), pp. 48–49, no. 22. 71 Among other works in which mention of Arabic block printing is made: Arab Islamic Bibliography: the Middle East Library Committee Guide based on Giuseppe Gabrieli’s Manuale di bibliograa musulmana, Diana Grimwood-Jones, Derek Hopwood & J.D. Pearson, eds., (Brighton, 1977), p. 222; H.A. Avakian, “Islam and the Art of Printing” in Uit Bibliotheektuin en Informatieveld: Opstellen aangeboden an dr. D. Grosheide bij zijn afscheid als biblothecaris van de Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht, H.F. Hofman et al., eds., (Reeks Bibliotheek en documentatie, deel 3), (Utrecht, 1978), pp. 256–269; Yasin H. Safadi, “Early Arabic Printing,” New Books Quarterly on Islam & the Muslim World, 1: ii & iii (Spring 1981), pp. 26–29; Gerhard Endress, “Die Anfänge der arabischen Typographie und die Ablösung der Handschrift durch den Buchdruck,” Section 9.5 in Grundriss der arabischen Philologie, Bd. 1: Sprachwissenschaft, W. Fischer, ed., (Wiesbaden, 1982), pp. 291–296; Camille Aboussouan, “Los primeros pasos de la imprenta arabe,” Folia Humanistica 20:232 (1982), pp. 355–360; G. Oman, “Ma¢ba{a: I. In the Arab World,” EI2, Vol. 6, pp. 794–799; Richard Bulliet, “The Fall and Rise of Islamic Printing,” The Book in History —February 13, 1996 Meeting. http://www.english.upenn. edu/~traister/bullietsem.html. Accessed January 7, 1998; Jonathan M. Bloom, Paper Before Print: the History and Impact of Paper in the Islamic World, (New Haven, 2001); QÊsim al-SamarrÊxÒ, {Ilm al-IktinÊh al-{ArabÒ al-IslÊmÒ, (Riyadh, 2001); Sprachen des Nahen Ostens und die Druckrevolution; eine interkulturelle Begegnung; Katalog und Begleitband zur Austellung, Eva Hanebutt-Benz, Dagmar Glass, Geoffrey Roper & Theo Smets, eds., (Westhofen, 2002). 72 On this and the next two authors mentioned here, see note 69 above. 73 Thierry Depaulis, “Documents imprimés de l’Egypte fatimide: un chapitre méconnu de l’histoire de l’imprimerie,” Bulletin de la Société Archéologique, Historique et Artistique Le Vieux Papier pour l’étude de la vie mœurs d’autrefois 349 ( juillet 1998), 133–136. 74 Edited by the Lehrstuhl für Türkische Sprache, Geschichte und Kultur, Universität Bamberg, Staatsbibliothek Bamberg, (Wiesbaden, 2001).

38

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

existence of Arabic block prints in the 1890s. We know that the vast majority of surviving block prints is in the form of amulets, presumably meant to be carried on one’s person as protection against a wide range of dangers. Virtually all of the amulets contain passages from the QurxÊn, and are thus the earliest printed QurxÊn passages known, pre-dating the earliest typeset QurxÊn by several hundred years.75 There is strong circumstantial evidence that petty criminals, particularly those whose metiér was the larcenous exploitation of the gullible and credulous, were very active in the production and distribution of block printed amulets. What role, if any, the members of this group played in the actual development and perpetuation of the craft is unclear. It may well be that the BanÖ SÊsÊn, already operating outside (or at the fringes) of the law, did not feel themselves bound by the religious or civil strictures that discouraged the use of printing among law-abiding Muslims. This lack of constraint may have given them a certain freedom to experiment with the form and content of the amulets they created. However this may be, such a supposition must be set aside until more work has been done. In any case, it appears that amulets were not the only type of block printing done by medieval Arabic speakers. We have the evidence of the printing block described by Hammer Purgstall, which would seem to indicate that, at least in one of the Islamic realms, stamps or printing blocks were also put to more legitimate purposes. More recently, Rachel Milstein has conducted research76 on several pilgrimage documents, originally from the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, that are block printed or stamped. Such evidence suggests that block printing technology was employed by various groups of people for a variety of reasons. Although the actual extent of medieval Arabic block printing activity is a matter of conjecture at present, there are sufcient indications that point to a higher level of production for more diverse purposes than has been acknowledged heretofore. Also requiring serious study is the technology used to create the printing blocks. If the Arabs did indeed emulate the Chinese and used wooden matrices to print their texts, have any survived? And, if so, where are they? Were special tools used to carve the wood? Are any examples of such implements extant? The question of what material—wood or metal—was used for the printing matrices, is further complicated by the textual evidence adduced by Bosworth. The poet ÂafÒ al-DÒn al-ÆillÒ (1278–1348?), cited in his study,77 rhapsodizes about carving ¢arshes from a metal, not wood. Assuming that the word “¢arsh” does in fact refer to a block-printing matrix, one must now consider the origins of the knowledge of cutting metal templates for block printing. Is it possible that ÂafÒ al-DÒn, writing sometime in the late thirteenth or 75 This is to say that we must qualify statements which maintain that the QurxÊn did not appear in print as a book until 1537, when it was published in Venice. An authoritative edition of the QurxÊn in Arabic published by Muslims did not appear until 1924 with the printing of the “Azhar Koran.” See Hartmut Bobzin, “Von Venedig nach Kairo: zur Geschichte arabischer Korandrucke (16. bis frühes 20. Jahrhundert)/From Venice to Cairo: on the History of Arabic Editions of the Koran (16th-early 20th century)” in Sprachen des Nahen Ostens und die Druckrevolution; eine interkulturelle Begegnung; Katalog und Begleitband zur Austellung, Eva Hanebutt-Benz, Dagmar Glass, Geoffrey Roper & Theo Smets, eds., (Westhofen, 2002), pp. 151–176. Selected passages from the QurxÊn are used in block printed amulets quite frequently. 76 Rachel Milstein, “Thirteenth-century Stamped Documents from Damascus.” A paper presented at the symposium, “History of Printing and Publishing in the Languages and Countries of the Middle East” held at the Gutenberg Museum, Mainz, Germany (9–12 September, 2002) as part of the First World Congress for Middle Eastern Studies (WOCMES), University of Mainz, 8–13 September, 2002. These documents are currently held in The Museum of Turkish and Islamic Art (Türk ve Islam Eserli Müzesi), Istanbul, Turkey. 77 Bosworth, Mediaeval Islamic Underworld, pt. 2 p. 298, line 39. Arabic text at p. 49.

THE (RE)DISCOVERY OF ARABIC BLOCK PRINTING

39

early fourteenth century CE, is describing a newer method of creating matrices, one that had replaced an earlier practice of carving in wood? Was the use of metal for the matrices a later development in block printing, an evolutionary step up from wood, or was metal derived from an entirely different block printing tradition? Alternatively, could the use of metal have been limited for some unknown reason to Iraq, ÂafÒ al-DÒn’s milieu, while wood continued to be employed elsewhere in the Islamic realms? Medieval Arabic block printing has yet to receive the kind of attention that would enable us to answer even some of the most basic questions about its history, much less the role it played in those segments of medieval Islamic culture in which it was found, or its inuence—if indeed there was any—on those who were aware of it. Just how widely known was the technology? How did the Arabs come to know of it? Was knowledge of block printing clandestine in nature, limited to members of a secretive society of practitioners? Why are contemporary historical or literary references to block printing so rare? Why does the craft apparently disappear after the early 1400s? Perhaps the present volume will serve as a starting point for addressing these and other questions relating to this nascent eld of inquiry.

CALLIGRAPHY AND THE ISSUE OF DATING THE ARABIC BLOCK PRINTS Without exception, the examples of medieval Arabic block printing currently found in American and European libraries and museums entered their collections lacking the pedigrees usually attached to such acquisitions. In other words, the provenance of the block prints presented in this volume is often unclear, if not completely unknown; with few exceptions, their origins cannot be traced with certainty to a specic geographic location, nor can we provide them with precise archaeological dating.1 This has signicant implications for developing basic information about the block prints. Essential questions relating to where they were made or who might have made them, for example, are difcult to answer denitively. The fact that they were removed from their archaeological contexts by people who were unaware of—or had no concern for—the importance of such information has severely hampered our ability to establish with certainty the historical circumstances of their creation. This unfortunate situation is made worse by virtue of the fact that the small number of putative references to block printing in the historical record are frequently so corrupted or garbled that their meanings are unclear or indecipherable. Attentive readers will notice that dates or ranges of dates indicating the age of the block prints have not been provided for many of the block prints cataloged here.2 While general dates for some individual block prints have been given in articles treating them, uncertainty remains regarding the accuracy of some of those dates. Unlike most manuscripts, none of the amulets presented in this study bear dates. For the body of known examples, the range of tenth to fourteenth centuries CE is frequently given.3 However, even this broad range is subject to alteration, as the determination of the Gutenberg Museum piece as a fteenth-century example has shown. Fortunately, the amulets possess certain characteristics that provide clues to their ages and origins; some of these clues have been interpreted while others have not, and no study has yet undertaken a thorough examination of all the available evidence. Comparative chemical or radiological analysis of the paper on which the amulets were printed, for example, could provide valuable information about their origins and dates of manufacture.4 Similar tests could be 1 Regarding the origins of the Arabic block prints, Kubiak and Scanlon (Fuɢʢ Expedition Final Report, p. 69) say: “All seem to have come from Egypt, either from earlier excavations in Fustat, or from the old rubbish heaps of Fayyum or Ashmunain.” (Italics mine) As more block prints come to light, the likelihood increases that their geographic origins become more varied. See, for example, the amulet described in Sam Fogg, Islamic Inscriptions (Catalogue 27), (London, 2003), pp. 48–49, which is said to have originated in eastern Iran. 2 When dates for individual block prints are available, I have indicated them in the handlist at the end of this volume. In all cases where dates are provided, I have taken them either from earlier publications in which the specic block prints have been treated, or from descriptions provided by the institutions owning the items. 3 See the chapter on the historical context of Arabic block printing, above. See also Yasin Safadi, “Early Arabic Printing,” New Books Quarterly 1: 2 & 3 (Spring 1981), p. 26, Richard W. Bulliet, “Medieval Arabic ¢arsh,” JAOS 107 (1987), p. 427, and Thierry Depaulis, “Documents imprimés de l’Egypte fatimide: un chapitre méconnu de l’histoire de l’imprimerie,” Bulletin de la Société Archéologique, Historique et Artistique, ‘Le Vieux Papier,’ pour l’étude de la vie mœurs d’autrefois 349 ( juillet 1998), p. 134, among other works. 4 Such tests have been conducted on two block prints, so far. See the discussion below. For an example of the sort of work that might be undertaken in this area, see Geneviève Humbert, “Papiers non ligranés utilisés au ProcheOrient jusqu’en 1450,” Journal Asiatique 286:1 (1998), pp. 1–54.

42

CALLIGRAPHY AND THE ISSUE OF DATING THE ARABIC BLOCK PRINTS

conducted on the printing ink used to achieve the same objective. However, until it is possible to carry out such technically sophisticated tests on a large number of the block prints, and to compare the results with reliably dated materials, we must look for other clues to establish their age and nativity. One feature of the amulets, the scripts in which they have been composed, would seem to lend itself readily to this purpose. Arabic script, not unlike the scripts of other written (and printed) languages, has undergone a series of transformations over the course of its existence.5 One can trace the development of Arabic characters from the rst proto-alphabetic scratches incised on cliffs in the Arabian Peninsula to the elegant sweep of sophisticated monumental inscriptions owing across the façades of Islam’s grandest buildings and the stately lines of handwritten text in generations of the QurxÊn.6 Over time, the Arabic script came to be subject to sets of rules or conventions governing how it should be written. In addition, artisans of the written language, calligraphers, developed various styles of script. These styles are the products of specic eras and geographic locations: beginning with a basic ductus, or script form, various renements, elaborations, and embellishments come to be added over time. This information, used in combination with other evidence, may be used in many cases to help determine the origin and antiquity of written texts as well as structures. Conversely, the style of handwriting in a dated manuscript or in an inscription on a building whose date of construction is known provides a reliable benchmark for determining when that particular script was in use. On the basis of extensive scholarship on Arabic epigraphy and palaeography,7 it has been proposed that the script styles used on the block prints may be helpful in dating them, particularly given that no other reliable scientic dating method has yet been applied to them as a corpus. Both Josef Karabacek8 and Adolf Grohmann9 contended that the styles of script used on the printing blocks might be used to date them. Indeed, the palaeographic measure has become accepted, at least tacitly, as a reliable marker of antiquity by a number of researchers involved in the study of Arabic block printing. Many cite the script style as the primary and incontrovertible indicator for the age of a given example. One of the block prints held by the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo, published by Bishr Farès,10 relies on the presence of what he calls “maghrebine” Ku to date it to the tenth or 5 And continues to do so. For a thorough treatment of Arabic typographical fonts, and their continuing evolution, see Smitshuijzen AbiFarès, Arabic Typography, (London, 2001). 6 For a general introduction to this topic, see J. Sourdel-Thomine, “Kha¢¢: i. In the Arab World,” EI2, Vol. 4, pp. 1113–1122, and Ali Alparslan, “Kha¢¢: ii. In Persia” and “Kha¢¢: iii. In Turkey,” EI2, Vol. 4, pp. 1122–1126 and the sources cited there. 7 Among the more important works in this eld are those of Bernhard Moritz, Arabic Palaeography: a Collection of Arabic Texts from the First Century of the Hidjra to the Year 1000, (Cairo, 1905); Adolf Grohmann, Arabische Paläographie, 2 vols. (Österreichsiche Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna. Phoilosophisch-Historische Klasse. Denkschriften, Bd. 94, 1 & 2 Abhandlungen), (Graz, 1967, 1971); Max van Berchem, Matériaux pour un Corpus inscriptionem Arabicarum, (Paris, 1894–): Ernst Kühnel, Islamische Schriftkunst, (Berlin, 1942); 2nd ed., (Graz, 1972) and the bibliographies listed in these works. For a study on the evolution of Arabic script from its Nabatean antecedents, see Beatrice Gruendler, The Development of Arabic Scripts: From the Nabatean Era to the First Islamic Century According to Dated Texts, (Atlanta, 1993). Most recently, there is Gabriel Mandel Khan, Arabic Script: Styles, Variants, and Calligraphic Adaptations, (New York, 2001). 8 According to Carter (History of Printing in China, p. 180, note 2), who does not indicate to which of Karabacek’s four works listed in the bibliography he is referring. In the same note, he says that (B.?) Moritz also held this view, but the source for this bit of information is not given in Carter’s critical apparatus. 9 Arnold & Grohmann, p. 29. 10 Bishr Farès, “Figures magiques,” in Aus der Welt der islamischen Kunst: Festschrift für Ernst Kühnel zum 75. Geburtstag am 26.10.1957. Richard Ettinghausen, ed., (Berlin, 1957), pp. 154–155.

CALLIGRAPHY AND THE ISSUE OF DATING THE ARABIC BLOCK PRINTS

43

eleventh century CE. Yet Levi della Vida dates another example bearing Ku text, and printed on parchment, to the fourteenth century CE.11 Even taking into consideration regional and other variations, it should be clear that, when the same script style appears on two block prints dated two or three hundred years apart, reliance on script style alone produces imprecise results, at best. This is to say that, in the absence of other corroborating evidence, paleography is neither a denitive nor incontrovertible marker of historical period, and the acceptance of this method, alone, for dating the block prints may not be acceptable. T.F. Carter, in particular, took issue with Grohmann’s stand and urged caution when considering paleographic evidence, arguing that the style of script carved into the printing blocks may have been in imitation of earlier calligraphic forms.12 To illustrate this contention, let us consider several examples. The use of archaic scripts is by no means limited to Arabic. In medieval Europe, manuscript texts—and, later, printed ones—often began with an illuminated initial letter or rst line. In some cases the rst letter in each chapter of a book was illuminated. That was a common feature of written texts of the time, yet the convention still appears in works of much more recent vintage. Children’s books of the present time often begin with ornamented letters,13 and let us not forget that many ofcial documents—high school diplomas, college and university degrees, and certain legal documents—still employ Gothic script. In ofcial documents, at least, the employment of an old script style announces to the reader that the text carries great import, that it addresses a subject of gravity or has a serious purpose. We recognize this script style as an anachronism, but we are conditioned to react to it on a symbolic level as signaling that we are reading something important. We continue to use it for that purpose, even though we have ceased using it as a common script. Thus, it should be clear that script style alone is not an infallible marker for determining the antiquity of a document or, in this case, a block printed text. Kubiak and Scanlon, who unearthed two block prints in their excavation at Fuɢʢ, echo this caveat when they advise caution in applying the conclusions they draw about their artifacts to other block prints bearing the same script styles.14 Their discovery potentially provides conrmation for the argument that, insofar as the Arabic block prints are concerned, script style and historical period are closely linked. The advantage of their nd over other block prints rests in the fact that the two examples they uncovered were found together with other “dated, or dateable, inscribed material.”15 The ability to situate the block prints they found in such a context xes them reliably within a specic time period. The style of the scripts used in the block prints is important; of that there is no question. The development of Arabic scripts over the centuries and across geographical space, as noted above, has been traced with considerable precision by Adolf Grohmann and other scholars, and their studies, supported by datable examples, provide valuable tools for identifying and

11 I am referring, here, to the example (E 16311) once owned by the University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania, but now apparently lost. It was published by G. Levi della Vida as “An Arabic Block Print” in the “Science on the March” column of Scientic Monthly 59 (vi)/351 (1944), pp. 473–474. 12 Invention of Printing, p. 181, note 2. 13 I am indebted to my friend and colleague Dan Ramaley for this particular insight. 14 Kubiak and Scanlon provide a succinct summary of the debate over the use of script styles and dating in their Fuɢʢ Expedition Final Report, Vol. 2: Fuɢʢ -C, pp. 69–70. 15 Kubiak and Scanlon, p. 70.

44

CALLIGRAPHY AND THE ISSUE OF DATING THE ARABIC BLOCK PRINTS

conrming the antiquity and origins of many text-bearing objects. The Ku script, for example, is known to have been used widely in the ninth and tenth centuries CE in writing, textile design, metalwork inlays, on coins, in ceramic decorations and for inscriptions on monumental Islamic architecture.16 It is tempting to conclude, in light of this, that block prints bearing this script were also produced at about that time. However, there are dated examples of the Ku script style being used in inscriptions as late as the fourteenth century.17 Moreover, the Ku script itself evolves over time, becoming more elaborate, more heavily embellished in its execution, and spawning regional variations as well. Ku script was widely used as an ornamental style and is found frequently on medieval Muslim buildings, as well as in QurxÊns of high artistic quality. Having said this, it is important to remember that the two block prints that have been tested using scientic measures seem to support the validity of using script style for dating. The amulet now owned by the Gutenberg Museum in Mainz was submitted by its previous owner to the University of London’s Institute of Archaeology for a series of tests. The two researchers who conducted the tests, which included an examination of the partial watermark in the top sheet of paper, concluded that the paper was consistent with that produced in early fteenthcentury Europe.18 Given that the decorative vertical line of script at the top of the amulet is composed in thuluth, a script in use at that time, it would appear that the script conrms the dating. More recently, scientic tests were administered upon a block print discovered in 1982 in the university library in Strasbourg, France, and published by Paul Fenton.19 Fenton’s investigation included carbon-14 dating of the paper and radiographic tests, which conrmed that the paper was of eastern manufacture, dating to the thirteenth century CE.20 At the same time, the Ku text printed in reserve at the top of the amulet is very simple and unembellished and could conceivably belong to an earlier time. Such an example underscores the importance of considering multiple pieces of evidence when assigning dates to the block prints. While it is tempting to extrapolate from this evidence—the two amulets on which tests were conducted and the Fuɢʢ nds—and argue that all block printed amulets composed in the same script style must therefore date to the same time period, it would be well, perhaps, to consider other features of the block prints in conjunction with the script styles to make a determination as to their vintages.21 This is to say that it may be useful—indeed necessary—to examine other pieces of internal evidence exhibited by the block prints themselves to see if they provide any conrmation for the theory that script style and date of manufacture are closely linked. We might, for instance, consider the possibility that the scripts may indeed reect accurately the dates of creation. When other tests have been done on the block prints, they have tended to corroborate the calligraphic evidence. Still other clues may await discovery and these might help to better our knowledge of the history and development of medieval Arabic block printing. For example, with the discovery of what appears to be an early fteenth-century waterSee Ernst Kühnel, Islamische Schriftkunst, 2nd ed., (Graz, 1972), pp. 9–21. See, for example, Grohmann, Arabische Paläographie, II, Tafel 54, no. 3, which shows a Ku inscription on a mosque in Cairo dating to 1303 CE. 18 Report #89092 conducted by Drs. N.J. Seeley and A.T.N. Bennett and dated 10 October, 1989. 19 Fenton, “Une xylographie arabe médiévale,” pp. 114–117. 20 Fenton, “Une xylographie arabe médiévale,” p. 117. 21 In the absence of any other evidence, the hypothesis that the script styles used in the block prints allow us to propose dates for their creation seems to be supported by Kubiak and Scanlon’s work, even though their ndings are unique to this point in time. 16 17

CALLIGRAPHY AND THE ISSUE OF DATING THE ARABIC BLOCK PRINTS

45

mark on the example now held by the Gutenberg Museum in Mainz, the terminus ad quem, the latest date for an Arabic block print, has been pushed forward by a century. As important as the calligraphy may be for dating the block prints, if we are to gain a more thorough understanding of them, it would seem useful to develop a typology that would assist us in that endeavor. Only by discovering a developmental trajectory or by identifying conventions and patterns of style, content, and structure for the block prints will it be possible to make authoritative judgments about their age, their cultural role and historical signicance. Given that we have, at least so far, almost no archaeological data for the block prints, we must look for clues about their antiquity and origins in the amulets themselves and compare what we nd there with other objects exhibiting similar characteristics, having analogous purposes, and to which reliable dates can be assigned. Then our conclusions about the block prints should rest on rmer foundations. To achieve this, I would suggest that there are three bases for such a typology: the physical attributes of the object, the characteristics of the scripts in which the texts are composed, and the textual content of the amulets. The material employed is useful for establishing the age and geographical origin of individual examples. The outward form of the medium and the visual elements of the graphics and script, in addition to providing further clues to an example’s antiquity, may help to identify particular styles or traditions of production. Finally, the textual elements—the qurxÊnic passages, the prayers of supplication, the mystical symbols, and so forth—may reveal information about popular religious practices and beliefs known to have been used at historically particular times and locations. Medieval Muslims are known to have produced written amulets on three materials: paper, papyrus and vellum. With rare exceptions, the known printed amulets are all on paper and the examples presented here fall into that category. That the other two materials were used is attested by Grohmann,22 who saw at least one example on papyrus, and by Levi della Vida,23 who reports that the block print in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, now lost, was on vellum. The outward forms of the amulets may also provide clues to their origin and to the development of the genre. A variety of shapes and dimensions has been observed; square, round, and rectangular amulets have been found to exist in the examined collections. Rectangular examples appear in two forms: the rst is wider than it is long; the second has a length greater than its width. All of these forms are produced using a single sheet of paper. One also nds square and rectangular amulets composed of two or more sheets of paper connected in overlapping, pasted joints. Rectangular examples consisting of more than one sheet of paper are always longer than they are wide. Few examples are truly rectilinear or circular. The paper sheets were seldom cut with precision and this has resulted in squares and rectangles that are more trapezoidal and circles that are more elliptical than the geometric ideal. No other forms have thus far been identied. 22 Arnold & Grohmann, p. 28 ff. Grohmann apparently saw only handwritten amulets on papyrus, but the possibility that block prints on papyrus exist must be entertained. (It is unclear whether PSR 773, formerly in the collection of the University Library of Heidelberg, but now lost, was actually papyrus, as Arnold and Grohmann indicate (p. 29), or whether by the term “papyrus” they intend paper as well). The example reportedly printed on vellum (PSR 1126 in the University Library of Heidelberg) is now also lost. 23 Levi della Vida, “An Arabic block print,” (‘Science on the March’ column), Scientic Monthly, 59 (vi), (1944), p. 351. E 16311 (University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania) has been missing since 1951.

46

CALLIGRAPHY AND THE ISSUE OF DATING THE ARABIC BLOCK PRINTS

If we consider the calligraphy of the block prints illustrated in this volume, we nd that they fall into three general categories: rst, there are those on which lettering is exclusively in the Ku script. Within this general category, there are three sub-categories: Ku script rendered like normal printing, with the letters appearing in ink; Ku rendered in intaglio, that is, printed in reserve so that the ink surrounds the letters and the letters themselves are created by the “negative space” within the inked areas; and third, Ku letters rendered in outline. In addition, the Ku script used in the amulets is represented in several degrees of artistic elaboration, from the simplest, as we see in T-S AS 181.228, the stamp bearing the name and title “al-ImÊm Al-ÆÊkim,” to the much more embellished variant known as foliated Ku, in which the vertical strokes and termini of the letters sprout leaves or are transformed into vines and tendrils. These latter expressions can be seem, for example, in the John Rylands Library’s block print (Gaster Geniza MS 38), in the Austrian National Library’s fragment (A.Ch. 12.146) or, more spectacularly, in the rst line of the piece held by New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art (1975.192.21), where the characters, like the Austrian Library example, are also done in outline. The second category of extant block prints is comprised of those containing text in a script style other than Ku. The most commonly used script in this category is called naskh. Naskh is a style characterized by letters more cursively rendered than the blockish, thick, angular Ku. Although roughly contemporary with Ku, unlike the latter, its use did not tend to be restricted to ornamentation or formal use but was commonly employed for writing documents. In only one block print (Austrian National Library A.Ch. 12.147) do we nd naskh script in outline form. In all the other examples, this script style is printed as a positive image on the paper. There are also two examples of thuluth script represented in the block prints collected here (GM 03.1 Schr., from the Gutenberg Museum and M.2002.1.370 from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art). Thuluth is a very graceful cursive style in which the letters seem to bend slightly to the left. Its characters are often marked, at the tops of the vertical elements, by barbs or hooks on the right. The example from the Los Angeles County Museum of Art is printed in red ink, a rare use of that color in medieval Arabic block printing.24 The third category is comprised of those amulets that display two or more script styles. This category comprises the largest number of amulets found to date. Of the fty-ve examples contained in the present study, twenty-ve, or nearly half of the total, include some lines of text in Ku.25 In some instances, the Ku text comprises one or more short mottos or formulaic expressions; in others, lengthier texts are found. The use of two script styles may be an emulation of early elaborate QurxÊns, particularly those of the eighth and ninth centuries CE (1st and 2nd centuries AH) which employ two script styles. Chapter headings in such examples are in Ku and the body of the text in another style, usually naskh.26 24 The example from the Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg also has a section of Ku printed in red ink at the bottom. See Fenton, “Une xylographie arabe médiévale,” p. 117. A.Ch. 12.133, in the Austrian National Library, is a third example of printing with red ink. I make a distinction here between red used as printing ink and the dots and underlining which occasionally appear in the printed texts but which were added by hand after the printing. 25 Interestingly, only a small number exhibit Ku script exclusively (six of the 55 amulets included herein). When one considers that many of those amulets on which no Ku appears are fragmentary or incomplete, there would seem to be a strong possibility that many of the amulets which, in their preserved states show only naskh or thuluth characters, also originally contained Ku script. 26 See, for example, Moritz, Arabic Palaeography, plates 34 and 35.

CALLIGRAPHY AND THE ISSUE OF DATING THE ARABIC BLOCK PRINTS

47

Closely related to the types of scripts that appear on the amulets are the various ways in which the text and the decorations are presented physically on the printing surface. Most common is printing of black letters on white paper, but both letters and decorations occasionally appear as white against a black background. This effect is achieved by hollowing out the forms of the characters or decorations in the printing block, leaving the surrounding surface raised. The raised surface is then inked and pressed against the paper (or, as seems to be the case with the Arabic block prints, the paper pressed against the block), leaving the letters as “negative space” surrounded by black. The process is similar to that of “bas relief ” in stone carving, in which letters or other forms are carved into the surface of the stone as opposed to chipping away the stone to leave the desired form raised above the surrounding surface. In the amulets, it is the Ku lettering which is most commonly rendered in negativo (i.e. in reserve, or intaglio). Naskh script rarely, if ever, appears in this manner. This may be an emulation of incised monumental architectural decoration or it may be related to some technical difculty in carving such elaborate characters in relief. As with the amulets bearing two script styles, one often sees two types of printing—black ink on white paper and white letters against a black inked background—used in the same amulet. A third type of printing shows the outline of the letter or decoration, much in the fashion of a gure in a present-day coloring book. This last is the least common of the three ways of printing, but at least seven examples are known,27 suggesting that there was some experimentation in the creation of printing blocks to achieve various effects. It is likely that amulets bearing two or more script styles were printed using individual printing blocks for each of the script styles, although there are examples where two script styles have been incised in a single printing block. Michaelides E31 at the Cambridge University Library is one such, albeit rare, example. However, it appears that in the majority of those amulets where a decorative Ku script forms the “heading” of the amulet and the remainder of the text is in a plain angular style, separate blocks were used for the Ku and plain texts. Moreover, it is not uncommon for the text in the Ku block to run parallel to the length of the paper while the remainder of the text runs across its width. When the rst example of this type of amulet was encountered by Grohmann, he assumed that the Ku block had been designed for a wider sheet of paper and that the printer had merely improvised, turning the block ninety degrees, in order to make the stamp t on a narrower strip of paper.28 Now that several more amulets with longitudinal Ku impressions have surfaced, such appears not to have been the case. On the contrary, this longitudinal arrangement of Ku text seems to have been a fairly common practice among the printers of the amulets. Does this indicate that a particular “school” of block printing was active at one point in time? Were such amulets recognizable as having been produced by a specic group of craftspeople? Perhaps more to the point, were there certain generally accepted conventions relating to the design and production of block-printed texts? When one considers the possible symbolic value of Ku script, the likelihood increases that the use of Ku on a block printed amulet was meant to convey a sense of the importance and perhaps efcacy of the amulet. People

27 Michaelides E31 (Cambridge University Library); 1975.192.21 and 1978.546.34 (Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York); Is. PP 21 (Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland); A.Ch. 12.138, A.Ch. 12.146 and A.Ch. 12.147 (Austrian National Library, Vienna, Austria). 28 Arnold & Grohmann, p. 28.

48

CALLIGRAPHY AND THE ISSUE OF DATING THE ARABIC BLOCK PRINTS

may have drawn a connection, for example, between the magnicent dual-script QurxÊn they saw in the mosque and the amulet they carried, or perhaps they saw similarities between the monumental Ku inscriptions on the building itself and the marks on the paper they held in their hands. Such a relationship would certainly go far in explaining the frequent use of Ku characters printed in reserve on the amulets—clearly an emulation of bas relief carving in stone and plaster.29 In terms of the orthography used in the amulets, it is apparent even from a cursory examination that relatively few of the texts featured in this study bear diacritical marks. There is a more nuanced distinction within each of the script groupings outlined above in that the amulets exhibit greater or lesser degrees of vowelization, diacritical markings, punctuation and decorative elements. In Arabic, a language which is consonantal and has no characters to represent short vowels, a system of symbols has been developed which indicates how a word is to be read—that is, which vowel is to be inserted between two consonantal characters—or which case ending is to be used for a particular noun or adjective. This system is generally not employed in the amulets but when it is, it seems to be used almost exclusively for those parts of the text that are derived from the QurxÊn. However, even for such passages, use of diacritical marks is not consistent. Similarly, the use of dots to distinguish one letter from another is found only infrequently in the amulets.30 Again, as with the diacritical marks, they tend to appear primarily in the scriptural parts of the texts, although they are used more commonly in the non-qurxÊnic sections than are the diacritics. The use of the two systems together invariably indicates verses from the QurxÊn. This is not to say that qurxÊnic texts in the amulets always bear vowel marks; in more than thirty of the examples shown here, such marks are completely absent, even when qurxÊnic text is found. On the other hand, there are examples in which non-qurxÊnic text is vowelized— Michaelides E33, T-S NS 306.27, and A.Ch. 12.151 are just three such amulets. Given this wide variation in application, one must entertain the possibility that the inclusion of diacritical marks and vowelization may be an indicator of a particular historical period or a specic tradition of production. For the most part, the texts are justied in both left and right margins. This has been achieved not, as it is in most manuscript texts, through the use of ligatures of varying lengths between letters,31 but rather by breaking words, where necessary, so that the termination of the word appears on the following line. The words are, in essence, ‘hyphenated’ and, to carry the analogy one step further, just as we hyphenate words in English according to syllables, the Arab print block carvers divided words only between letters that would not normally be joined by a ligature.32 This convention appears in early QurxÊn manuscripts33 and may be seen as further 29

This style of printing is frequently found on signet rings and stamps of ownership, too. Many Arabic letters share the same basic form, particularly when they appear in the middle of a word. In practice, these letters are distinguished from one another by a system of dots (or, in handwritten Arabic, dashes) above or below the character. Those uent in Arabic are generally able to read a text without the dots and the dots are lacking in many monumental inscriptions from the early periods of Arab-Islamic history. Their use today is quite common, and printed texts of the last two centuries or so invariably employ them. 31 The one notable exception is Michaelides E28, which does, indeed, use elongated ligatures to achieved justied margins. Note also that the text is in Ku script. 32 One of the ideosyncrasies of the Arabic language is that some letters are joined by a ligature—a connecting line—while others are not. Some are joined to letters on either side, others ONLY to following letters and still others only to preceding letters. In the block prints, words are therefore divided only where no such connecting line would normally occur between letters. 33 See Arabic Palaeography, plates 17, 19, and 23, for example. 30

CALLIGRAPHY AND THE ISSUE OF DATING THE ARABIC BLOCK PRINTS

49

evidence of emulating sacred texts in amulets. Such orthographic conventions may eventually be helpful in determining the age or place of origin of particular amulets. One further observation should be made with regard to a printing convention used in some of the texts. This has to do with punctuation. Markers for the ends of sentences are rarely found in the block printed amulets. However, there are a couple of examples in which the ends of sentences are marked with a distinctive sign: a circle with a dot at the center. The Scheide amulet exhibits this characteristic as do Columbia University Library’s 705B, T.S. Ar 41.102 from the Taylor-Schechter collection at Cambridge, and A.Ch. 12.134 from the Austrian National Library. A variation on this practice has the circle without the center dot, but this appears even less frequently than the rst style.34 Equally intriguing is a second method to mark a textual division. Michaelides 29 and 30, for example, show rows of triangles and inverted triangles at four points in the text. These are clearly meant to separate sections of the document. A similar device is found in several other amulets, including the Wren Library example (line 21), wherein the triangles are replaced by a series of diagonal lines interspersed with dots (/\./\./\./\.). In their work on Aramaic amulets, Joseph and Shaked note the use of punctuation marks in a Syriac amulet they examined35 that bear a remarkable resemblance to the dot and circle devices used in the block prints. Although the two marks in the Syriac amulet are separate, given the amount of cultural borrowing and lending that characterized this period, one must consider that such marks are the fruit of a specic (perhaps Jewish?) tradition of block printing that was taken up by Arab practitioners. This possibility becomes even more likely when one considers that other Aramaic elements such as magic letters, magic gures and references to “all possible directions: right, left, front, behind, and above (with the deliberate exclusion of underneath . . .)”36 also appear in some of the Arabic block printed amulets (although not necessarily those with the punctuation marks). In a similar context, Arnold and Grohmann say that an Arabic block printed amulet on vellum37 from the University of Heidelberg that they studied also bore these dot-within-circle marks. According to them, texts of “old literary manuscripts and codices of the QurxÊn”38 also exhibit this type of punctuation. If the punctuation convention indeed was borrowed from these sources, then it would suggest that the amulets were meant to emulate sacred texts in their appearance. One other feature which appears on some amulets underscores the syncretistic nature of the block printed amulets. A sizeable number of the block prints bear text which is framed by a variety of devices. In some instances, the frame consists of a simple set of parallel lines; in other cases, the main text is surrounded by one or more lines of text in another style, or by text printed in reserve. Examples of the rst style are Michaelides E 31 and E 33, with the text bounded by sets of two parallel lines. GM 03.1 Schr. is a slightly more elaborate example in which both rectilinear and oval frames are found; the Metropolitan Museum’s circular amulet (1978.546.37) is an even more impressive example of framing in that it includes a complex lozenge and teardrop motif around the perimeter of the piece with successive frames of single and

34

Metropolitan Museum of Art 1978.546.37 in line 16. Joseph Naveh and Shaul Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls: Aramaic Incantations of Late Antiquity, ( Jerusalem, 1985), p. 64. 36 Naveh and Shaked, Amulets and Magic Bowls, p. 35. 37 Arnold & Grohmann, p. 29. PSR 1126, now lost, was dated to the tenth century CE by the authors. 38 Ibid. 35

50

CALLIGRAPHY AND THE ISSUE OF DATING THE ARABIC BLOCK PRINTS

double lines with smaller diameters encompassing more lines of text. Arnold and Grohmann note that such ornamental framing is “frequently”39 found in Christian texts of the period. That the creators of the Arabic block prints may have adopted this feature from Christian texts seems to be supported by one striking example. The fragmentary amulet A.Ch. 12.145 belonging to the Austrian National Library is the only bi-lingual Arabic block print that has come to light thus far. Along the right-hand margin, separated from the Arabic text by a frame composed of two sets of parallel lines, is a line of Coptic Greek characters. The Copts, of course, are a Christian sect. An Arabic block printed amulet bearing Coptic text and a frame would seem to indicate rst, that block printed amulets in Arabic were produced for nonMuslims as well as for Muslims and second, that at least Egyptian Christian amulet customers perhaps expected a text with a religious purpose to be framed. The nature of the amuletic texts themselves may provide clues both to their origins and development. The structure of the texts, their linguistic elements, religious formulae, qurxÊnic passages, and the prayers or supplications employed may be connected to religious practices associated with specic places or times. Such lines of investigation I leave to those who specialize in such things. I would only note that, in terms of the structure of the texts, there seem to be certain patterns of composition. For example, most of the amulets contain one or more passages from the QurxÊn.40 However, some have no qurxÊnic elements while still others exhibit brief phrases which essentially constitute slogans or mottos of a protective or invocatory nature. Where qurxÊnic verses do occur, at least one is the rst element in the main text, although other selections may appear later in the amulet, after the supererogatory prayers or supplications. Some amulets are composed of the “ninety-nine names of Allah,” known in Arabic as “al-AsmÊx al-Æusná.” These amulets may begin with a qurxÊnic passage as an invocation but their designs fall along a spectrum of elaboration. Some simply list the names in columns while others place them in grids: columns and rows of boxes with the names printed on the diagonal and alternating in direction. Finally, it also may be important to note that with perhaps one exception, the Arabic block printed amulets were printed using black or dark brown ink.41 Other colors, most commonly red, do appear in the amulets, but these splashes, dots or stripes were apparently added by hand subsequent to the actual printing process. Only one example (not included here) employs more than one additional color. In that piece, green is also used.42 The addition of different colors also suggests that while the technology for producing block printed amulets may have

39

Ibid. There is, in fact, one example (Michaelides E28 at the Cambridge University Library) which is comprised exclusively of qurxÊnic text, although it may be that this is merely the surviving qurxÊnic section of a longer amulet the rest of which has been lost. 41 However, the Hebrew block print held in Cambridge University Library, roughly contemporary with some of the amulets presented here, is printed using both black and red ink. The text is in black ink, but some of the decorative orets surrounding the text have been printed or stamped in red ink. Another example, Los Angeles County Museum of Art 2002.1.370, also has a line printed in red across the top of the sheet. The example held by the Bibliothèque Nationale et Universitaire de Strasbourg (Papyrus héb. 7) has a decorative block in Ku script in red ink at the bottom of the piece. 42 After this volume had been substantially completed, another multi-colored example was brought to my attention. A very large amulet owned by Sam Fogg, London, England appeared in one of his catalogs, Islamic Calligraphy (Catalogue 27), Ramsey Fendall, ed., (London, 2003), pp. 48–49, no. 22. That piece, like those presented here, is printed in black, but lines or stripes in three additional colors, red, green and yellow, have been applied with a brush after the printing process. 40

CALLIGRAPHY AND THE ISSUE OF DATING THE ARABIC BLOCK PRINTS

51

been fairly widely known in the medieval Islamic Middle East, variations were introduced to appeal to the aesthetic senses of particular local populations or perhaps in response to competition from rival block printers. To conclude, then, it should be clear that many factors in addition to the calligraphic styles employed in the creation of the block prints need to be considered in order to determine the age and provenance of individual examples. Overall design, the presence or absence of diacritical marks and marks of punctuation, and the nature of the texts all offer valuable clues to answers for these questions. When such evidence can be considered in light of scientic tests on individual amulets, then our determinations as to antiquity and place of origin will have much greater reliability, not to mention precision. Much work lies ahead of those who would pursue a deeper study of medieval Arabic block printing. No doubt many more examples of the craft will come to light in the years to come. It may well be that, one day, a historical text describing (or at least providing a more detailed accounting of ) the craft, who practiced it, or where it originated may come to light. Every new discovery will provide further clues to these and other questions surrounding these artifacts. In addition, advances in science may enable us to gain a better understanding of the materials and processes used in their creation.

BLOCK PRINTED AMULETS IN EUROPEAN LIBRARIES AND MUSEUMS

KEY TO TRANSCRIPTIONS OF ARABIC TEXTS In transcribing the Arabic texts of the block-printed amulets contained in the album that follows, I have employed a system of symbols which is essentially a variation on one used by Ludvik Kalus in the Ashmolean Museum’s Catalogue of Islamic Seals and Talismans. [. . .] [ ] [? ] (? )

No reading proposed Reliable restoration Unreliable restoration Uncertain reading

When ve or more consecutive lines of an amulet’s text have proven impossible to decipher, I have indicated that range of line numbers in both the transcriptions and the translations. All QurxÊn citations are taken from The Holy QurxÊn. Text translation and commentary by A. Yusuf Ali. Brentwood, Maryland: Amana Corp., 1983.

ÄGYPTOLOGISCHES MUSEUM UND PAPYRUSSAMMLUNG BERLIN ARAB. 11970 (Plate 1) Paper. Irregular rectangle. Unglazed. The paper is translucent and fairly regular in composition. It is light beige in color with slightly darker brown discolorations, one longitudinal in form in the center of the top text block, two more longitudinal stripes behind the center of the naskh text. Overall dimensions: 5.4 (top); 6.05 (middle); 5.2 (bottom) u 25 (l.h.); 24.4 (r.h.) cm. Dimensions of printed area: 4.9 u 23 cm. Height of letters: Ku: .5–2 cm; naskh: .1–.2 cm. 46 lines of text: two vertical lines in Ku; 44 horizontal lines in naskh. The text is unpointed and unvocalized. Decorative elements: One llet. The vertical Ku script is in reserve (intaglio). This piece represents a complete amulet. The text has two parts. At its top is a block 4.9 u 9.1 cm containing two vertical lines of foliated Ku in reserve. (The text is Sura 112.) The block is bounded by a single llet 1 mm wide and separated from the block by a space about 1 mm wide. At the top left corner, the llet is double for about 3 cm. Outside the llet near the bottom left-hand corner in the left-hand margin is a small (ca. 2 mm dia.) circle. The Ku letters are from .1–.5 cm thick. A space about .5 cm wide separates this block from the beginning of the naskh text. The naskh text is headed by a at irregular oval which may be a letter. The letters are miniscule; the right-hand edge, rst and last lines are smudged or distorted. There are several small holes (e.g. at the top left-hand corner in the margin; in lines 20; 22; between lines 27 and 28; 37; between 38 and 39; between 40 and 41; 41; 43; 44 and at the bottom). Little text is affected. The paper shows some transverse wrinkles especially between lines three and four of the naskh text, but in several others as well. The bottom three lines have a web of wrinkle lines radiating from near the center of the paper. The verso shows more clearly a pattern of lines or wrinkles, three running the length of the piece and as many as twelve running laterally to create a sort of grid effect.



ÄGYPTOLOGISCHES MUSEUM BERLIN

Transcription Top two lines in Ku in reserve and printed vertically.

         

.1

      

.2

()

 () 

.3

!  ! "#

.4

$%   &  & ' ()

.5

&  & *"+, - .- / 

.6

) 0 []   1 2344/ 

.7

5 0  5 0 (  2

.8

0 () &  [. . .] 62  0 () 3

.9

0 ()  5 0 ( 7) 2  0 [. . .] 0 28

.10

[. . .] 59 0 !: ; 0 !: ; 0 [. . .] .11

0 [] 5' 0 => 0 [. . .]

.12

[. . .] 0 [. . .] 0 () 2?@ 0 [. . .] .13 [. . .] 0 =ABC 0  0 [. . .] .14

5 0 !DEC 0 () F+C 0 [. . .] () G@, 0 [. . .]

.15

 0 2() 0 !:H7 0 () ! 0 2I)

.16

() !J 0 5 0  5 0 [. . .] .17

4@ 0 () 5E+C 0 () 44@ 0 !DEC 0 *, 0

.18

62  0 () !DEC 0 [. . .] 4

.19

0 [. . .] 0 [. . .]

.20

0 [. . .] 0 [. . .]

.21



ARAB. 11970

[. . .] 0 [. . .] 0 () $%C 0 [. . .] .22 [. . .] 0 [. . .] 0 [. . .] () 2 0 ()  ()CKC 0 .23

0 ( )  0 [. . .] 0 [. . .]

.24

0 ( 2(C) 0 ()  0 2LC 0 8-C 0 () =M

.25

0 ()   0 0 [. . .] => 0 [. . .] & [. . .]

.27

()  0 [. . .] .28

0 [. . .]

.29

& [. . .] ( 4) 8! [. . .]

.30

[. . .] ()  P .31 ()  ()  & [. . .] .32 [. . .] [. . .]  [. . .]  [. . .] -C [. . .] .33 [. . .] [. . .] .34

F  [. . .] 

.35

[. . .]  (O2@) QR@ [. . .] .36 () FS9  () F /' .37 () F  [. . .]  [. . .] .38

 2> T U V [. . .]

.39

[. . .]()   [. . .] .40 [. . .]  [. . .] .41 [. . .]  [. . .] .42 [. . .] .43

WXY (5)W) R@ [. . .]

.44



ÄGYPTOLOGISCHES MUSEUM BERLIN

WZ /'  [. . .]

.45

:!  \!) T>  

.46

[:C] [. . .] .47 QurxÊn suras and ayahs by line numbers: ll. 1–2: 112: 1–4 (al-IkhlÊÉ) ll. 4–6: 3:18 (¹l-{ImrÊn)

Translation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Say: He is God, the One and Only; God the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him Peace (?) and Pray(er?) In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, There is no God but He: That is the witness of God, His angels and those who are endued with knowledge, standing rm on justice. There is no God but He, the Exalted in Power, the Wise. Praise be to Him (and?) Oh, (G uardian?) Oh, Most Gracious, Oh, Most Patient(?), Oh, Lord(?) Most Wise(?), Oh, All-hearing[. . .] If not(?) Oh, Most Exalted, Oh [. . .] Oh, Most Praiseworthy (?), Oh Most Gracious (and?) Oh, [. . .] Oh, Most Perceptive, Oh, Most Perceptive, Oh, All Forgiving [. . .] [. . .] Oh, Most Sublime, Oh, Light (Most High? Most Strong?) Oh, [. . .] Magnicent(?) Oh, [. . .], Oh, [. . .] [. . .] Self-Subsisting, Oh, Enricher, Oh, [. . .] [. . .] Resurrector (?)[. . .] Oh, Nourisher (?), Oh, Tremendous (One), Oh, G uide, Oh, Most Powerful (?), Oh, Most Aware, Oh, Witness, Oh, M(?) [. . .] Oh, Most Gracious, Oh, Most Merciful, Oh, Bountiful One (?) Oh, Extender, Oh, Tremendous (One), Oh, Most-Strong (?), Oh, Dominant (One), Oh, St rong, Oh [. . .], Oh, . . . remendous One (?), Oh [. . .] [. . .] Oh, [. . .], Oh, [. . .] [. . .] Oh, [. . .], Oh, [. . .] [. . .] Oh, Angels (?), Oh, [. . .], Oh, [. . .] Oh, Giver of Faith (?), and (?) Oh, Steadfast (Source?), [. . .] Oh, [. . .], Oh, [. . .] [. . .] Oh, [. . .] Oh, He (Praise?), Oh Guarantor (?), Oh, Glorier, Oh, Glorious (One), Oh, He (?), Oh, (Guardian?), Oh, Empowerer (?),[. . .], Oh, Giver of Faith (?), Oh, Most Strong, Oh, Independent (One) (?), Oh, [. . .] not [. . .] Oh, Most Sublime [. . .] Oh, Most Sublime [. . .] and Oh, He (?)[. . .] [. . .] Oh, [. . .] and the man (Saturn?) [. . .] not

ARAB. 24016

31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.



believe (?)[. . .] [. . .] not deceive (?) the two children (?) [. . .] and not [. . .] and [. . .] and [. . .] and [. . .] and [. . .] and [. . .] and [. . .] you (I?) judged [. . .] I worshipped (and I seek refuge?) and [. . .] you bestowed grace (?) and I became wretched (?) [. . .] they? [. . .] you (I?) carried (?) [. . .] you. Muhammad, may God bless him and give him peace [. . .] one (?)[. . .] [. . .] and [. . .] [. . .] they and (?) [. . .] [. . .] and I worship and I than[k?] Your grace [. . .] and Your blessing Blessing upon the Most Noble of Messengers [. . .] [Amen? ARAB. 24016 (Plate 2)

Paper. Irregular rectangle. Unglazed. Black ink. Overall dimensions: 4.7 (top); 4.5 (middle); 5 (bottom) u 23.7 (left-hand side); 26 (right-hand side) cm. Dimensions of printed area: 4–4.5 u 20.4–20.7 cm. 48 lines of text divided into blocks of 17, 10, 10, 10, and 1 lines. There is one line of Ku in reserve at the bottom. The text is unpointed and unvocalized. Height of letters: naskh: .1–.3 cm; Ku: .3–.5 cm. Decorative elements: “Lozenges” in outline. The piece represents a complete amulet. A unique “lozenge” design in outline is found between lines 17 and 18; 27 and 28; 37 and 38 as decoration. Sentences in the rst naskh section end in circles. Diagonal wrinkles are visible in the paper, especially in the center section. The right-hand margin near the middle of the amulet is skewed and some text there is damaged and some lost. Many holes, tears, and lacunae, are present, especially in the lower two-thirds of the piece and in the top margin.

 

ÄGYPTOLOGISCHES MUSEUM BERLIN

Transcription

!  ! ["#]

.1

() =3 WC 0 [. . .] .2

  0 () ^ & _-  0 [. . .]

.3

[. . .] .4 [. . .]  T> [. . .] .5 [. . .] Q " [. . .] .6

; 5- ;& [. . .]

.7

! + ` a [. . .]

.8

() 8 .9

28 0 2?@ 0 5 0 [. . .]

.10

28 0 2?@ 0 5 0

.11

b-c 0 N-/EC 0 !:RJ 0 5-Hd 0

.12

() !(e 0 5 C 0 F.-C 0 .13 [. . .] 0 e, 0 !-f 0 .14 [. . .] 0 () 5-Hd 0 .15

 ! "# ()

.16

Vg@ Vg@ ()  ![]

.17

[. . .] .18 [. . .] .19 [. . .] .20

h [. . .] .21 ()  [. . .]()

_23 62 d[. . .]

.22



ARAB. 24016

[. . .] .23 [. . .] _-i2Ia [. . .] .24 [. . .] .25 [. . .] C O2@ [. . .] .26 [. . .] .27 [. . .] O2@ [. . .] .28

C [. . .]

.29

[. . .] .30 [. . .] .31 [. . .]

h [. . .]0 [. . .] 

.32

[. . .] O2@ [. . .] .33 [. . .] .34 [. . .] C jO2@ [. . .] .35 [. . .]() N-e& [. . .] .36

jO2@ [. . .]

.37

h [. . .] .38 [. . .]() -C  [. . .] .39 [. . .]() ^(k [. . .] .40 [. . .] .41 [. . .] lh  [. . .] .42

-?/ [. . .]

.43

[. . .] .44 () Jm [. . .] .45

 

ÄGYPTOLOGISCHES MUSEUM BERLIN

[. . .] O2@ [. . .] .46 [. . .] .47

h n [o]p & -;

Ku in reserve:

Translation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

[In the Name of ] God, Most Graci[ous], Most Merciful [. . .] Oh, Sovereign of life (?) [. . .] Oh, Most Perfect, do not overburden [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] upon each [. . .] [. . .] the heavens [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] His splendor (?) [. . .] in him (?) God, Oh, Most Gracious, Oh, Most Merciful, Oh, Mighty One, Oh, Majestic One, Oh, Powerful One, Oh, Great One, Oh, Self-Exalted One, Oh, Creator, Oh, One Who gives death, Oh, Fashioner, Oh, Most Pure (?) Oh, Manifest One, Oh, Hidden One, Oh, [. . .] Oh, Almighty (?), Oh, [. . .] God (?) In the Name of God, Most Gracious, [M]ost Merciful, He (?) is God, and I seek refuge with You, I seek refuge with You [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] and each (?)[. . .] [. . .] and all the animals (?)[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] and the Devil [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] I seek refuge from [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] I seek refuge [. . .] [. . .] and from [. . .] and every [. . .] [. . .] Oh, [. . .] every [. . .] [. . .] I seek refuge [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] I seek refuge in Him from [. . .] [. . .] the infants (?)[. . .] [. . .] and I seek refuge in Him

.48

ARAB. 24016

38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.

[. . .] all that (?)[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] the cave (?)[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] God [. . .] [. . .] the bones [. . .] [. . .] dweller (thankful?) [. . .] I seek refuge [. . .] [. . .] There is no strength but in God.



CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY MICHAELIDES COLLECTION MICHAELIDES (CHARTA) E 28 (Plate 3) Laid paper. Rectangular. Paper is light brown, rather ne grain; very opaque. Black ink tending to brown. Overall dimensions: 7.8 u 11.6 cm. Dimensions of printed area: 4.4 u 11.3 cm. Height of letters: .2–.5 cm. Ten lines of Ku text, unpointed and unvowelled. The script is characterized by long ligatures. The letters in lines two through ten begin with upward sloping strokes. There are several small holes in lines two, three, four, ve and nine. The text is only minimally affected. A transverse fold line ca. 1 cm. from the bottom is marked by a brown stain and small holes. Several longitudinal and diagonal (upper left to lower right) wrinkles appear in the piece. A piece of thread ca. 1.6 cm long is attached to the bottom of the sheet by a clump of dirt (wax?).

Transcription

     

.1

  [. . .]  ()   ()         

.2

  [. . .] %& ! "#$ 

.3

  -

   () '() * +,  -. . . ./ () 0& 

.4

1 234  5($ 6   578 ()  9  [. . .]

.5

- : ; %&   

.9

[. . .] () ?( .10

68

CAMBRIDGE UL, MICHAELIDES

Translation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful Oh, God! Indeed, I ask You, Oh, Lord (?), Oh, He (?), and [. . .] Oh, Lord of the Earth [. . .] Oh, Lord of the ascendant stars, the meteors; Oh, Lord of the oceans (?), the . . . limitations; Oh Creator of the caliphate(?), Oh, God [. . .] Oh, King (?) of the Most Holy, Oh Quickener of Souls, Oh, Revealer of the dif[culties] Oh, He Who erected the Earth upon its face [. . .] [. . .] Oh, God [. . .] Lord of the Living the cheerful ? [. . .] MICHAELIDES (CHARTA) E 29 (Plate 4)

Laid paper. Irregular rectangle. The paper is thin and translucent; its thickness appears to be relatively uniform (i.e. few thick or thin spots). The ink is black tending to brown. Overall dimensions: top: 7.55 u 31.2 cm (left-hand); bottom: 8.2 u 32.9 cm (right-hand). Dimensions of printed area: top: 4.75, middle: 5.1, bottom 5.35 u 28.6 cm. Height of letters: .2–.5 cm. Number of lines: 92 (94?): eighteen lines; (decoration); eighteen lines; (decoration with six red dots); ten lines; eighteen lines (including basmallah at the beginning); (decoration with two red dots); eighteen lines; (decoration); ten (*11?) lines. The text is in an angular naskh script with the tails of terminal letters reversing to the right but above the text line. The basmallahs in sections one and two begin with a curved line. Decorative elements: two sets of zig-zag decoration. Several longitudinal and transverse wrinkles are visible. The upper right-hand, the center and the lower left-hand parts of the text are most affected. One vertical tear runs almost the entire length of the piece ca. 2 cm from the right edge of the text area. One smaller, less obtrusive tear toward the bottom ca. .2–.3 cm from the beginning of the text. Little text here is affected. * May be a line of text with a curved line through it(?) N.B. No transcription of this amulet is given. Since its text appears to be identical to that of Michaelides E 30, I have transcribed and translated E 30 only.

69

MICHAELIDES (CHARTA) E 30

MICHAELIDES (CHARTA) E 30 (Plate 5) Paper. Laid paper (chain lines visible). Paper is fairly thin and fairly ne grained. There is a thicker area near the bottom. Black ink. Overall dimensions: top: 7.55 u 31.2 cm (left-hand); bottom: 8 u 31.2 cm (right-hand) Dimensions of printed area: top: 5.1; middle: 5.2; bottom: 5.2 u 28.9 cm. Height of letters: .2–.5 cm. 94 lines: eighteen lines; (decoration) with two faded red dots; eighteen lines; (decoration) with remnants of three red dots; eleven lines; eighteen lines (beginning with basmallah with “eyebrow curve” above it); (decoration); eighteen lines; (decoration); twelve lines. The bottom has a red brush stroke across it. A tear approximately 1.3 cm from the left-hand edge of the text block runs from near line nineteen through line 94. Two vertical wrinkles appear in the rst eighteen lines of text (one near each margin of the text). Another runs from near line 30 to line 86. This becomes a tear at line 65. Several lateral wrinkles distort the text, increasing in severity toward the bottom of the text. The text appears to be identical to E 29 but the number of lines seems to differ. (See description of E 29 above). N.B. “X” marks indicate decoration in this piece.

Transcription

     

.1

[. . .] .2

@ () C7$D [. . .]

.3

(E*) () F* () . . .] 4 ;G .4 Lines 5–19 indecipherable. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Lines 19–66 indecipherable. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Lines 67–95 indecipherable.

70

CAMBRIDGE UL, MICHAELIDES

Translation 1. In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful 2. [. . .] 3. [. . .] with him (?)[. . .] he blesses 4. I invoke you, for it is he (?)[. . .] the benet (?) (the matter?) 5. Lines 5–18 indecipherable. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Lines 19–66 indecipherable. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Lines 67–94 indecipherable. MICHAELIDES (CHARTA) E 31 (Plate 6) Paper. Rectangular. Unglazed. The sheet is rather thin but quite opaque and of ne grain. The upper right-hand corner is torn from the center of line one to the beginning of line eight. Overall dimensions: 7 u 14.1 cm. Dimensions of printed area: 4.7 u 14.1 cm. Height of letters: naskh: .2–.5 cm; Ku: 1.1–3 cm. 40 lines: one longitudinal line in foliated Ku; 39 lines in unvocalized naskh. The end of the text is missing. The Ku text is in outline and highlighted with red ink. It runs vertically through the center of the naskh text. The outline of the Ku characters is composed of the horizontal naskh letters. Decorative elements: The text margins have a double llet. The lines forming the llets are spaced at .25 cm (right-hand) and .3 cm (left-hand). These llet lines are of unequal thickness. The lower left-hand corner from the end of line 26 to the beginning of line 41 is also torn away. There is a small hole at the end of line six and another at the beginning of line 34. Some dark brown stains are in the margins. Some purple stains are in the upper center and on the right-hand margin. Red ink marks appear in the upper left-hand margin.

Transcription One vertical line in foliated Ku script:

. . . 9 ?H 9   [I   ]

.1

   FJ  [  7K]

.2

71

MICHAELIDES (CHARTA) E 31

L 7M L N[O7 "P  9]

.3

QR S7

[ FTUV] .4

QW

[8TUJ] .5

XJ

[ @Y] .6

 ) ; Z\J F] [) ;]      

.7

^J  &  & 

FZ &    73

_ J`a   

 '?b

.10

 &  &

c8

.11

[. . .] ?>

.@.

.12

() ) ; + ; 9

9 d?H  [. . .] (e) FMf 

.8 .9

.13

Y

.14

() F\W .15 [. . .] .16

 & _ + *

  

.18

8 ,

() N! _ .19

:F;

.20

Pf

.21

[. . .] .22 [. . .] .23 [. . .] .24

FMf 9

.D

.25

72

CAMBRIDGE UL, MICHAELIDES

9

F\W   (?H) fi h4  9 [. . .]  D h4

.26 .27 .28

 .29 [. . .]; h4 [. . .] .30

 h4

 h4

.31



.32

9

.33

&

.34 [. . .] .35

j 9

.36

()  .37 [. . .] 9 [. . .] .38 [. . .] .39

QurxÊn suras and ayahs by line numbers: ll. 1–8: 1:1–7 (FÊti˜ah) ll. 8–12: 3:18 (¹l {ImrÊn)

Translation Ku: And what do you have of . . .? 1. In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful 2. [Praise be to Allah, The Cherisher] and Sustainer of the worlds: Most Gracious, Most Merciful 3. Master of the Day of Judg]ment. Thee do we worship, and Thine 4. [aid we seek. S] how us the straight 5. [way,] The way 6. [of those on] whom Thou hast bestowed Thy grace, 7. [Those whose (portion)] is not wrath and who go 8. not astray. In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, 9. There is no god but He: That is the witness of Allah, His An10. gels and those endued with knowledge, standing rm

MICHAELIDES (CHARTA) E 32

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

on justice. Exalted in Power, this small (?) or large [. . .] [. . .] from all of Compassion in dominion(?) Jesus gracious [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] more honest or small male (because?) and each from every difculty oh, [. . .] each [. . .] each hotter from [. . .] [. . .] often to him (his?) [. . .] of [. . .] [. . .]

73

There is no god but He The Wise (. . .?) (. . .?) Whoever hangs upon himself (?) writing be he or the bad. In the name of the God of Mercy, The Wise (wisdom?) Strength upon him (peace be upon Him?)

prepare a very important secret (?) of great of

each no(t)

MICHAELIDES (CHARTA) E 32 (Plate 7) Laid paper. Rectangular. Unglazed. The paper is rather thin and slightly translucent with some variation in density. Overall dimensions: 11.8 u 16.9 cm. Dimensions of printed area: 7.8 u 14.1 cm. Height of letters: .3–.6 cm. 27 lines. Naskh characters with some voweling and pointing. Several holes and lacunae are found in the text, especially in the lower half. The script is a straightforward, pleasing combination of angular and cursive elements (quite elegant, actually). The ultimate line is in bolder face.

74

CAMBRIDGE UL, MICHAELIDES

The margins are irregular. Several darker discolorations and stains, especially in the top and bottom margins and in the center of the text can be seen. There is some bleeding of ink through to the verso, especially in the left-hand margin. Several wrinkles, most of them longitudinal, are found in the margins and the text area, especially one along a center line.

Transcription

  7K       FJ 

7 FTUV L 7M L @7 "P  9    F] ) ; XJ @Y QW 8TUJ QR S       FZ & ) ; Z\J

 ?@  7P  7 P  7JR   7k   ha

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5

l iD ha      .7k j (4

.6

9 na i +]  3 9 + , 9  3 9 + ( 

.7

. 7 i 7k  3 9 78 o p($  3

.8

 iD ha      $  9 5$ l 5P OY 5$* 5  3 9 5$  5     . 5$ q[r 9] 5$ 7W o Nt9uJ v 9 ) /.w [Jv] / 9   (P &  MT4 d?b^J _ 9 h4 (x $y $J a  9 7k Fv z j  2 ?@ & .FRJ ) $v   & (

.9 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15

Y,u{ & v XET4| [9] ) [}]  XEf 9 

T J4 j W~ $) ; hJ [&] $v S!€  tFV N~ S

.17

2D v $ 'ay & 9 $ J  & $v $ ‚a 9 @Y : ;

.18

?H "8 : ;  [N]Ro S& [9] X t9 [I] $ (x $D

.19

.16

75

MICHAELIDES (CHARTA) E 32

o %& J + , OY  ["]v N @o

M !P  [ hP]h  :ƒ\P „ : ; g [X] … " 'T U j

 & †9 [_ ] ‡9 "#$ J8 [ 5] ƒ ˆ)p   LM{ 9& + * 7o [ &] FJ  j [ ;j ]Š{ 7o [ &] @7TJ n‰  & ~ '(€ j †DG ‹^W 7v %& o   o€ j NŒ8 9 /.  .Ž$U 9 nPa  '  N~ Jy .Ft9uJ '  (3  9

QurxÊn suras and ayahs by line numbers: ll. 1–4: 1: 1–7 (FÊti˜ah) ll. 4–6: 112:1–4 (al-IkhlÊÉ) ll. 6–8: 113: 1–5 (al-Falaq) ll. 9–11: 114: 1–5 (al-NÊs) ll. 11–15: 2:285 (al-Baqarah) ll. 15–20: 2:286 (al-Baqarah) ll. 20–26: 7:54–56 (al-A{rÊf ) ll. 26–27: 17:82 (BanÒ IsraxÒl or IsrÊx)

.20 .21 .22 .23 .24 .25 .26 .27

Translation 1. In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds 2. Most Gracious, Most Merciful; Master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Show 3. us the straight way, the way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace. Those whose (portion) is not 4. wrath, and who go not astray. In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. 5. Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none 6. like unto Him. In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Say: I seek refuge with the 7. Lord of the Dawn, from the mischief of created things; from the mischief of darkness as it overspreads; from 8. the mischief of those who practice the Secret Arts; and from the mischief of the envious one as he practices envy. 9. In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Say; I seek refuge with the Lord and Cherisher of Mankind, the King (or Ruler) of Man10. kind, the God (or Judge) of Mankind, from the mischief of the Whisperer (of Evil), who withdraws (after his whisper), (The same) who whispers

76

CAMBRIDGE UL, MICHAELIDES

11. into the hearts of Mankind, [among jinn]s and among Men. In the name of God, Most Gracious, 12. Most Merciful. The Apostle believeth [in what] hath been revealed to him from his Lord, as do the men of faith. 13. Each one (of them) believeth in God, His angels, His books and His apostles. “We make no distinc14. tion (they say) between one and another of [His] apostles.” And they say: “We hear and we obey; we seek Thy forgive15. ness, Our Lord, and to Thee is the end of all journeys. On no soul doth God place a burden greater 16. than it can bear. It gets every good that it earns. (Pray:) Our Lord! Condemn 17. us not if we forget or fall into error; Our Lord! Lay [not] on us a burden like that which Thou didst lay 18. upon those before us; our Lord! Lay not on us a burden greater than we have strength to bear. Blot out 19. our sins, and grant us forgiveness. Have mercy on us. You are our [Pro]tector; help [us] against those who stand 20. against faith. Your Guardian-Lord is God, who created the heavens and the earth in 21. six Days, and is rmly [est]ablished on the Throne (of authority); He draweth the ni[ght] as a veil o’er [the d]ay, each seeking the other 22. in rapid succession. He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) gover[ned] by laws under [His] command. Is it not His 23. to create and to govern? Blessed be God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds. [C]all on your Lord 24. with humility and in private; for God loveth not those who trespass beyond bounds. [Do no] 25. mischief on the earth, after it hath been set in order, but call on Him with fear and 26. longing in your hearts: for the Mercy of God is (always) near to those who do good. We sent down (stage by stage) in the QurxÊn 27. that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe. MICHAELIDES (CHARTA) E 33 (Plate 8) Paper. Rectangular. Unglazed. The paper is light brown in color, thin, but quite opaque. It is ne grained and appears to be uniform in thickness. The ink is generally more brown than black, but some text (especially words in the corners of the upper square) is darker and bolder. Overall dimensions: (top) 10.2; (bottom) 11.5 u 18.4 cm. Dimensions of printed area: (top) 8.75; (bottom) 9.7 u 16.4 cm. Height of letters: .2–.5 cm.

MICHAELIDES (CHARTA) E 33

77

Twelve lines of text: two handwritten in the square at the top (the rst in the corners of the square, the second in the interstices of the interlocking trefoil design. The remaining eight lines are in naskh, pointed and vocalized. Decorative elements include text borders of double parallel lines, a circle composed of two concentric lines containing an interlocking trefoil design around a smaller circle with a ninecompartment square at the center. All these design elements are constituted by double lines. The amulet is in the form of an irregular rectangle consisting of two more or less complete squares (top: 8.3 u 8 cm; bottom: 8 u 8.9 cm (measured from the inside top line)) and part of the right margin of a third square to the left of the bottom one given above. The so-called “magic square” (the sum of the integers added vertically, horizontally or diagonally equals fteen) measures 1.7 u 1.7 cm with nine cells, each approximately 4.4 mm sq. (number arrangement uncertain) This is surrounded by a double interlocking trefoil; each trefoil is composed of two roughly parallel lines .2 cm apart. The corner angles contain words of a qur’anic passage; these are handwritten. The interstitial spaces of the trefoils also contain words of a qurxÊnic passage; they are block printed. The lower square contains ten lines of naskh script pointed and vocalized. There are three vertical parallel lines in the right-hand margin of the lower box. There is an irregular tear in the upper edge of the piece; part of the upper border is missing there. Several holes of varying size appear in the rst three lines of text. The end of the last line and the lower left-hand corner of the bottom square is missing. The upper margin of a third square is visible at lower right. The left-hand margin of the square to the left of the lower one contains some words and parts of another geometric (trefoil?) design. This square and geometric design is outlined with double llets. At upper left is one line of vocalized, pointed text running vertically. Several longitudinal, diagonal and lateral wrinkles are extant. The text in some places is affected. There are several small, rust brown stains in the upper margins, at the sides and at the top of the lower box. There are also two smudges in the center. The right-hand margin is irregular.

Transcription At top: Nine-compartment square surrounded by a circle with two lines dening its circumference; two interlaced trefoils containing a qurxÊnic phrase; a second, larger circle and a rectangular eld both framed with double lines. The corners of the square contain another invocatory formula, handwritten.

78

CAMBRIDGE UL, MICHAELIDES

d?9 T4 o Pf NŒ8 () ~ Ž    ‘( F‚€ o

.1

’(6 I o 7)“ NŒa  hv c)6 `Œ 9 

.2

3

9

2

4

5

7

8

1

6

["]     .3

  +‰  @7” q• :8 N9– Cf  {J ?l +>

.4

 FJ l  t 9 a `Π9  N :9 

.5

—vT4 h9k J () n ! ’(6 I o 7)“ NŒa  hv c)6

.6

T  _ ()/ 7> • Y

.7

 { X˜ Jo [. . .] $a „ [. . .] : ;

.8

hJ ™  RM [) @79k 7) $ - :d [. . .] [. . .] Y —vT4 ) ; + ; [9]

.9 .10

[. . .] .11

7P73  N~

.12

QurxÊn chapters and ayahs by line numbers: Handwritten in corners of decorative square at top: 85:20–22 (al-BurÖj) l. 2: 12:64 (YÖsuf ) (pars) l. 4: 10:82 (YÖnus) ll. 4–5: 7:120–122 (A{rÊf ) ll. 5–6: 85:21–22 (al-BurÖj)

Translation 1. But God doth encompass them from behind! Nay, this is a Glorious QurxÊn, inscribed in a tablet preserved! 2. God is the best to take care (of him), and He is the Most Merciful of those who show mercy! Indeed it is a Noble QurxÊn in a book inscribed.

MICHAELIDES (CHARTA) E 33

3

9

2

4

5

7

8

1

6

79

3. In the name of God, Most gracious, Most Merci[ful.] 4. “And God by His Words doth prove and establish His Truth, however much the sinners may hate it!” But the sorcerers fell down prostrate in adoration. 5. Saying: “We believe in the Lord of the Worlds, Lord of Moses and Aaron. And God doth encompass them 6. from behind. Nay, this is a Glorious QurxÊn, inscribed in a tablet preserved! And the demand (for protection?) for whoever carries this my 7. writing, sorcery, envy, loss (paucity?) of [. . .] 8. on the [. . .] of the throne. He said to us, [. . .] and it did not cease 9. [. . .] until we made them the most praiseworthy of those who give praise (?) [. . .] and work 10. [. . .] hangs upon himself this my writing [. . .] 11. [. . .] 12. [. . .] Indeed, God is strong [. . .]

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY TAYLOR-SCHECHTER GENIZA COLLECTION T-S AR 20.1 (Plate 9) Paper. Rectangular. Unglazed. The paper is of medium weight and uneven thickness. It is particularly thin under the printed area. The paper is poorly made and very thin in places. The ink is brownish-black. Overall dimensions: 16.1 u 28.2 cm. Width of printed area: ca. 6.6 cm. 35 lines: one line of cursive letters .2–.4 cm high; ve lines of cursive (Notes in the mss. volume at Cambridge University Library describe the script as “Maghrebine”), letters ca. .5–1.6 cm high; twenty-nine lines of naskh, unpointed and unvocalized. The letters are .2–.4 cm high. Decorative elements: Circular design at top containing one line of script. Letters ca. 1.2–1.3 cm high. The upper left-hand corner is missing, including approximately the top one-third of the circular inscription. The upper right-hand corner is also missing, but no text appears to have been affected. The lower part of the sheet is torn irregularly; parts of lines 33–36, as well as the end of the text are missing. There are several weak points and transverse tears. Holes are to be found between lines one and two; four and ve; seven and eight; thirteen and fourteen; 21 and 22; in the text in 25; between 26 and 27; 27 and 28, and in the margins. Some transferred ink from another printed text is visible in the right-hand margin at the top and bottom. Six tape repairs are apparent at various places.

Transcription Line one of the text (in the circular device at the top) is not deciphered.

  []     .2 ()      

.3

  

.4

 

[. . .] .5

! 

[. . .] .6

82

CAMBRIDGE UL, TAYLOR-SCHECHTER

"# 

[. . .] .7

 '      "#$% & ( ) "%*+ ,- .%/ ,- 0  12 34$5 [] &67# "8 9:  ;#%/ 0<  = >*# =[] 2  2  #?  !  ) @ ."$6  9: 

GH @ . ! I EJ  K0  5 B C $5  D 5 B E &F $!  D 5 >% LM NO$E  D 5 P@ G [B$8  D]

.8 .9 .10 .11 .12 .13

GH @ .   [G ] Q$  Q$ 3 5 Q$ &F 5 Q$   LM Q2 R<  Q$ S Q [  D] 5

.15

2  5 - [. . .] :#T [. . .] Q$[ U T]

.16

.14

()  - E7 VH -

[. . .] .17

W5$ - () X 0 : YX J

[. . .] .18

- () Z 2[ -

[. . .] .19

(\$].) : - ^5 -

[. . .] .20

 \ 34_ L:H

[. . .] .21

 

[. . .] .22

B C $5  D 5 [. . .]  N$# KF GH

[. . .] .23

`@    aJb       '  [. . .] .H :V% L %

[. . .] .24 [. . .] .25 [. . .] .26 [. . .] .27

   1[c]

.28

83

T-S AR 20.1

d

[. . .] .29 [. . .] .30

() 5eJ 5

[. . .]

W$*

,$f> C [. . .]  $@

[. . .] .31 [. . .] .32 [. . .] .33

  $Eg?# [. . .] " L %  X  `@   

[. . .] .34 .35

QurxÊn suras and ayahs by line numbers: ll. 8–11: 1:1–7 (FÊti˜ah) ll. 11–12: 112:1–4 (al-IkhlÊÉ) ll. 12–14: 113:1–5 (al-Falaq) ll. 14–16: 114:1–6 (al-NÊs)

Translation 1. Circle at top: [. . .] 2. In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, the blessings of Allah upon Muhammad (the Prophet?) 3. There is no god but Allah, Muhammad 4. is the Prophet of Allah 5. [. . .] perfection of Allah 6. [. . .] Allah is One 7. [. . .] worlds 8. In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Praise be to Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds: Most Gracious, 9. Most Merciful; Master of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we worship, and Thine aid we seek. Show us 10. [the] straight way, The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, Those whose (portion) is not wrath. 11. And who go not astray. Say: He is Allah, the One; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; 12. And there is none like unto Him. Say: I seek refuge with the Lord of the Dawn, from the mischief of created things; from 13. [the mischief darkness] as it overspreads; from the mischief of those who blow on knots; and from the mischief of the en14. [vious one as] he practices envy. Say: I seek refuge with the Lord and Cherisher of Mankind, the King (or Ruler) of Mankind, the God (or Judge) of Mankind,

84

CAMBRIDGE UL, TAYLOR-SCHECHTER

15. from the [evil of the whis]perer (of evil), Who withdraws (after his whisper), who whispers into the hearts of Mankind, among 16. [ jinns and ] among men. [. . .] the beautiful [. . .] Oh, You who is not begotten 17. [. . .] Oh, Greatest of Forgivers, oh, Most Excellent (?) 18. [. . .] Oh, Extender of the (two) hands in mercy (?), Oh, Hearer of all 19. [. . .] Oh, Generous of the (?), Oh, 20. [. . .] Oh, Protector! Oh, Master (Praise?) 21. [. . .] my eye. I ask that you not 22. [. . .] In the name of Allah 23. [. . .] I seek refuge in the Words of Allah [. . .] from the evil of created things 24. [. . .] Praise be to Allah. There is no god but Allah. Allah is Most Great . There is no power and no strength [save in Allah] 25. [. . .] The Most High, the Magnicent,. I submit [. . .] Allah 26. [. . .] 27. [. . .] 28. [. . .] [In the nam]e of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful 29. [. . .] the Earth 30. [. . .] 31. [. . .] the ninth [. . .] from His (words?) 32. [. . . Allah said [. . .] We created you 33. [. . .] 34. [. . .] Jesus [. . .] the Chosen, Muhammad, does not 35. [. . .] There is no power and no strength save in Allah, Most High T-S AR 38.135 (Plate 10) Paper. Rectangular. Unglazed. The paper is heavy, relatively coarse stock with an almost uniform light brown hue. It is slightly irregular in width. Overall dimensions: 7.9 u 44.2 cm. The amulet is composed of two shorter pieces of paper (top piece: 7.9 u 21.1. cm; bottom: 8.1 u 23.6 cm) overlapped 6.55 cm. Dimensions of printed area: 7 u 20.8 cm (top); 7 u 22.8 cm (bottom). 62 lines of text: Twelve lines unpointed, unvocalized in naskh script (letters ca. .3–.5 cm high); one line of naskh between two sets of double llets (letters .5–1 cm high); seventeen lines of naskh; one line of naskh between two double sets of llets—like the single line above ( just below the overlap of the two sheets of paper); 31 lines of naskh. Decorative element: A double llet border with red ink in the interstice is at the top. Red ink brush strokes are found between lines eleven and twelve and between lines 21–22 and after last line.

85

T-S AR 38.135

There are holes in lines nine, ten, thirteen, seventeen, twenty, 34, 36, and 37. Two vertical lines of smaller holes, each ca. 2 cm from the margins, run the length of the piece (probably marking folds in the paper). Some minor transverse wrinkles are visible.

Transcription

   

.1

 h$ED ) $5 \i> 5 jk/

.2

$.T l "f5m# 4 () UF

.3

 5  #n L) ` 5$o $9.[N]

>n R<   W &$] J

.5

\ %En $#p "qr / hLD

.6

.4

[. . .] .7 [. . .] .8

 M X 5m2 [N7gX EK0] #M L7

5 D  an @ 0  LM [[b] 5 9z” f5 0<  R [  : ] W:#  $9 1$?E/  >• `%X

.3 .4 .5 .6 .7

()$?   5 9z” N7v [] )–$: EJ 0<    N$# V .8

) 1E L‚

)     .\ C $9M ) $ &$] 3— N$# V /  K‚ j0j% )    .h$u‘ ‰:[ 1$! LM J?2

R<  j0j% )   

.9 .10

[. . .] )    .11 [. . .]  ! )     :V% .12

)   

[. . .] .13 [. . .] .14

[. . .]      [. . .] )    d N# .15

)  [. . .]   

[. . .] .16 [. . .] .17

)   

[. . .] .18 [. . .] )   

[. . .] )    

)   

[. . .] .19 [. . .] .20 [. . .] .21 [. . .] 22.

91

T-S AR 41.102

[. . .] ;/   

[. . .] .23

)    K~ “% &

[. . .] .24

)    2 `r˜ 

LM '  )    R<   ) :V% “% &

.25

)   

[. . .]  \%z™ : K‚  .26

 d $#

[. . .] \%z : K‚  [. . .] .27

)   

[. . .] )   .28

"?.  )    V% RG [. . .] )    3 #  [. . .]  )   

[. . .] .30

 ' [. . .] & m# 4

.29

[. . .] 

[. . .] ) []    /

[. . .] .31 [. . .] .32 [. . .] "f5 .33 [. . .] .34

[. . .] )    R<   )

[. . .] .35

[. . .] )    [. . .] 

[. . .] .36 [. . .] j0j% .37

K‚ j0j%

   &7# ‹u# &

[. . .] ‚ _# 

[. . .] .38

[. . .]  )     .39 [. . .] e:[ ^5 -

EH -

 - [&]L -

 y>5 -

Wp [R]

 -

# %/ -

#:95 [-]

[-]

[-]

2 -

v[X -]

()$) [R]

[-]

".[ -

$%M [R]

ww -

1 [-]

[. . .]

[. . .]

= [-]

[-]

;:¢ -

 y>5 -

 [-]

[Š] -

‡HX [-]

B$C -

X [-]

1 [-]

[. . .]

$! -

[-]

[R]w$) -

/ [-]

[. . .]

  [-]

[-]

[. . .]

[. . .]

[. . .]

Π[-]

[R]

G [-]

 -

[. . .]

96

CAMBRIDGE UL, TAYLOR-SCHECHTER

Translation 1. In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, and may Allah bless Muhammad. Oh, Allah! 2. I beseech You, Oh Hearer of [supplicant] voices, Oh, Responder to prayers, Oh, Judge 3. (of needs?), Oh He Who is remote and (Who has knowledge?) and Who is near. Oh Wise One(?), receive kindly(?) and let ow(?) and cut(?) 4. of the edge(?) and [. . .] and laugh and cry and forgive(?) 5. decline(?) and become ill(?) [. . .] To Him are the pure names and the most beautiful of them are: Oh Most (?)

Oh Almighty

[Oh] Most Glorious

(?)

Oh Most Gracious

Oh Most Merciful

Oh Lord

Oh Allah

Oh Most Sufcient

Oh Exalter

Oh AllHearing

[. . .]

Oh On[e]

[. . .]

Oh (?)

Oh Resurrector

Oh Allah

Oh (?)

Oh Majes(ty?) (Clement?)

Oh Forgiving One

Oh [. . .]

Oh God(?)

Oh Most Clever

Oh (?)

[Oh Be]stower

Oh Praiseworthy

Oh EverForgiving

Oh Patron

Oh Magnicent

Oh Most High

Oh SelfSubsisting

Oh Living One

Oh Advocate

Oh Protector

Oh Forgiver

Oh (?)

Oh (Reckoner?)

Oh Dominant One

Oh (?)

Oh (?)

Oh Excellent Lord

[Oh] Overall Protector

[Oh] (?)

[Oh] (?)

[Oh] (?)

[Oh Hid]den One

[O]h (?)

[Oh]

Oh Great One

Oh Most Efcacious

Oh Loving One

[Oh] (?)

[Oh] (?)

[Oh]

Oh Bringer of death

Oh Dominant One

[Oh] (?)

Oh Hei[r]

[Oh] Resurrector

Oh (Righteous One?)

[Oh] (?)

Oh (Reckoner?)

[Oh]

Oh Guid[e]

Oh Light

Oh (?)

[Oh]

[Oh] (?)

[O]h (?)

Oh Creator

[Oh] (?)

Oh On[e]

CHESTER BEATTY LIBRARY DUBLIN, IRELAND IS. PP 21 (Plates 14a, 14b, 14c) Paper backed with papyrus. Rectangular. Unglazed(?) Mounted between two glass plates sealed with tape. The papyrus is heavy and opaque. Black ink. Overall dimensions: 7.15 (top) 8.05 (middle) 7.3 (bottom) u 43.3 (right-hand), 44.2 (lefthand) cm. Dimensions of printed area: (visible text area) 5.0 u 42.2 cm. 88 lines of text. The last line is effaced. The text is arranged as follows: Two lines (part of a word or two of a preceding line partially visible but unidentiable) in naskh. A small square (ca. 1 u 1.3 cm) in Ku reading vertically (letters .7–.9 cm) in outline. Below this is a decorative band or chain of repeated words (˜amd? Mu˜ammad?) Following this are four lines in naskh, unpointed and unvocalized. Then appears a decorative square (ca. 5.3 u 6.5 cm) containing a word or phrase in reserve Ku in each corner and two interlocking squares ca. 3 cm square forming a six-pointed star with knotted semi-circles at the corners. These interlock with triangles. This entire design is composed of two parallel llets approximately .15 cm apart. In the center of the star are ve lines in naskh script. Following this are three lines in naskh below which is a decorative band similar to that found between lines two and three above. A blank space ca. .9 cm wide, follows, then thirteen lines of angular naskh and then one band of (semi-) foliated Ku script in reserve. Forty-six lines of naskh; one line of Ku as above; and twelve(?) lines of naskh complete the text. Letter height: .2–.4 cm—top two lines .3–.6 cm—next four lines .6–1.6 cm—Ku to right and left of star .2–.5 cm—ve lines inside star .4–.5 cm—three lines below star .1–.3 cm—remaining lines of naskh .5–1.5 cm—two lines in Ku The piece is bordered on the top, on the right and left, and at the bottom by blank papyrus strips about 1.5 cm wide. A total of nine strips are used for this border (Added later as reinforcement?). These strips cover the beginnings and ends of most lines of the printed text.

98

CHESTER BEATTY LIBRARY, DUBLIN

There are some thin areas in the paper/papyrus, e.g. behind the star design, in the rst line of Ku script, and in the main text, especially toward the center. Some small pinholes and one lacuna ca. .9 u 1.8 (irregular) cm are to be seen in lines 81–84. The paper exhibits two wrinkles extending most of the length of the piece: on the right ca. 3 cm from the right-hand margin; on the left ca. 2 cm from the left-hand margin. Several heavier and additional wrinkles are seen near the bottom. There are traces of red ink, especially in the star and in the blank space, also in lines three through ve. On the verso: several lines (ca. 11?) in Greek(?) script.

Transcription In right-hand margin in Ku:

()  ()  ()  ()  

  [. . .]

.1

  

.2

Decoration []   [] .3 [. . .] .4 [. . .] .5 Four words, one in each corner in Ku in reserve. Read from upper right-hand, lower left, lower right (l. 6). Elaborate decoration with six-pointed star. Five lines of text inside. (i.e. ll. 7–11) [. . .] () !  ()  .6 () "# .7 [. . .] .8 () $%$  [. . .] .9 [. . .] .10 [. . .] .11 [. . .] ()  .12 [. . .] .13

99

IS. PP 21

In red ink. Line totaly effaced .14 [. . .] .15

"   [&]  '#() *+    ,  -. $%$  *+    / 01 32 4   [*]

.16 .17 .18

[. . .] "#5 .19 [. . .] .20 [. . .] .21 [. . .] .22 [. . .] () +6 [. . .] .23 [. . .] .24 [. . .] .25 [. . .] .26 [. . .] .27 [. . .] .28 Ku:78 9 :*4 9 78 9 .29 (Obscured by Ku text in l. 29) .30 Lines 31–38 indecipherable.

 () , [. . .]

.39

" 

.40

() ;=< > [. . .] .41 Lines 42–68 indecipherable. [. . .] ()   [. . .] .69

100

CHESTER BEATTY LIBRARY, DUBLIN

Lines 70–76 indecipherable. [. . .] () ?"@ 9 [. . .] .77 Lines 78–88 indecipherable. QurxÊn suras and ayahs by line number: ll. 16–19: 3:18 (¹l {ImrÊn)

Translation 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

[. . .] and I seek refuge Except to Him and the King [In the nam]e of Allah, Most Gracious Most Merci[ful] [. . .] [. . .] Allah (?) the Mighty (?), the M(?) Wise (?) [. . .] [. . .] the Strong (?) [. . .] [. . .] Allah (?)[. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [. . .] [In] the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful There is no god but He: That is the witness of God, his angels, and those endued with knowledge, standing rm on justice. There is no god but He, the Exalted in Power, 19. the Wise [. . .] 20. [. . .] 21. [. . .] 22. [. . .] 23. [. . .] pure (?)[. . .] 24. [. . .] 25. [. . .] 26. [. . .] 27. [. . .] 28. [. . .] 29. Oh Kindly One, Oh Most Strong, Oh Kindly One 30. Obscured by Ku text in l. 29 Lines 31–38 indecipherable. 39. [. . .] for indeed He is Most

IS. PP 21

40. Gracious, Most Merciful 41. [. . .] Most Mighty (?) Lines 42–68 indecipherable. 69. [. . .] except Allah (?)[. . .] Lines 70–76 indecipherable. 77. [. . .] Oh Attentive One (?)[. . .] Lines 78–88 indecipherable.

101

THE GUTENBERG MUSEUM MAINZ, GERMANY* GM 03.1 SCHR. (Plates 15a, 15b, 15c, 15d) Laid paper. Rectangular. Unglazed. The paper is ne laid paper, all apparently from the same lot. The top piece bears part of a watermark on the left-hand margin about halfway down. It appears to be the top half of a bell design showing a crenellated ‘three nger’ outline. Overall dimensions: 7.3 (top); 7.4 (bottom) u 124.6 cm. Dimensions of printed area: 5.1 u 92 cm. Letters .2–1 cm in height. 83 lines of text: one handwritten line written vertically at the top; nine lines, thirteen lines; one line framing the last text section in an oval pattern; 26, thirteen, fteen, ve lines. Text is in naskh, pointed and vocalized. Decorated with llets, lozenges and a rectangular border around the text. This piece represents a complete amulet. At top is a handwritten invocation (letters .4–2.3 cm high) of ten words. The piece is composed of three paper strips, each 41.5 cm in length with overlaps of ±1.4 cm. The rst text section is co-terminus with the bottom of the rst strip of paper. The second section is framed by double llet lines 1 mm. apart. The rst text line is in a double llet frame; the second line is curved above an arch of a single line. There is no frame at the bottom. A 2.3 cm space follows. The remainder of the text is bordered by a tall arch of two lines 1 cm apart containing a line of text. The horizontal text is divided into four sub-sections (of 26, thirteen, fteen and ve lines) by double llets ca. .15 cm apart. Subsections two and three are surrounded by two oval designs as a result. The last section is beneath an arch within the larger arch. One line of ‘magic numbers’ appears at the end. Some minor holes and tears are found; little text is affected. Some ink has bled through to the verso; some discoloration, especially on joints (due to paste or glue) is also evident. The previous owner, Mr. J.W. Th. Van Meeuwen, had the paper examined by the Archaeological Institute in London and that report is available. If the text dates, as the paper appears to, to the fteenth century, it pushes the terminus ad quem for known Arabic block prints forward one hundred years and makes piece roughly contemporary with Gutenberg.

* Previously owned by the Antiquariat van Meeuwen, The Hague, Netherlands.

104

GUTENBERG MUSEUM, MAINZ

The lab report from the University of London Institute of Archaeology, dated 10 October, 1989, and written by Dr. N.J. (Nigel J.?) Seeley and Dr. A.T.N. Bennett (signed 20 Oct. 1989) suggests a possible match with the watermark numbered 3984 in C.M. Briquet, Les ligranes: dictionnaire historique des marques du papier, vol. 2 (Leipzig: Hierseman, 1923). This would place the creation of the amulet sometime in the rst half of the 15th century, perhaps 1436–37 (Venice), 1437–38 (Palermo), or 1444 (Fabriano), assuming the paper is of Italian manufacture, as is indicated by the watermark.

Transcription

          !  " #%$  &'( " )*+, "

.1 .2 .3

’)  -./ '012" .4

3 $ 4 35.6 &7 3$"8  #%$ 

.5

3 / 398 3 3 :8; $  3/2 %? @