Asian and African studies blog

The previous blog post in this series on the provenance of the Colebrooke Collection examined the story behind the Sanskrit legal manuscripts which form part of the Colebrooke Collection. The role of Indian ‘pandits’ in gathering these manuscripts is a vital part of this story, and this blog will delve deeper into the identities and stories of some of these figures. 

The title ‘pandit’ has its origins in the Sanskrit term ‘paṇḍita’, meaning a learned person. Specifically, this learning was rooted in the knowledge of Sanskrit, the ancient language of India, and the vast literature, going back millennia, composed in that language. Hindu religious texts were at the heart of this, but it also encompassed a wide range of disciplines across the sciences and humanities. The job of a pandit was to preserve and expound on this learning. He did this through memorising and reciting scriptures, producing copies of texts, writing commentaries, and by passing on his knowledge to his students. 

A number of East India Company employees, curious to learn more about Indian culture, had spent time studying Sanskrit with pandits. A few years following his arrival in India, Colebrooke began to do the same.

Citrapati and family
From 1789-94, Colebrooke was posted to Purnia, in north-eastern Bihar. Here, he encountered a pandit named Citrapati, who became one of his first teachers. Citrapati is named as the copyist of a manuscript in the Colebrooke Collection, produced in 1790, which is a copy of a twelfth-century text on algebra:  

The final page from the Bījagaṇita, the chapter on algebra in Bhāskara’s Siddhāntaśiromaṇi, which contains a colophon stating that the text was copied, ‘by order of Colebrooke Sahib, by Mahopādhyāya Citrapati’. ‘Mahopādhyāya’ is a title meaning ‘learned teacher’. British Library, IO San 871b

Colebrooke’s initial interest in learning Sanskrit, therefore, stemmed from a desire to learn about Indian mathematics. It’s an interest he later returned to, and in 1817 he would publish a translation of the above text, as a part of a larger work: Algebra, with Arithmetic and Mensuration, from the Sanscrit of Brahmegupta and Bhàscara.

In a letter to his father, in 1797, Colebrooke recalled that ‘the means of acquiring the Sanskrit language were by translating a grammar and several dictionaries of it, with the help of a Brahmin [the priestly caste, of which pandits were members]’ (T. E. Colebrooke 1873, p. 89). Indeed, many of the manuscripts in the Colebrooke Collection dating from these years are grammatical works, including this one: 

A page from a copy of the Dhātupradīpa. British Library, IO San 434a 

This is the final page of a copy of the Dhātupradīpa, a twelfth-century work on Sanskrit grammar by Maitreya Rakṣita. The text ends with a colophon, identifying the copyist as ‘Vrajanandana Śarman, sister's son (bhāgineyaḥ) of Citrapati Śarman of Dhamdaha’. Vrajanandana, is named as the copyist for several manuscripts in the Colebrooke Collection, and this reflects how the profession of a pandit was something associated with entire families, often through many generations. Another text, produced about the same time, provides a window into Colebrooke’s study of Sanskrit under Citrapati and Vrajanandana: 

A page from the Amarakoṣa. British Library, IO San 3162

The text contained in the box in the centre of the page is from the Amarakoṣa, an early Sanskrit dictionary, copied in Bengali script by Vrajanandana. In the margins, in Colebrooke’s hand, are extracts from commentaries, written in Devanagari script, as well as English translations of certain phrases.

Bābūrāma
In 1795, Colebrooke received a new posting in Mirzapur, and here he met other pandits who would go on to produce manuscripts for him. The following image is from a copy of the Mahābhārata in the Colebrooke Collection. A colophon (in red ink) states the copyist to be ‘Bābūrāma, a Brahman of Mirzapur.’

A colophon in a copy of the Mahābhārata. British Library, IO San 1771

Like Citrapati, Bābūrāma first worked for Colebrooke as a copyist. But they would both accompany Colebrooke as he moved to different postings over the course of his career, and would continue to be employed either directly by him, or in roles connected to Colebrooke’s official duties with the East India Company.

In 1795, Colebrooke was appointed judge and magistrate for Mirzapur, and he appointed Citrapati to his official staff, in the role of pandit to the district court of Mirzapur. In this capacity, Citrapati provided advice to ensure that decisions taken in the court were consistent with Hindu law. 

Citrapati also produced manuscripts to assist with Colebrooke’s judicial duties. In 1797, Colebrooke had submitted a proposal to compile and translate a supplementary digest of Hindu law for use in the courts under EIC jurisdiction. For this work he was granted funds ‘to entertain the establishment of Pundits required by him’ (IOR/F/4/39/974). Citrapati was one of those employed, and for this he produced the Vyavahārasiddhāntapīyūṣā, a compilation of Hindu law codes with an accompanying commentary.

From the Vyavahārasiddhāntapīyūṣā.  The colophon, highlighted in red, identifies Citrapati Śarman as the compiler of the text and author of the accompanying commentary. It also states that the manuscript was composed for tāmasa-henṛks-kolabruka-sāhebājñayā, i.e. Henry Thomas Colebrooke.  British Library, IO San 3143

In 1802, Colebrooke was appointed a judge of the superior court in Calcutta [Kolkata]. Citrapati accompanied him to Calcutta, and then in 1806 was himself appointed to the superior court, as one of the two pandits employed to give decisions on Hindu law as it related to cases being tried in this court. 

Bābūrāma also accompanied Colebrooke to Calcutta, but his career went in a different direction. In a letter in June 1806, Colebrooke informed his father that ‘a printing press has been recently established by natives to print Sanskrit books on their own account. The types have been considerably improved for the purpose, under my directions; for, as you may easily suppose, the press has been established on encouragement from me’ (quoted in T. E. Colebrooke 1873, p. 227). It was Bābūrāma who took charge of this enterprise, and from 1807 to 1815 his Sanskrit Press produced editions of sixteen separate works of Sanskrit literature.

The Government of Bengal were subscribers to most of Bābūrāma’s publications, usually at the recommendation of Fort William College, which had been founded in Calcutta in 1800 to provide training for new EIC recruits. In this way, Bābūrāma’s proposal to print an edition of the epic poem Kiratarjuniya with the commentary called Ghaṇṭāpatha was supported by the Sanskrit professor at the College, who commented that, ‘They are both classical works, and will be useful in the College as class books’ (IOR/P/8/36). The Government agreed to subscribe for a hundred copies, to be distributed among the EIC colleges in Calcutta, Madras [Chennai], and Hertfordshire.

Similarly, the Government of Bengal ordered multiple copies of four legal texts produced by Bābūrāma’s Sanskrit Press, which they distributed not only to the different EIC colleges, but also to all of their law courts. Two of these texts, the Mitākṣarā and Dāyabhāga, had been translated by Colebrooke for his Two Treatises on the Hindu Law of Inheritance, and it was largely due to Colebrooke’s opinion of the significance of these works that Bābūrāma’s editions received this support.

The careers of Citrapati and Bābūrāma were therefore closely entwined with that of Colebrooke. At a time when the EIC was seeking to establish a judicial framework for governing its subjects in South Asia, Colebrooke made himself indispensable with his in-depth knowledge of Hindu law. Citrapati and Bābūrāma, having guided Colebrooke in his Sanskrit studies, now also benefited from their patron’s rise. However, as the next blog post will show, although there were opportunities for pandits in the new India, their position was always a precarious one.

This is the third in a series of blog posts on the provenance of the Colebrooke collection of Sanskrit manuscripts in the British Library. The first post introduced the Colebrooke family and the East India Company, and the second post focused on Colebrooke's manuscripts on Hindu law.

Works consulted
Bābūrāma (ed.), Mitākṣarā (Calcutta: Sanskrit Press, 1812).
Bābūrāma (ed.), Dāyabhāga, with the commentary of Śrīkṛṣṇatarkālaṃkāra (Calcutta: Sanskrit Press, 1813).
Bābūrāma (ed.), Kiratarjuniya, with the commentary of Mallinātha called Ghaṇṭāpatha (Calcutta: Sanskrit Press, 1814).
Colebrooke, Henry Thomas, (trans.), Two Treatises on the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Calcutta: Hindoostanee Press, 1810).
Colebrooke, Henry Thomas, Algebra, with Arithmetic and Mensuration, from the Sanscrit of Brahmegupta and Bhàscara (London: John Murray, 1817).
Colebrooke, Thomas Edward, The Life of H. T. Colebrooke (London: Trübner, 1873).
Rocher, Rosanne and Rocher, Ludo, The Making of Western Indology: Henry Thomas Colebrooke and the East India Company (London: Routledge, 2012).

Letter from the Government of Bengal to the Court of Directors of the East India Company, 31 Jan 1798. British Library, IOR/F/4/39/974.
Letter from William Carey to Fort William College Council, 4 May 1814 (Government of Bengal Proceedings 19 Jul 1814, No. 34). British Library, IOR/P/8/36.
Amarakoṣa. British Library, IO San 3162.
Bījagaṇita (chapter on algebra from Bhāskara’s Siddhāntaśiromaṇi). British Library, IOL San 871b.
Dhātupradīpa. British Library, IO San 434a. 
Mahābhārata. British Library, IO San 1771.
Vyavahārasiddhāntapīyūṣā. British Library, IO San 3143.

David Woodbridge, Provenance Researcher Sanskrit Collections (REAP pilot project 2023-2025)

This is the first in a series of five blog posts on the provenance of the Colebrooke Collection of Sanskrit manuscripts in the British Library.

Bust of Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1765-1837), by Henry Weekes, commissioned by the Royal Asiatic Society in 1837. RAS 02.008 

‘I am commanded to offer you in the name of the Court their best thanks and acknowledgements for the present which you therein purport making to the Company of your collection of Oriental manuscripts, and to assure you of the high sense which they entertain of your obliging attention. The Court propose to set apart a portion of their library for the acception of these valuable manuscripts and to distinguish it by the name of the Colebrooke Collection.’ (Letter from the Court of Directors of the East India Company to Colebrooke, 24 April 1819. British Library, IOR/E/255, f 240).

The above is an extract from a letter that was sent to Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1765-1837) by the East India Company’s Court of Directors in London, on 24 April 1819. Four years previously, Colebrooke had returned to Britain after thirty-two years in India. His career had been an impressive one, beginning on the lower rungs of the Company’s civil service and rising up eventually to become a member of the supreme council of the Government of Bengal.

However, what Colebrooke is most remembered for today is his scholarship. While in India, he held the position of professor of Sanskrit at the College of Fort William,  founded by the EIC in Calcutta in 1800. And for the nine years prior to his departure in 1815 he was the president of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, the pre-eminent forum for Europeans pursuing research into any branch of enquiry relating to India. Later, in 1823, he would found the Royal Asiatic Society in London, in an attempt to replicate something of that interest in Britain.

Colebrooke’s most tangible legacy is his collection of over two thousand Sanskrit manuscripts, which he brought back with him from India and donated to the EIC’s Library (later renamed the India Office Library, and now part of the British Library). The ‘Colebrooke Collection’ covers a wide range of subjects, including religion, philosophy, law, grammar, poetry, mathematics, astronomy, and botany, and has been a vital resource for students in Britain and beyond.

A page from the Mahabharata, one of the manuscripts in the Colebrooke Collection. British Library, IO San 1771.

But what is the story behind the formation of this important collection? In particular, how did Colebrooke come to be in India? What influenced his interests and choices as he formed his collection? And how did he find and acquire the manuscripts themselves? These questions will be examined in a series of blog posts, of which this first post, on the Colebrooke Family and the East India Company, will provide some background to Colebrooke’s arrival in India.

Even before Henry Thomas set off for Asia, the Colebrooke family had become closely associated with the East India Company. His father, Sir George Colebrooke (1729-1809), was a wealthy and prominent banker, and made investments in EIC shares. In 1764, he became one of the Company’s proprietors, the elite group of shareholders who owned enough stock to qualify for a vote to elect the members of the Court of Directors. These members, who met in the Company’s headquarters in London, were responsible for overseeing all of its operations. Sir George himself became a member in 1767, and served three terms as chairman in 1769, 1770, and 1772.

As chairman, Sir George defended the EIC against criticism from within Britain and attempts to introduce greater government control over its activities. This criticism stemmed from the growing power of the Company in India, where it had been fighting wars, making deals with local rulers, and taking control of areas of territory. Many in Britain believed the EIC had gone beyond the bounds of acceptable activity for a trading organisation, and were concerned by reports of corruption and abuse of power. Sir George successfully resisted calls for greater government control. However, during his third term as president, the Company experienced a major financial crisis and had to appeal to the government for relief, which was damaging for Sir George’s reputation. But worse was to come, as his own financial affairs rapidly deteriorated, leading ultimately to bankruptcy.

Henry's father Sir George Colebrooke was a prominent figure in British public life, and as the EIC foundered under his leadership he was the subject of attacks in the press. This cartoon is from an edition of the Oxford Magazine published in 1773. Sir George is depicted in the centre, kneeling before Lord North, the Prime Minister, while handing him a bag of money and pleading ‘Save us my Lord or we perish.’  British Museum, 1868,0808.10039. © The Trustees of the British Museum

It was in this context that Henry Thomas, along with his elder brother, Edward (1761-1838), set out for Asia to work for the East India Company. For someone who had occupied positions of considerable status, Sir George would have envisaged a more elevated future for his sons than a career in India. But in the family’s reduced situation, the EIC offered a potential path to restoring their fortunes. Opportunities were highly sought after, but their father’s previous service doubtless counted in the sons’ favour, and both obtained positions as writers, that is, administrators, in India.

Henry Thomas Colebrooke arrived in India in 1783. In the wake of its crisis ten years previously, the EIC had undergone a number of reforms, with an emphasis on improving the standards of its administration. Colebrooke had therefore arrived at a time of great change for the Company. Though his father’s reputation and the family’s situation had been greatly damaged, he had nevertheless been granted an opening in EIC employment. There was a need for competent administrators who were willing to familiarise themselves with local conditions and devise ways for the EIC to transform itself into a responsible government. This is the context in which Colebrooke embarked upon his career in the Company’s service.

The second blog post in this series on the provenance of the Colebrooke Collection will be on Colebrooke’s manuscripts on Hindu law.

Works Consulted
Buchan, P. Bruce, ‘The East India Company 1749-1800: The Evolution of a Territorial Strategy and the Changing Role of the Directors’, Business and Economic History, 23:1 (1994).
Rocher, Rosanne and Rocher, Ludo, The Making of Western Indology: Henry Thomas Colebrooke and the East India Company (London: Routledge, 2012).
Letter from the Court of Directors of the East India Company to H. T. Colebrooke, 24 April 1819. British Library, IOR/E/255, f 240.

David Woodbridge, Provenance Researcher Sanskrit Collections (REAP pilot project 2023-2025)

Frederick S. Harrop was one of the first foreign art teachers hired by the Thai government in the early twentieth century. He lived in Bangkok from 1913-30 and helped to reform Thai art education and graphic design in his role as Art Master, and later Headmaster, of Poh-Chang School of Art and Crafts, the first modern art school in Thailand. It was founded in 1913 by King Vajiravudh (Rama VI), who – like many other Thai royals - received his education in the UK and continued the modernisation efforts of his father, King Chulalongkorn (Rama V). When Harrop arrived in Bangkok, he must have been fascinated by the richness of colours and brilliant light of the tropics. He immediately took great interest in traditional Thai art, design and decorative styles and blended these with Western techniques. His preferred subjects were the traditional architecture of Thai temples, people and street scenes, as well as boats and river views.

Left: Wat Benchamabophit, Bangkok, watercolour, signed F. S. Harrop, c. 1925. British Library, FSHA 1165. Right: Doorway, Wat Pho, Bangkok, pencil, pen and ink on paper, signed F. S. Harrop, c.1920. British Library, FSHA 1338. ©William R. Harrop

Frederick Samuel Harrop, born on 27 March 1887 in Batsford, Stoke-on-Trent, started his career as an apprentice to Grimwades pottery manufacturers in Stoke-on-Trent. Aged 17 he was attending evening classes at Stoke School of Art, and two years later he was awarded an Applied Arts Scholarship to study at Hanley Municipal School of Art, Science and Technology. In 1909 he won a scholarship to the Royal College of Art in London. Harrop developed his skills as a modeller draughtsman and designer through researching in the British Museum and the V&A, with its close relationship to the RCA. He explored various aspects of art education and took a Teacher’s Training course at the RCA. Study trips took him to the Netherlands, where he spent two months working with three other students of the RCA at the Palace of Peace in The Hague designing wall tiling that was fired in Delft.

F.S. Harrop (front row, 5th from right) with staff and students in front of Poh-Chang School, c. 1920. British Library, B 24.

In 1913, Harrop left the RCA without the full qualification certificate in order to take up a position as Assistant Art Teacher in Bangkok, and soon he rose to the position of Art Master at the School of Arts and Crafts (now known as Poh-Chang Academy of Arts, Rajamangala University of Technology Rattanakosin). In this role, he introduced Thai students to Western art forms and techniques, such as watercolour sketching and painting, drawing, printing, book design, graphic and letterform design, while at the same time adopting traditional Thai art styles and techniques in his own works. In turn, his students often blended European and Thai art styles in their works.

Life study, pencil and watercolour on paper, signed F. S. Harrop, 1924. British Library, FSHA 1346. ©William R. Harrop

In 1917 Harrop married Edith Florence Keyes in Singapore and they had two sons, Roger born in Bangkok in 1918 and James born during a home visit to England in 1920. Edith Harrop produced water colours herself, and both were active members of the expatriate community in Bangkok.
From 1921 on Harrop was also Organising Art Master to the Ministry of Public Instruction in Bangkok, where his duties included the training of drawing teachers for schools under the Ministry. In the School of Arts and Crafts, Harrop initiated and ran classes in applied design for metal and woodworkers, process reproduction (including line, half-tone and three-colour work), lettering, woodcut and lino-block printing, and modelling. He became Headmaster of the School of Arts and Crafts in 1922, and in the following years more courses were added, including photography, mother-of-pearl inlay, and gold-on-lacquer design.

Designs for posters by F. S. Harrop, c.1920, pencil, pen and ink on paper. Left: British Library, FSHA1181; right: British Library, FSHA1184. ©William R. Harrop

Harrop organised exhibitions at local, national and international levels, including a display and exhibition book for the planned Siamese Kingdom Exhibition 1926, which was cancelled due to King Vajiravudh’s death the previous year. In 1930 the family moved back to London where Harrop found teaching appointments with Willesden Polytechnic, the Paddington Art Institute and the Hammersmith School of Building and Arts and Craft. After his retirement in 1952, he launched a late career as a master studio potter that lasted until his death on 26 February 1969. Even in his later pottery works traces of Asian influences and Thai motifs intermingle with traditional English and Mediterranean motifs.

Plates produced for an exhibition book, edited by F. S. Harrop, on the occasion of the planned Siamese Kingdom Exhibition 1926. British Library, FSHA 0704.

A particularly strong sense of hybridity is visible in the commercial work Harrop produced during his time in Bangkok. As an established artist he was approached for various advertising commissions and for designing book covers, specifically for King Vajiravudh’s own publications. Harrop produced designs inspired by traditional Thai motifs, overlaid with an RCA-trained sense of layout, colouring and lettering. Harrop signed hand-drawn designs for printed works and art prints with “F.S. Harrop”, “F. Harrop”, “Harrop”, “FSH”, “FH”, “แฮรัป” (Haerap), “ฮ” (H), as well as “เพาะช่าง” (Pho-Chang) and “พ.ช.” (Pho. Cho., short for Pho-Chang). The latter two, if used as stand-alone signatures (not in combination with Harrop’s other signatures) may have been used for collaborative works with colleagues that involved larger passages of Thai and/or Chinese text, for commercial works that were formally ordered from the School of Arts and Crafts, or prints of photographs by other artists, e.g. as book illustrations.

Left: Front cover design for a magazine “Asia” with blank fields for date and price, c.1920. British Library, FSHA1198; right: front cover design for an exhibition catalogue of the Siam Art Club, c.1920. British Library, FSHA1217. ©William R. Harrop

Among the earlier commercial print designs by Frederick S. Harrop are programmes for events and theatre performances. Some of these are completely in the English language, others completely in Thai, but there are also bilingual Thai and English programmes, depending on which audiences were expected for such events.

Left: Programme front cover for a “Miniature Naval Engagement” at Dusit Park, 1917, print on paper. British Library, GMS310; right: Programme cover for “The Willow Pattern”, an operetta on 21st February 1920 in aid of the Bangkok Nursing Home, print on paper. British Library, FSHA0740. ©William R. Harrop

A significant part of Harrop’s print collection consists of commercial poster designs and printed posters which were commissioned by organisations and enterprises to advertise their products and services. Though often undated, they appear to have been created mainly from 1920 onwards, showing a significant development in Harrop’s artistic and linguistic approach. The earlier designs for programmes were mostly executed in a Western style, possibly because audiences were primarily members of the expatriate community and the Thai elite. The posters, however, were meant to attract the attention of wider, general audiences, and Harrop included traditional Thai patterns as well as bilingual or even trilingual text passages, combining English, Thai and Chinese texts.

Examples of Harrop’s poster designs. Left: design for Solar Eclipse event, dated 9 May 1929. British Library, FSHA1206; right: Poster design for the Red Cross with text in Thai and Chinese, first proof dated B.E. 2568 (1925). British Library, FSHA 1193. ©William R. Harrop

Harrop produced numerous cover designs for a variety of publications, especially books written and translated by King Vajiravudh who was keen to introduce modern, creative book designs of high quality that would help popularise reading as a leisure activity as well as book collecting. Harrop understood that book design had to be adapted to the needs of the emerging Thai book market as more books were produced in the Thai language. Front covers with colourful, extra-ordinary designs and intricate patterns that appealed to the Thai taste aimed to give potential readers an idea of the contents of books, but also to emphasize the high quality of the books and the status of the authors and publishing agencies. Harrop’s book designs often included text, either in one language or multiple languages. By 1922 he had developed a Thai letterform that could be seen as his “signature” letterform as it was used for books featuring his book cover designs, as well as plates and illustrations in books.

Left: Front cover design for “Lilit nitthra chakhrit” by King Chulalongkorn. British Library, FSHA 1722; right: printed front cover of the book “Lilit nitthra chakhrit”, published in 1922. British Library, Siam.200. ©William R. Harrop

Among Harrop’s most impressive commercial designs are some for business calendars that were popular annual gifts for customers. It was a smart way to make business brands visible to customers throughout the year, and lucky symbols or signs of the Thai zodiac were integrated. Harrop created calendars for Buddhist and Chinese calendar systems. The most remarkable designs are Harrop’s Buddhist calendars printed on silk. There are four altogether in the Harrop collection now held in the British Library, each of them combining intricate decorative Thai patterns, stunning letterform designs, painted scenes depicting Buddhist deities, animals of the zodiac, and additional images chosen by the patrons who commissioned the calendars.

Left: Printed calendar on silk for the year B.E. 2465 (1922) and detail on the right. British Library Or 17132/2. ©William R. Harrop

Harrop’s notes, invitations, photographs and handwritten dedications in book gifts indicate that he had contacts with King Vajiravudh (Rama VI), Prince Chakrabongse, Prince Damrong Rajanubhab as well as other European professionals who worked for the Siamese government: French archaeologist and historian George Cœdès (Chief Librarian of the National Library of Thailand), Welsh linguist Herbert Stanley O’Neill (Lecturer of English at Chulalongkorn University), German architect Karl Siegfried Döhring, Swiss artist Michael Rudolph Wening (court sculptor for King Vajiravudh), and possibly also Italian artist Carlo Rigoli and British Vice-Consul in Bangkok, Reginald Le May.

Phra Samut Chedi, Chao Phraya River, Samut Prakan. Oil painting, signed F. S. Harrop, 1929. British Library, FSHA 1362. ©William R. Harrop

Frederick S. Harrop’s collection was given to the British Library in 2023 (books and one manuscript) and 2024 (artworks and archive). It is a collection of great diversity and consists of Harrop’s own artworks and designs, works of students at the School of Arts and Crafts in Bangkok, research materials, books and archival files. 592 photographs, 81 watercolours and 55 oil paintings by Frederick S. Harrop, one watercolour by Edith Harrop, 11 sketchbooks, as well as 153 prints, drawings, blueprints, stencils and printing blocks are now held in the Library’s Visual Art collections. In addition, 38 books and periodicals, one palm leaf manuscript, commercial designs, printed works on silk and paper, drafts for speeches and publications, and numerous other archival files documenting Harrop’s work in Bangkok were added to the Thai collection. These materials will be made accessible (by appointment) in the Library’s Prints and Drawings Room as soon as cataloguing and conservation treatment (where necessary) have been completed.

Jana Igunma (Henry Ginsburg Curator for Thai, Lao and Cambodian) and William R. Harrop (London) 

This is a short version of the full article “Frederick S. Harrop (1887 – 1969) and the modernisation of Thai book and graphic design” in the SEALG Newsletter, Dec. 2024; pp. 87-116.
More posts in the series “Exploring Thai art”:
Exploring Thai art: James Low (published 2016) 
Exploring Thai art: Doris Duke (published 2016) 

The opening page of the Mir'at featuring a richly decorated unvan with gold floral decorations and a description, in Ottoman (in Osman Reşer's hand?) of the name, date and authorship of the work. (Mekkî Ali, Mir'atü'l-hubûş. Cairo?, 1020 AH/1611-12 CE). (Or 11226, f 1v)

It’s not uncommon to find texts within our Ottoman holdings that speak to the history and culture of regions across Eurasia, and even the Americas. Whether translations of Arabic and Persian texts, or original Ottoman compositions, the manuscripts attest a keen interest in West Asia, South-East Europe, North Africa, the Hejaz, and Iran. And, of course, among the first printed books produced in the Ottoman Empire was the Tarihü’l-Hindü’l-garbî, a guide to the Americas cobbled together from Spanish and Italian sources. One volume that we hold, however, provides a different view to a particular Ottoman’s interest in a neighbouring Empire not often featured in other Ottoman works.

Or 11226, known as the Mir’atü’l-hubûş (Mirror of the Ethiopians), is a rare text in both Arabic and Ottoman Turkish that explores the origins, culture, religion, and relations of the Ethiopians (hubûş). Copied by Mekkî Ali İbn-i Mustafa İbn-i Ali el-Müderris in 1020 AH (1611-12 CE), the volume collates information gathered from myriad Arabic sources, including collections of aḥādīth. The British Museum purchased it from the well-known Istanbul-based dealer Osman Reşer né Oskar Rescher on 10 May 1930. To date, I have found only one other copy of the Mir’at, a manuscript from 1020 AH held at the Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi (Esat Efendi 484) in İstanbul. The microfilm of the manuscript is described in an article in Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi by Dr. Metin Demirci of Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi. An English-language description of the work and its creator, fully contextualized among the other Ottoman texts about Ethiopians, was authored by Dr. Baki Tezcan in 2018 as part of the volume Disliking Others: Loathing, Hostility, Distrust in Premodern Ottoman Lands.

The title of the work, identifying Mekkî Ali in the same fashion as the Süleymaniye copy, and an ownership seal from Şeyh Ahmet Nehir (?) dated 1169 AH/1755-56 CE. (Mekkî Ali, Mir'atü'l-hubûş. Cairo?, 1020 AH/1611-12 CE). (Or 11226, f 1r)

Both the microfilm and the original manuscript are available on the Türkiye Yazma Eserler Kurumu Başkanlığı’s Database of Manuscripts. This provides us with the lucky opportunity to compare the manuscripts, despite their homes being at either end of Europe.

The Arabic-language start of the Mir'at including an explanation of the motivation for its authorship. (Mekkî Ali, Mir'atü'l-hubûş. Cairo?, 1020 AH/1611-12 CE). (Or 11226, ff 4r-v)

To start, the organization of the text is not quite the same in both copies. Both begin with a lengthy preamble glorifying Allah and his division of the peoples of the world into different races and ethnic groups, as well as describing the author’s motivations and praise for Sultan Ahmet I (reigned 1603-17 CE). Mekkî Ali does this first in Arabic and then in Ottoman, with the Ottoman providing occasional commentary on difficult words. From this section, we learn that Mekkî Ali travelled throughout Makkah, Madinah and other Arab lands between 980 and 995 AH (1572-86 CE; according to my reading of the Arabic text) and then, struck by a longing to return to them, he decided to uproot his family from Bursa, where he was a religious scholar or professor (müderris) and relocate to Makkah. While there, he was wowed by the diversity of people he met. He continued to be in awe of them after returning to “diyâr-i Rûm” (Anatolia) in 1007 AH (1598-99 CE), pushed by unfortunate and unfavourable occurrences to leave the Holy Cities. Tezcan clarifies that these circumstances were likely his refusal of a post in Madinah. After his return, Mekkî Ali decided to convert this wonder into a textual account of the Ethiopians, to pay tribute to those whose qualities he had admired.

The end of Mekkî Ali's explanation of the contents of the work including a marginal note. (Mekkî Ali, Mir'atü'l-hubûş. Cairo?, 1020 AH/1611-12 CE). (Or 11226, f 11r)

The alternation of Arabic and Ottoman Turkish with explanations continues through a Mukaddime, and then four ebvâp, each of which contains five fusûl. The first bap describes the merits of the Ethiopians; the second tackles the origins and characteristics of Najashi, the Aksumite King who gave refuge to early Muslims fleeing Makkah; the third, the Ethiopian Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (الصحابة); the fourth explores cultured Muslim notables of Ethiopian extraction (اهل الآداب في اصل الحبوش), before a very brief ending (but not a hatime). A brief marginal note on f 11r explains that fasleyn 4 and 5 of bâp 3 have been merged. This is because of the author’s inability to distinguish between various notables springing from Ethiopian mothers and the men of the Quraysh and the ṣaḥābah on the one hand and those springing from the Bayt al-ṭāhirīn and the ‘abbasī Caliphs on the other. In general, the sections aimed to provide readers with an understanding of the early history of the Ethiopians; their social and political divisions; and their importance in the early history of Islam.

Demirci describes the Arabic sections as explanations of the Ottoman parts, but, in fact, the Arabic text (overlined in red in the British Library copy only) always precedes the Ottoman. Indeed, a closer look at the two versions of the Mir’at shows that it is the British Library one, rather than the Sülemaniye copy, that is the more complete version, as the latter awkwardly skips a large section of Arabic text found on BL Or 11226 ff 4v-5r where Mekkî Ali explains he has gathered Arabic-language sources “translating them into Turkish so that their benefits are generalized and their comprehension easy.” (“ومترجما بعده باللسان التركي ليعم نفعه ويسهل فهمه”) The Ottoman sections, then, are translations replete with additional glosses to assist readers in understanding complex words and phrasing. As Tezcan points out, the Mir’at is part of a longer Arabic-language tradition of writing about Africans. Indeed, the Arabic texts include a marginal مطلب explaining the content, present throughout the BL text and at the front of the Süleymaniye copy, but absent from the Ottoman translations in both, which is why I assume the Arabic is original rather than a ta‘rīb of the Turkic text.

Apart from the missing sections of the Arabic text, the Süleymaniye copy follows much the same structure as the British Library one, but there are obvious differences in calligraphy and embellishment. While the Süleymaniye copy has lovely, even nesih that sits very firmly on a lower line, the BL’s holding is more cursive, a bit quicker and even occasionally sloppier, contrasting with its gold text frames and elaborate unvan. Moreover, despite a few marginal notes in the Süleymaniye copy, it is largely a clean one, while the Ottoman, and occasionally the Arabic, texts in the British Library copy have interlinear additions and corrections.

The Mir'at's colophon, including the name of the copyist and his profession, as well as the date. (Mekkî Ali, Mir'atü'l-hubûş. Cairo?, 1020 AH/1611-12 CE). (Or 11226, f 115v)

The colophon for the British Library copy appears to have been added after the completion of the volume. When compared to the Sülemaniye copy, which has only the simple statement that the work was completed by the grace of God, our holding is far more verbose and eloquent. The author of the Süleymaniye copy is only identified by a brief inscription on the top-left of the first folio where the author’s name is only given as Mekkî Alî el-Mes’ûl, possibly in a similar hand to the colophon of Or 11226. A similar note is found on f 1r of Or 11226. But in our copy's colophon, in contrast, in an almost-nestalik hand, the scribe identifies himself as Makkī ‘alī bin Muṣṭafá bin ‘alī al-mudarris of the Medrese-yi Valide-yi Sultan Mehmet Han İbn-i Murat Han at that time. The use of the Arabic adverb يومئذ (on that day) indicates that either he or his grandfather was a teacher when the text was copied, but I think it most likely that the epithet relates to Ali the grandson and not the grandfather. The school that he refers to might be the Safiya Mosque Complex in Cairo, constructed in 1019 AH (1610-11 CE) and dedicated to the Safiye Sultan, mother of III. Mehmet Sultan. The complex was initially under the supervision of the former Chief Eunuch of the Court Osman Ağa, loyal to Safiye Sultan throughout decades of Palace intrigues.

But this does not quite accord with Tezcan’s estimation of the author. He identifies Mekkî Ali as Ali Habî, “a professor of law from Bursa who is known to have held an appointment in Mecca in 1005/1596-97.” Tezcan has made use of considerable external resources to match the biography provided at the start of the Mir’at, coming up with a jurist who might fit the bill. In both copies, Mekkî Ali makes reference to a patron or protector, Mustafa Ağa, whom, based on the Ottoman Turkish description on f 7v of the Süleymaniye copy, Tezcan identifies as the Chief Eunuch, an Ethiopian himself. There are only minor changes in the honourifics found in the same passage of the British Library copy, but Or 11226’s Arabic text describes this patron as Muṣṭafá Aghā bin ‘abd al-Mannān. I’ve yet to find a source with the name of Mustafa Ağa’s father, but, of course, such information might help us to determine a bit more about Mekkî Ali’s identity and allegiances.

There are plenty of unanswered questions around Mir’atü’l-hubûş. For some time, scholars have sought to answer these making use of only one copy of the work. The comparison of the Süleymaniye and British Library copies will undoubtedly help to clarify some of these mysteries, perhaps creating new ones along the way.

Dr. Michael Erdman, Head, Middle East and Central Asia

I'd like to thank Shalom Njoki of Queen Mary's University for pointing me to Dr. Baki Tezcan's chapter. 

Further Reading

Demirci, M. (2020) ‘Fakîr Mekkî Ali’nin Hāẕā Mir’ātu’l-hubūş fi’l-uṣūl Adlı Elyazma Eseri.’ Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi , 13, 34: 50-91.

Hathaway, J. (2018) The Chief Eunuch of the Ottoman Harem: From African Slave to Power Broker (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press) (YC.2019.a.10249)

Junne, G. (2016) The Black Eunuchs of the Ottoman Empire: Networks of Power in the Court of the Sultan (London: I.B. Tauris). (YC.2017.a.9466)

Tezcan, B. (2018) “Dispelling the Darknessof the Halberdier’s Treatise : A Comparative Look at Black Africans in Ottoman Letters in the Early Modern Period.” Karateke, H., Çıpa, H., Anetshofer, H., Disliking Others: Loathing, Hostility, Distrust in Premodern Ottoman Lands (Boston: Academic Studies Press): 43-74. (YC.2019.a.4967)

The colophon of the Kitāb al-Dalīl featuring decoration common through the manuscript grouping. (Kitāb al-Dalīl. Oman, 17 Shawwāl 1312 AH/12 April 1895 CE). (Or 6564, f 177r).

In early 2024, preparing for a visit by an Omani guest, I set out to find what Omani manuscripts we might hold. Not satisfied with the idea that we didn’t have any, I started to pick my way through the listings and stumbled on Or 6568, identified as a 19^th-century Tar’īkh ‘umān with no author provided. Like a string that would unravel the veil of my ignorance, I pulled on it and found myself with a treasure trove of Omani cultural production.

In truth, it should have been obvious that the Library holds Omani manuscripts, and not just one or two. Charles Rieu’s Supplement to the Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the British Museum clearly states on page viii that “The most important accession after the above-mentioned collections was due to the liberality of Col. S. B. Miles, late political agent in Muscat, who at various times between the years 1875 and 1891 presented to the Trustees no fewer than fifty rare and valuable Arabic MSS. (Or. 1382-3, 2328-33, 2424-38, 2896-2920, 4518, 4529)…” Samuel Barrett Miles was a diplomat, ethnographer and historian who came to be one of the leading British authorities on the Gulf region. He was present in Oman at a time of considerable social, political and religious turmoil and it should not be a surprise that the manuscripts he deposited with the Museum are exceptionally eclectic. Some were copied in Yemen, such as Or 7776, a collection of poetry and historical texts. Others were probably copied for Miles, such as a copy of Wahhabi texts (Or 7778). This volume also clarifies that Or 7718 should be described as only one of the British Library’s Wahhabi manuscripts, not the British Library Wahhabi manuscript. But a fair number of the others were likely produced in Oman for Omanis. Many of these volumes, as well as those acquired from Miles' widow, are in disarray and will take long hours of hard work before they are understood in their entirety.

The first colophon of the Ta'rīkh 'umān providing the name of the copyist. (Ta'rīkh 'umān. Wādī Banī Kharūṣ, Oman, 20 Jumādá al-awwal 1038 AH/14 January 1629 CE). (Or 6568, f 47r)

But let’s get back to Or 6568. It’s one of three volumes labelled Ta’rīkh ‘umān , the other two being Add MS 23343 (containing two histories of the country, the first by ‘Abd Allāh ibn Khalfān ibn Qayṣar, ff 1v-50r; and the second without an author, ff 50v-173v) and Or 8076. All three of these manuscripts are clearly different texts. The latter one (Or 8076) is in a chronicle format and was donated to the Library by Miles’ widow in 1914. It highlights the slightly more ambiguous nature of the text in Or 6568, which begins with explanations of the departure of the Persians from Oman. But Or 6568 and Or 8076 have very similar hands, as well as usages of a lovely purple ink in addition to main black ink, which might firm up Or 8076’s connection to the country.

When I first called up Or 6568, our very helpful automated ordering system made sure that it came directly to the Asian and African Reading Room. But the next time I wanted to see it, after the cyber attack we suffered in October 2023, was slightly more complicated. The temporary blockage on retrievals meant that I had to go the basement to view the volume, to pull it off the shelf myself; not a common occurrence in normal times. Down in the basement, I decided to pull the volumes to its left and right. The lightbulb above my head gradually grew brighter, and I soon realized that I was looking at a small collection of 10 manuscripts, all likely from Oman, all deposited at the British Museum by the same man: Colonel Jayakar.

Who was this Colonel? Atmaram Sadashiva Grandin Jayakar was a Marathi speaker born in 1844 in India. He studied medicine in India and England and, after his posting to Muscat in 1873, eventually rose to the post of Agency Surgeon, even attending to Sultan Turkī bin Sa‘īd, until 1900. He therefore overlapped with Miles, who was in Oman in the 1870s and 80s, and likely would have worked with him personally. Jayakar has been the subject of a number of studies and blogs already, including Mark Hobb’s post on the British Library’s Untold Lives page , and Charlie Sammut’s detailed reckoning of Jayakar’s life. He is well-known for his exploration of Oman’s flora and fauna (some of it now named after him), as well as his study of Omani dialects and oral literature (translated into Arabic in 1980) and Arabic medical terminology, as well as his occasional intervention in Omani-British affairs. Pratap Velkar, a descendant of Jayakar’s, published a collection of his zoological research in 2004. But, for all the focus on Jayakar’s intellectual and scientific pursuits, his activities as a collector have largely been overlooked.

A folio of the Dīwān Ibn al-Mu'tazz featuring some of the creative uses of text direction to embellish the work. (Dīwān ibn al-Mu'tazz. Oman, Rabī‘ al-awwal 946 AH/August 1539 CE). (Or 6561, f 152v)

Jayakar passed away in 1911, but before he died, he presented (i.e. donated) 10 Arabic-language manuscripts to the British Museum on 12 December 1903: Or 6560 (ديوان موسى بن حسين المحلي); Or 6561 (ديوان ابن المعتز); Or 6562 (عين الحياة); Or 6563 (سبائك اللجين); Or 6564 (كتاب الدليل يوسف بن إبراهيم السدرابي); Or 6565 (القصيدة القدسية النورانية); Or 6566 (ديوان الحبسي); Or 6567 (ديوان الستالي); Or 6568 (تأريخ عمان); and Or 6569 (الصحيفة العدنانية).

The handlist of the manuscripts provided by Colonel Jayakar himself. (Dīwān Mūsá bin Ḥusayn al-Maḥallī. Oman, 19 Sha‘bān 1308 AH/30 March 1891 CE). (Or 6560)

We know that these were part of a cohesive whole because of a handwritten note in English at the end of Or 6560 in which Jayakar provides the titles of each of the manuscripts along with occasional notes about their importance. Or 6560, for example, is the collected works of the poet Mūsá bin Ḥusayn al-Shawwāl from the region of Wādī Banī Ruwāḥah Jayakar claims was known locally as... The Local (al-Maḥallī). Ḥumayd bin Muḥammad bin Ruzayq, author of the texts in Or 6563 and Or 6565, is also the author of the text underlying George Percy Badger’s History of the Imams and Seyyids of Oman. Or 6567, the Diwan of the Omani poet Sitālī, contains laudatory poetry about various Nabhanī Sultans. It is from Jayakar himself that we learn Or 6568 actually contains extracts from Bahā’ al-dīn ‘alī bin ‘īsá al-Irbilī ’s كشف الغمة في معرفة الائمة. Finally, the doctor’s notes tell us that Or 6562 is Muḥammad ibn Abī Bakr al-Makhzūmī al-Damāmīnī ’s “compendium” of the حياة الحيوان الكبرى by Kamāl al-dīn Muḥammad ibn Mūsá al-Damīrī . Al-Damāmīnī, also known by the laqab Badr al-dīn, was a 13^th-14 ^th century CE South Asian scholar from the Punjab, highlighting the transmission of texts from South Asia to Oman.

The colophon of Or 6567 showing the second al-Baḥrī-penned inscription. (Dīwān al-Sitālī. Oman, 22 Ramaḍān 1039 AH/4 May 1639 CE). (Or 6567, f 89r)

The manuscripts that came to the Museum via Colonel Jayakar are fascinating for the view they provide us on Oman, its history and its culture. Some of this information can be gleaned from the content of the volumes, whether the main text or the marginalia and later inscriptions. Indeed, a number of the volumes are collections of Omani poetry, and Or 6560 contains verses in a metre particular to Oman. Most of the manuscripts have the names of their copyist somewhere in the text. These differ from volume to volume. The oldest of the manuscripts is Or 6561, which contains the date Rabī‘ al-awwal 946 AH (August 1539 CE) in a small marginal note against a colophon on f 249r, although it is not clear how much of the manuscript forms part of the oldest text. After this, a group of 10^th century AH/17^th century CE works appear to have similar creators. Or 6568 (20 Jumādá al-awwal 1038 AH/14 January 1629 CE) was penned by Ja‘far bin Sālmīn bin ‘abd Allāh al-Nakhlī belonging to the children of Muḥammad bin Bashīr bin Muḥammad bin Bashīr bin Baḥrī from the highlands beside Wādī Banī Kharūṣ (جعفر بن سالمين بن عبد الله النخلي تابع أولاد محمد بن بشير بن محمد بن بشير البحري الذي هو من بلد العليا من ناحية وادي بني خروص). I would bet that a relative (maybe even his father) copied Or 6567, where the colophon states that the manuscript was written by Sālmīn bin ‘abd Allāh a member of the Banū al-(Ba)ḥrī (سالمين بن عبد الله التابع بنو ال(ب)حري) on 22 Ramaḍān 1039 AH (4 May 1639 CE) and that the owner is the Doctor Agent of the Christian state (Portugal?), the Exalted State may God grant his intention (“مو ملك الصاحب الدختر عامل الدولة النصرانية الدولة العلوية رزقه الله النية”). The hand is similar between the two, as is the use of the bright purple ink instead of red for highlighting, overlining and titles. Arabic Wikipedia’s listing of the tribes of Oman is great help in identifying social groups in the manuscripts. But so too is the geographical designation in the colophon of Or 6568, as it is a simple affair to pinpoint Ja‘far bin Sālmīn’s hometown to the Wādī Banī Kharūṣ in the mountains south-west of Musqaṭ, about two-thirds of the way to Nizwa.

Other manuscripts are more modern. Or 6560 was copied by Sa‘īd bin Ḥamīd bin Sa‘īd on “Monday, the 11^th day remaining from Sha‘bān 1308 AH” (30 March 1891 CE) for Shaykh ‘alī al-Furqad (?) al-Taqqah al-Raḍmī (?) bin Hurrān bin Muḥsin bin Sa‘īd al-Siyānī, likely referring to a Shaykh originally from the Siyānī region of Ibb Governorate, Yemen . Or 6564, copied on 17 Shawwāl 1312 AH (12 April 1895 CE), is in the hand of Sa‘īd bin Ḥammād bin Ḥamad bin Salmān bin Muḥammad al-Riyāmī al-Azkawī. Or 6563 was organized and edited by Ḥamīd bin Muḥammad bin Razīq (?) bin Naḥīt bin Sa‘īd bin Ghassān al-Nakhlī. The manuscript is incomplete and lacks a proper colophon, but at the end of the volume, an additional madḥ or laudatory poem penned in a different hand on paper that looks to be the same as the main text is dated 1234 AH (1818-19 CE), giving us an upper bound for the date of the main work. This is probably roughly the time the manuscript was copied, as the same man signed his name to Or 6569, alongside the date of 14 Dhū al-Ḥijjah 1248 AH (3 May 1833 CE).

This is quite the collection of names and might be a bit of patronymic overload. But from the variety of scribes and dates, we can see that Jayakar collected from a variety of different periods, largely focusing on output that either spoke to the history of the land or to the literary output of its peoples. Some, of course, go back far before his time in Oman, or even the presence of British forces. Or 6567 and Or 6568, for example, are from a period of Portuguese control over Muscat during a century of fierce competition between them, the Ottomans, and an Indigenous dynasty, the Ya‘āribah. Others, such as Or 6560 and Or 6564, are from the end of his time in the country, begging the question of whether he might have known their copyists or their patrons. None of this is surprising, given Jayakar’s outstanding career documenting Omani flora, fauna and language over a quarter of a century. The considerable marginalia in some of these volumes indicates that he was not the only one to make use of these volumes; potentially a point of attraction for the Colonel and his curiosity about life in Oman.

A brief poem attributed to Shaykh Nāṣr bin Khamīs al-Salīmī in the additional texts following the Dīwān al-Ḥabsī. (Dīwān al-Ḥabsī. Oman, 11 Muḥarra, 1247 AH/21 June 1831 CE). (Or 6566, f 280v)

The manuscripts can be divided according to criteria other than ages. While the split between histories, poetry and zoological texts seems to speak to Jayakar’s own interests, the physical construction of the works also deserves some attention. Or 6560, Or 6567 and Or 6568 all feature a delightfully bold purple ink for titles, overlines and general decoration. The spread of ages makes it unlikely that the ink was time-bound, but it might be a fascinating regional trait. Additional folios appended to the end of Or 6566 also feature it. These are obviously in a hand different from that of the main text and are likely from another Omani scribe or writer. They reference the poetry of Omani Shaykh Nāṣr bin Khamīs al-Salīmī (a clearer copy of one of his poems is here on X), but also the North African poet al-Tilimshānī.

An example of the alternating use of red and yellow inks to highlight words and titles. (Sabā'ik al-lujayn. Oman, early 19th century CE). (Or 6563, f 335r)

This purple is quite distinct from the other manuscripts (and the main text of Or 6566), where a bright red is used in the same functions (except in Or 6562), often filling in the empty interiors of larger letters as seen in some of the Yemeni manuscripts that form part of the Miles acquisitions. Or 6563 also includes a lovely pale yellow, not too far off from the same ink used in Or 7718, a Najdi manuscript from the mid-19 ^th century CE.

The 'unwān of the 'ayn al-Ḥayāh likely copied in South Asia, featuring a mellow and distinct (compared to the other manuscripts in Jayakar's holdings) colour palette. ('ayn al-Ḥayāh. South Asia?, 1200 AH/1785-86 CE). (Or 6562, f 3v)

The single outlier is Or 6562, which has a more intricate ‘unwān of deep yellow, light green, brown and navy that incorporates floral motifs and a fleur-de-lys type element in addition to deep yellow cloudbands. The hand of this work is quite different from the other volumes and, although the colophon is clearly copied from an earlier work of the ‘ayn al- ḥayāh, right at the bottom of f 428v the copyist has put that the volume was produced by Aḥqar ‘abbād Allāh in 1200 AH (1785-86 CE). That might be a name or laqab, or it might just be formulaic. However, the coloration and calligraphy probably indicate that this is a South Asian manuscript, highlighted by the presence of occasional Persian glosses. A brief ownership note at the start of the volume identifies it as belonging to al-Sayyid Ibrāhīm bin al-Sayyid ‘abd Allāh bin al-Sayyid Muḥammad al-Qādirī al-Baghdādī. Does the Qādirī appellation indicate a member of the Qadiriyyah Sufi order? If so, this might strengthen the idea that the work is an import to Oman, where Qādirī orders are not common. After all, it is likely the content of the work, and its focus on the animal world, that is likely to have attracted Jayakar, rather than any potential links to Oman.

Atmaram Sadashiva Grandin Jayakar’s fame precedes him in the realms of zoology, medicine and Arabic dialectology. Greater study of the ten manuscripts he presented to the British Museum in 1903 might help extend this renown to the world of archives and library studies. Whatever the next few years may bring, we can be sure that this fascinating group of manuscripts will be of great value in piecing apart the far more complex, and convoluted, holdings of Omani and Yemeni manuscript traditions throughout the rest of the collection.

Dr. Michael Erdman, Head Middle East and Central Asia
With thanks to Dr. Şeyma Benli, Dr. Walid Saleh, Hussam Hussein and M. Ali Kara for their assistance.

The British Library’s Ottoman Turkish manuscript holdings include nearly 2000 volumes. Many of these are notable for the contents of the texts that they contain, such as the Divan-i Kadi Burhaneddin, or the lavish artistic efforts they attest, such as the Nusretname. Others hold the reader’s attention less, at least on first sight. These, of course, can be just as interesting as the more famous, more luxurious volumes with whom they share the Library’s stacks. Some even hold little treats waiting to be recovered. Or 7745, the Divan-i Bîçâre, is one such volume.

A page of poetry from the Divan-i Bîçâre. (Divan-i Bîçâre, Istanbul?, 18th-early 19th century. Or 7745, f 41r)

An 18^th- or early 19^th-century volume, the Divan is a collection of the poetry of a 17^th century Ottoman poet named Abdullah ibn-i Şaban who went by the mahlas Abdî before settling on Bîçâre (Helpless, Without Remedy). From a quick look through the book, it is a collection of largely religious or Sufi poetry copied in a talik hand.

The acquisition slip, including brief description of the Divan-i Bîçâre. (Acquisition slip for Divan-i Bîçâre, London, 1960s?). 

The acquisition slip attached to the volume notes that Bursalı Mehmet Tahir’s Osmanlı Müellifleri describes Bîçâre as being the “halife of Dizdarzade Ahmet Efendi of Balıkesir, the successor of the well-known Celveti saint Hüdayi Mehmet Efendi [Aziz Mahmud Hüdayi] of Üsküdar ... and was murşid to Atpazarı Osman Efendi and to Selami Ali Efendi.” The Türk Edebiyatı İsimler Sözlüğü of Ahmet Yesevî Üniversitesi quoted above (the hyperlink for his biography) provides more information on Bîçâre, relying largely on the famed late Ottoman biographer and chronicler Mehmet Süreyya’s research. It explains that his father, Şaban Dede, was the Zakirbaşı (the Sufi order member leading the congregation in zikir or dhikr, ذكر) to Hüdayi’s Celvetî Order and a great scholar of Ottoman music. He set Hüdayi’s ilahiler to music (“bestelenmiş”) while also writing poetry of his own under the mahlas Zakiri. Bîçâre also had a sister, but we have no information about her name or the path her life took.

Şaban Dede took great care with his son Abdullah’s education, instructing him in or ensuring his tuition of Arabic, Persian, and the Islamic sciences. Bîçâre made a name for himself as a Sufi poet of great skill in rhetoric, oratory and preaching. He first worked in Manisa before returning to Istanbul as the Şeyh of the Ali Paşa Dergahı. He remained in the Celveti order and composed poetry throughout his life, but the only work he is known to have left is his Divan. Bîçâre passed away in Üsküdar in 1068 AH (1657 CE) and his grave can be found in the Karacaahmet Cemetery in this district of the city.

Or 7745 might seem like one of the hundreds of divavin and other collections of poetry that the Library holds, one penned by a poet with an interesting history. But the Sözlüğü immediately points us to why it is important, noting that only two copies of Bîçâre’s Divan are known: one in Bursa’s İnebey Yazma Eserleri Kütüphanesi, and the other in Süleymaniye Kütüphanesi’s Yazma Bağışlar Bölmü. This, then, is a third, long-lost cousin to the two documented volumes, an important addition to the corpus of extent work from which we can learn more about Bîçâre’s oeuvre.

The opening of the Divan along with an additional introductory note. (Divan-i Bîçâre, Istanbul?, 18th-early 19th century. Or 7745, f 1v)

The text of Or 7745 makes it clear that this was far from a luxury copy. It is bereft of the sort of illuminated, colourful unvan that we would expect from a more expensive copy. The 45 folios have no small number of additional du-beyitler, likely the copyist themselves correcting the work. The lack of a colophon means that we don’t know who that might have been, when they worked, or where. A small note at the start of the text, likely also by the copyist, provides some biographical information about Bîçâre that largely accords with what we see in the Sözlüğü, but adds that “Sultan Mehmet vaiziyken vefat etmiştir rahmet Allah aleyhi” (“He died while the preacher of Sultan Mehmet, may God have mercy on him”). This indicates that the copy is from after 1657 CE, year of Bîçâre’s death. There is no indication from the sources at hand that this final attributed profession of his is true. Indeed, the notice is slightly tortuous in describing Bîçâre’s appointments and those of his father, which might indicate that the author of this information might have got things a bit mixed up.

Acquisition note recording the date of purchase of the manuscript from Ibrahim Elias Géjou on 11 May 1912. (Divan-i Bîçâre, Istanbul?, 18th-early 19th century. Or 7745, fly-leaf)

A more pressing question, however, comes to my mind: where has this volume been hiding? Well, since 11 May 1912 it is has been in the collection of the British Museum, and then British Library. It was purchased on this date from I. Elias Géjou, a well-known Paris-based supplier of manuscripts to the British Museum. Géjou, according to the British Museum’s website, was an Iraqi-Armenian dealer with French citizenship who dealt largely in Mesopotamian antiquities pre-1914. The Museum claims he only dealt in Mesopotamian materials before this date, but Or 7745 makes it clear that his gaze went beyond Iraq earlier than that when it came to manuscripts.

How did Géjou get hold of this volume? Most of the work conducted on Géjou’s life and work focus on his trade in ancient Mesopotamian works, especially those featuring Cuneiform. Dr. Nadia Ait Said-Ghanem of the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study has explored this aspect of Géjou’s legacy in much detail (see both her blog and a recently published paper). We, however, will need to turn to the manuscript itself for clues.

Two inscriptions at the start of the Divan including the ownership statement of Abdülhak. (Divan-i Bîçâre, Istanbul?, 18th-early 19th century. Or 7745, f 1r)

Or 7745 contains a number of inscriptions, two which start our search on f 1r. They are in hands that differ from one another and that of the main text. One that goes parallel to the spine of the work, in rık’a, appears to be a short poem addressed to “Beyrut Valisi Nasuhî Bey.” I had originally read it as "Mutassarıfı," but Prof. Jun Akiba kindly corrected me with a more appropriate interpretation. It is undated, but we know that Abdülhalik Nasuhî Bey was the Vali of Beirut between August 1894 and March 1897, which makes it likely that the poem was written in the 1890s. It seems probably that Nasuhî Bey, himself a poet, would have seen this, but did it mean that the book itself was in his possession?

A second inscription on the bottom left corner of the page, in unpointed Divani script, is indeed dated. I find much of the inscription quite difficult to read, but thanks to the very generous support of Dr. Mykhaylo Yakubovych, Dr. Şeyma Benli and Prof. Jun Akiba, who responded quickly to my Facebook post, we know what it says. The text reads “Min e’azzu mümtelekâti’l-fakîr Abdülhakk el-kadî bi-askeri Anadolu bâ-pâye-i Rumeli 55,” an inscription indicating that this book is the property of Abdulhak, Kazasker of Anatolia and Rumelia in (12)55 AH, or 1839-40 CE. This likely refers to Abdülhak Molla, who held a dizzying array of titles relating to both hekimbaşlık (the post of Chief Physician) and kazaskerlik (Chief Judge) for various cities and administrative units up to and including Anatolia and Rumelia throughout the 1830s to 50s, until his death in 1854 CE.

The two birth notices for es-Seyyit Mehmet Arif and Fatime. (Divan-i Bîçâre, Istanbul?, 18th-early 19th century. Or 7745, f 45v)

The last page of the work gives us a final clue about the manuscript’s ownership and production. Under the heading “Tarih-i Mehmet Arif İbnü’s-Seyitü’l-Hacc Mehmet Sait” (“the History of Mehmet Arif İbnü’s-Seyitü’l-Hacc Mehmet Sait”) there are two birth notices. The first, dated 7 pm on Friday, the “gurre” of Şa’ban (1^st of the month of Şa’ban) 1238 AH, or 12 April 1823 CE, announces the birth of “my son, es-Seyyit Mehmet Arif” (“oğlum es-Seyyit Mehmet Arif dünyaya teşrif eyledi”). From the title of the page, it’s clear that it’s es-Seyitü’l-Hac Mehmet Sait who is writing this notice, or having it written on his behalf. Just below it is another one, this time announcing the birth of his daughter Fatime in the morning of Saturday 9 Ramazan 1239 AH, or 7 May 1824 CE, about 13 months after her brother. In this notice, Fatime’s mother Şerife Emine Hanım is identified as es-Seyitü’l-Hacc Mehmet Sait’s wife (“karım”).

From these two inscriptions, we know that the work would have been in the possession of es-Seyitü’l-Hacc Mehmet Sait at least until the mid-1820s. It’s hard to tell exactly where he might have lived, but the fact that the inscription is in Ottoman Turkish, not Arabic, and the later ownership of the work by Abdülhak Molla, makes me think that this might have been a household in Istanbul.

What can we say from all of this? We know that Bîçâre died in 1657 CE and that Mehmet Arif was born in 1823 CE, so the volume must have been produced at some point between these two dates. Moreover, it might have been in Abdülhalik Nasuhî's possession as late as 1897 CE, possibly in Beirut, where a fan of the Vali inscribed it with a brief poem. But at some point over those 15 years between Abdülhalik’s tenure and the manuscript’s purchase by the British Museum, it made its way into the possession of M. Géjou. More research on his pre-World War One dealings with texts is needed before we can fill in those gaps, and the travels of this unassuming volume. Until then, however, we can still raise a glass of sherbet to the recovery of a third copy of Bîçâre’s Divan, and a belated cheer to the births of Mehmet Arif and Fatime, whatever might have become of them.

Dr. Michael Erdman, Head, Middle East and Central Asia

The Lalitavistara is a Mahayana sutra (Sanskrit sutra or Pali sutta, meaning text, discourse, canonical scripture) about the life story of Gautama Buddha, covering the time of his descent from Tushita heaven until his first sermon in the Deer Park at Sarnath, Varanasi, India. It narrates how the Buddha manifested in this world and gained awakening.


The Lalitavistara, with five Dhyani Buddhas on the wooden cover, Patan, Nepal, 1803. British Library, I.O San 688, cover

The title Lalitavistara has been translated as “the play in full”. It consists of 27 chapters and is written in Sanskrit and a vernacular dialect also known as 'Buddhist hybrid Sanskrit'. Portions of the text date back to the earliest days of the Buddhist tradition, but it is not known when the Lalitavistara was finally edited (Winternitz 1933: 252-3). Both the style and language of the text suggest a compilation: the work includes a continuous narrative in Sanskrit prose, with metrical passages in mixed Sanskrit, and the topics of the prose and verse parts often overlap. The point of view also changes occasionally from the third person to the first person, where the Buddha himself narrates the events. It is therefore believed that the Lalitavistara is not the work of a single author, but an anonymous compilation in which very early and more recent passages stand side by side.


The Lalitavistara, written in Sanskrit in Devanagari script on paper, Queen Maya dreams of a white beautiful elephant entering her womb, 1803. British Library, I.O San 688, f.36r

In the Lalitavistara the miraculous element in the legend of the Buddha’s conception and birth is overemphasised, compared to accounts in other Buddhist schools. There are also a number of concepts and stories that appear in the Lalitavistara for the first time that are missing in similar Pali texts. One is in chapter 10, recounting the first day of the young Buddha as a Bodhisattva, while chapters 12 and 13 also contain episodes which are missing in other biographies of the Buddha. The last chapter (27) praises the Lalitavistara itself and enumerates the merits one gains by honouring this text (Winternitz 1938: 251, 252).


The Lalitavistara, written in Sanskrit in Devanagari script on paper, Queen Maya giving birth to the Buddha, 1803. British Library, I.O San 688, f. 73v

The Lalitavistara, like other post-canonical Buddhist literary works written in hybrid and pure Sanskrit, represents the Buddha not just as a sage, but as an extraordinary being “adorned with the 32 marks of the Great Man”. The Buddha’s beneficial power, compassion, and omnipotence is stressed in these texts, where this marvellous being is depicted as a living miracle: upon seeing him the blind see, the deaf hear, the dumb speak, the sick are cured, and so on. Everywhere he lives he is worshipped and respected by the kings, the wealthy, the gods and all other beings (Lamotte1988: 645-6). In the Lalitavistara, the Buddha says that when he was born, this trichiliocosm (a universe of a billion worlds) trembled, and all the gods bowed their heads to his feet and paid homage to him; he is superior to all the gods, he is the God of Gods, but he will still follow his worldly customs (Lamotte 1988: 624).

The Lalitavistara, written in Sanskrit in Devanagari script on paper, the monks crossing the Ganges on a boat, while the Buddha flew to the other side of the river, 1803. British Library, I.O San 688, f.221r

The oldest copies of the Lalitavistara date from the end of the second century or the beginning of the third century, and it can be assumed that the original composition (or compilation) dates from the beginning of the Christian era. Although the Lalitavistara summarises a series of the jatakas (stories of the former existences of the Buddha), the biography remains incomplete, as it doesn’t mention the Buddha’s first return to Kapilavastu (the principal city of the Śākya clan) or his missionary trips, and there is no account of his demise. The Lalitavistara ends with setting in motion of the Wheel of the Dharma, which perhaps suggests that the narrative aims to tell the story of the complete awakening of a bodhisattva in his last existence (Lamotte1988: 654-5).

The Lalitavistara sutra has inspired elaborate artwork in different parts of Asia, and the themes of the text can be seen in temple art in Gandhara, and at the Borobudur temple complex in Java.


The Lalitavistara, written in Sanskrit in Devanagari script on paper, the Buddha conquering all demonic congregation, 1803. British Library, I.O San 688, f.195v

There are three complete and one abridged manuscript copies of the Lalitavistara at the British Library, all from the collections of the India Office Library. The copy most often written about, and illustrated above, is I.O San 688, part of the B.H. Hodgson collection, which is adorned with coloured illustrations depicting scenes of the life of the Buddha. According to the colophon, the text was inscribed in Patan, Nepal, in 1803 by the Buddhist Pandit Amrtananda for Captain W.D. Knox, who is described as someone whose “liberality and other virtues surpassed the Hindu divinities and proved him to be an Avatara of Buddha”. An illustration at the end of the manuscript shows the presentation of the volume (ralitavisara) to Captain Knox, the first British resident in Nepal and an officer in the army of the East India Company, depicted in the military attire of the period and holding a prayer wheel.


The Lalitavistara, written in Sanskrit in Devanagari script on paper, with a painting of Pandit Amrtananda and Captain Knox. Patan, 1803. British Library, I.O San 688, f. 253v

The same two figures appear with the Bodhisattva Manjushri (representing transcendent wisdom) and auspicious symbols on the back cover of the manuscript.

Pandit Amrtananda and Captain Knox depicted on the wooden cover of the Lalitavistara, Patan, 1803. British Library, I.O San 688, back cover

The two other manuscripts of the Lalitavistara in the British Library (I.O San 341 and I.O San 2880) are copies of the 1803 manuscript given to Capt. Knox described above (I.O. San 688).

The manuscript I.O San 341 was made for Henry Thomas Colebrooke – a Sanskrit scholar, orientalist, and Chairman of the East India Company – in the 19th century, who wrote at the beginning: “The Lalita Vistara ... Knox”. This copy is also annotated on the first folios, but it is not illustrated. There is a blank page on which is written in a second hand: śodha ṭīkā para (correct according to the tika, i.e. commentary or gloss), and there are a few corrections in the same hand. This manuscript is part of the H.T. Colebrooke collection.

The abridged copy (I.O San 2575), which is named 'a Buddha Purana', was copied in the 19th C. It is part of the collection of Colin Mackenzie (1753-1821) and was copied by one of his pandits. The manuscript comprises just a table of contents to the Lalitavistara, and contains a note by Colebrooke at the beginning, which reads: 'An abridgment of the Lalita Vistara, a Purana, containing the history of the life of Buddha. The original was brought from Nepal by Capt Knox. This abridgement by a pandit in Mr. Colebrooks’s service, contains the whole substance of the voluminous original.'


Note by Colebrooke at the beginning of a manuscript containing a list of contents of the Lalitavistara, 19th century. British Library, I.O San 2575

Bibliography
Igunma, Jana, and San San May, eds. Buddhism: Origins, Traditions and Contemporary Life. London: The British Library, 2019.
“Lalitavistara | Life Story, Biography & Legends | Britannica.” 4 July 2024 . 
Lamotte, Etienne. History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Saka Era. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université catholique de Louvain, Institut orientaliste, 1988.
‘The Play in Full / 84000 Reading Room’. n.d. 84000 Translating The Words of The Buddha. Accessed 4 July 2024. 
Winternitz, Moriz. A History of Indian Literature. 2, Buddhist Literature and Jaina Literature. Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1933.

Azadeh Shokouhi, Sanskrit cataloguer