ḴĀVARĀN-NĀMA ii. The Illustrated Manuscripts



ii. The Illustrated Manuscripts

This sub-entry discusses illustrated manuscripts of Ḵāvarān-nāma from Iran, Turkey, and India.

Iran. The earliest extant, richly illustrated, copy of Ebn Ḥosām’s Ḵāvarān-nāma is partly preserved in a later binding, with the folios not in the orginal sequence, for a while in the Golestān Palace Library (MS 5750) and now in the Museum of Decorative Arts (Muza-ye honarhā-ye tazyini) in Tehran. It contains 645 folios with 115 illustrations (Anvari; Ḏokāʾ); some forty more illustrated pages from the same manscript are scattered in various collections in Europe and the United States (see bibliography, below). 

The paintings are of a good standard of execution and preservation, apart from some instances where faces have been clumsily repainted. Some of the paintings are signed with the name Farhād and are dated in the same hand between 881/1476-77 and 892/1486-87 (Digby et al., p. 346, nos. 574a-b). Stylistically, they belong to the class of the so-called Commercial-Turkmen style originating in the third quarter of the 15th century Turkmen dominions of southwest Iran, mainly Shiraz, where the style produced a large number of illustrated manuscripts between ca. 1475 and 1505 (for the generally accepted attribution of the Golestān volume to the Commercial-Turkmen style, see Robinson, 1954, pp. 105-12; idem, 1973, p. 118; idem, 1980, pp. 89-94; idem, 1991, p. 39; Grube, 1962, pp. 61-62, Grube, 1963; Gray, 1977, pp. 104-7; Hillenbrand, 1977, pp. 18, 50, 55-56, 79-80, 82, 89-90. On stylistic issues related to Farhād’s work and the Commercial-Turkmen style as compared to specific Šāh-nāma illustrations, see Shani, 2017). 

All this would mean that the epic, composed by Ebn  Ḥosam in the eastern region of Qohestān in 830/1426-27, reached western Iran without much delay. It may have reached the west with the Āq-Qoyūnlū troops of Uzun Ḥasan, who during their raids in Khorasan, between 874/1469 and 874/1470, indeed stayed for a while in Qohestān (Minorsky, pp. 35-65, esp. 53) The illustrated Ḵāvarān-nāma was made about three decades after Ebn Ḥosām completed the epic, thus suggesting that there was no earlier illustrated copy that might have served Farhād as a model.  The interest of the Tehran manuscript thus lies to a large extent in the artist’s original perception of the episodes related in a text that he was the first to illustrate. He invented a combination of two frames of reference, similar to those used by the author: like Ebn  Ḥosām, who drew on the Šāh-nāma as a model, he imitated the pictorial iconography that had been in use in the Shiraz region since the early fifteenth century to illustrate the Šāh-nāma and other heroic cycles of the kind. This is evident, for example, in the episode of Abu’l-Meḥjan, companion of ʿAli (see ʿALI B. ABI ṬĀLEB), using his lance to lift a foe from the saddle, keeping him suspended in mid-air while the riderless mount bolts away (Anvari, p. 88), a formula culled from the Shirazi Šāh-nāma tradition representing Rostam lifting his enemies Pilsam and Šangol with his lance (for example, a folio a the British Museum, OA 1949.10-9.048, detached from a Šāh-nāma manuscript at the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, MS 22-1948, made in Shiraz in about 839-844/1435-40 or on fol. 191b of a Šāh-nāma dated 841/1437 at the University Library of Cambridge, Or. 420; for other examples in which Farhād may well have consulted corresponding episodes as depicted in Šāh-nāma paintings traditional in the region, see Shani, 2017).

At the same time, as Ebn Ḥosām transcended his probable literary model by making it an Islamic heroic narrative about ʿAli, so also did the illustrator: he bestowed the traditional roles of Rostam and other heroes on ʿAli, manipulating episodes retrieved from Šāh-nāma manuscripts to emphasize the religious aspects of ʿAli’s personage. This procedure is seen, for example, in the episode of ʿAli lifting Nawšād off the saddle and keeping him suspended in mid-air by holding his belt (Anvari, p. 101), a formula associated with the traditional Šāh-nāma episode of Rostam lifting Afrāsiāb by the belt (depicted, for example, in Bodleian Library, MS Ouseley, Add. 176, fol. 63b, or the State Collection of the Academy of Sciences, Tashkent, inv. M-287-27109, fol. 22b, made in Yazd about 900-901/1494-96; for other examples, see Shani, 2017).  By comparison, ʿAli in the Ḵāvarān-nāma illustration assumes the role of Rostam, but instead of the latter’s lion/tiger-hat, ʿAli has the fiery halo of a sanctified hero whose deeds are part of a divinely-ordained mission. He also grasps a double-pointed sword representing the famous Ḏu’l-Faqār, and his mount is dappled, thus adhering to literary descriptions of Doldol, ʿAli’s mule/stallion in the early wars of Islam. Doldol, like the Ḏu’l-Faqār, was given to ʿAli by the Prophet, as Ebn Ḥosām himself points out in the text that accompanies another painting (Anvari, p. 71), where ʿAli encourages his mount to kill a lion by saying to him: Oh faithful Doldol, you are my memento from Moṣṭafā (i.e. Moḥammad [To-i yādgār-e man az Moṣṭafā]). By giving ʿAli the Ḏu’l-Faqār and the dappled steed, as well as the flame-halo, the artist signified two prominent aspects of ʿAli, his heroic prowess, and his mission as propagator of the Islamic faith.

The adaptive process can also be followed through the large group of paintings illustrating the supernatural events attending ʿAli’s journey to the far-off lands of Ḵāvarān. First of type is the Ḵāvarān-nāma episode of ʿAli fighting a dragon emerging from fantastic multi-colored rock clusters (Anvari, p. 69); drawing here on an iconographic tradition used in the region to illustrate the numerous fanciful encounters in the epic cycles between a hero and a dragon (PLATE I), it is based on a counterbalanced composition, switching the focus back and forth between the hero and a dragon entangled with craggy rock-formations (for the traditional iconography in early 15th century paintings made in Yazd, see, e. g., a Šāh-nāma manuscript dated 844/1441 at the Bibliothèque nationale, Suppl. persan 493, fol. 272b; further examples in Shani, 2015, 2017). 

Depictions of mythical creatures surrounded by fantastic rock formations were indeed part of the stock-in-trade of Persian painting. Farhād used them, inter alia, for the various episodes in which ʿAli fights crowds of demons (div) on mountainous heights. In one variation (Anvari, p. 70; PLATE II), ʿAli leaps over cliffs and narrow valleys brandishing his sword in all directions, killing every demon that stands in his way. The monstrous demons, partly following the description in the text, also follow a long-standing iconographic tradition, irrespective of place and date, where they are shown as large, robust, half-naked hybrid figures, usually with two horns, wearing short skirts and large bracelets around their arms and ankles (e.g., the depiction of a div in a rocky landscape accompanying the episode of Rostam fighting a sea-monster in a Šāh-nāma manuscript dated 841/1437, Cambridge University Library, Or. 420, fol. 203a, and other examples in the Commercial-Turkmen style in British Library, Add. 18188, fol. 92a [dated 892/1486]; Bodleian Library, Elliott 325, fol. 218a [dated 900/1494]; or ʿAṣṣār Tabrizi, Mehr o Moštari, Bibliothèque nationale, Suppl. persan 1964, fol. 80a.) The Ḵāvarān-nāma artist could thus well have borrowed his demon figures in their rocky wilderness from stock images. He also exercised his own inventive talents by adding a pair of angels to the scene, thereby referring to the angels of the given text who encouraged ʿAli in his battle with a large army of demons. The sanctified stature of ʿAli vis-à-vis the horned beasts is again shown by the flaming halo rising to the sky and by the Ḏu’l-Faqār driven deep into the bestial enemy.

Perhaps the best instance of Farhād’s ability and ingenuity in illustrating a new text is the episode of the archangel Gabriel (Jabraʾil) inviting the Prophet to watch from his mosque in Medina the miraculous deeds performed by ʿAli in the far-off land of Ḵāvarān (Anvari, p. 91; PLATE III). Moḥammad is shown standing on what seems to be the roof of the Medina mosque, while ʿAli, mounted on Doldol, is wielding his sword, the Ḏu’l-Faqār, in a distant space. The two protagonists are held together by the archangel Gabriel, situated between them at the apex of a triangle, one hand stretched towards Moḥammad, the other towards ʿAli. Both figures carry the same fiery halo, symbol of their common spiritual nature (on the Shiʿite concept of nur-e moḥammadi, which holds that the divine light, symbolized here by a fiery halo, was transmitted to ʿAli as to Mohammad through their common grandfather, ʿAbd al-Moṭṭaleb, see Rubin, p. 43). The dramatic center of the painting is clearly ʿAli, to whom the artist gave about two-thirds of the surface, with a single enemy lying dead under Doldol’s hooves. Scattered corpses and battered limbs are in fact a traditional feature used by Farhād for conveying the martial aspect of the scene (traditional warring scenes with scattered corpses and battered limbs appear in many illustrations of other works as well as throughout Farhād’s Ḵāvarān-nāma scenes of battlefields: Anvari, pp. 27-29, 37-38, 40, 56-57, 61, 62, 65, 78, 81, 83-84, 87-89, 91, 94, 100-101, 104, 107, 119-121, 133, 135, 137; for more examples, see Shani, 2017). However, in this particular painting (Anvari, p. 71), a single corpse seems to have been calculated to fit between Doldol’s fore and hind legs, epitomizing ʿAli’s victory. Here more than anywhere else the portrayal of ʿAli is a concise and icon-like representation, the action not being attached to a specific narrative. It could be understood as representing ʿAli’s divine designation, symbolized by the presence of Moḥammad, whose right hand is stretched towards ʿAli, and by that of Gabriel, God’s messenger. The artist successfully integrated here a traditional feature of a battlefield scene in an original composition that adheres to the spirit of the accompanying text. In view of the general atmosphere of esoteric mysticism which due to Sufism pervaded Iran at that time, the corpse under Doldol’s hooves might well be regarded as symbolizing the evil forces overcome by the Perfect Man, ʿAli, the propagator of Islam and the enemy of all manner of evil, as indeed is strongly emphasized throughout the epic. In devising a suitable image, Farhād expressed strong piety and deep devotion to ʿAli, whose supernatural powers and feats are shown to derive from divine inspiration, mediated through Moḥammad and the Archangel Gabriel. 

The anonymous patron who commissioned the manuscript, perhaps a wealthy merchant or a dignitary of some kind, would thus seem to have belonged to a pro-ʿAlid group, perhaps an indication that Shiʿi-oriented circles were already flourishing in Iran during the 15th century as if to set the stage for the adoption of Shiʿi Islam as the state religion by the Safavid Esmāʿil I in 1502.

Copies made in Anatolia: Admiration of ʿAli is again apparent in an undated Ḵāvarān-nāma manuscript in Turkish at the Topkapi Palace Library, Hazine 677, whose paintings are attributed by some scholars to the late 15th century (Karatay, p. 98; Bagci, pp. 252-54), by others to the first half of the 17th century (Stchoukine, p. 94, pl. Xa-b). The illustrations, some left unfinished, are of great importance as regards the portrayal of ʿAli, for his status is expressed not only by a halo of flames but often also by replacing the face with the Yā ʿAli (O ʿAli) in gold coloring. Otherwise, the paintings in this copy show certain iconographic connections with the late 15th century Tehran manuscript; one episode illustrated in both, for example, is that of ʿAli encouraging Doldol to repel a marauding lion on the Crystal Mountain, Billur Dagi (Bagci, fig. 15).

Copies made in India. The Ḵāvarān-nāma was presumably brought to the Indian subcontinent by Persian migrants of all classes and aptitudes, who went there during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (see INDIA, vi, xx, xxviii; Soudavar, pp. 52-53). The earliest known copy made in India is at the Reza Library in Rampur, divided in two volumes with 5 miniatures. According to Barbara Schmitz and Ziyaud-Din A. Desai, the manuscript was possibly copied in Shiraz, some of the miniatures having been painted there in a provincial Turkmen style, while others were added in India in the second half of the 15th century. The paintings, often dull and crudely executed, were probably influenced by a late 15th century Ḵāvarān-nāma copy of the kind represented by the Tehran manuscript. Stylistically, the latter’s impact is most obvious in the outdoor scenes (see Schmitz and Desai, plates 284, 286, 288, 289). Some of the paintings also show iconographical connections with the Tehran manuscript: examples of scenes related to the earlier work are those of ʿAli trapped by lasso (compare Anvari, p. 39 with Schmitz and Desai, pl. 288), of Ṣalṣāl challenging ʿAli to a game of wrestling (Anvari, p. 39; Schmitz and Desai, pl. 289; PLATE IV), and to a certain extent that of ʿAli killing a dragon (Anvari, p. 69; Schmitz and Desai, pl. 284).  Also, following the Tehran copy, Qanbar is often shown with his usual black complexion watching the scene from behind the hill (Schmitz and Desai, pl. 289; PLATE V).

Although to some extent indebted to Persian idioms, and particularly to the iconography of a Turkmen model such as the Tehran Ḵāvarān-nāma, the Shiʿite-oriented spirit is lacking in the Indian copy; for instance, ʿAli seldom has a fiery halo, and when he does, as in the scene of his confrontation with the dragon (Schmitz and Desai, pl. 284), it is blue rather than blazing and seems a faint echo of a model copied without any understanding of its iconological significance. The same applies to the episode of ʿAli armed with a mace attacking a foe (Schmitz and Desai, pl. 285), where he appears as a helmeted warrior rather than a dignified Muslim with a fiery halo. The Ḵāvarān-nāma was apparently conceived here as an adventure-story with no real glorification of ʿAli as a divinely-ordained messenger of God. This may suggest a patron who was interested merely in the sensational aspects of the text. 

A similar narrative approach characterizes three other lavishly illustrated copies of the Ḵāvarān-nāma made in India, one now held by the Buhar Library and two by the British Library (Add. 19,766 and India Office MS 3443).  MS Add. 19,766 is dated 1097/1686; according to the colophon, it was copied by the scribe Mulčand Moltānī, and the 156 miniatures are by the artist ʿAbd-al-Ḥakim Moltāni, leading one to suppose that the manuscript was produced in the city of Multan in the Punjāb. Jeremiah Losty (1982, p. 133, no. 105)points out that there is a close architectural resemblance between the buildings depicted in the manuscript and those of the city, particularly the famous domed octagonal tombs of the Sohravardi Shaikhs, made of brick and covered with polychrome tiles. Neither the India Office nor the Buhar Library manuscripts are dated or signed, but they are almost identical to Add. 19,766 in terms of text and illustrations. They were probably made in the same school at approximately the same time. 

The paintings in the British Library Add. 19,766 and the India Office MS 3443 are laid out on a grand scale, mostly in T-shaped frames, also utilizing the upper and lower margins with vitality and originality. Opulent glitter is furnished by the lavish use of gold and silver, perhaps indicating that the manuscripts were made for a wealthy patron. The pictures display a vigorous, fully developed local style descended from Sultanate painting with various overlays of Mughal or Safavid styles, especially in physiognomy and costumes. Made in northwest India, the manuscripts offer evidence for the existence of a well-developed provincial school derived from Sultanate styles, itself originally based on 15th century Persian painting. Thus, some reliance on the iconographic program of the Tehran copy is possible: an example is the lion prostrating itself before the mounted ʿAli (Anvari, p. 42; Titley, pl. 42). That said, only some 20 of the 156 illustrations in the Indian copies taken together more or less match the iconographic program of the Tehran manuscript, the others are very different from the original scheme, let alone from the general layout and style of the paintings. In the Multani paintings, moreover, ʿAli frequently appears in Rostam’s idiosyncratic lion or tiger-hat, as do some of his companions as well (e.g. MS Add. 19,766, fols. 15b, 168a, 178a). ʿAli’s sanctity, although sometimes indicated by a fiery halo (e.g., MS Add. 19,766, fols. 52b, 59b, 146b, 163a, 166b, 241b, 248a, 259a), is of secondary importance to his and his companions’ adventures (meaning not clear). 

An entirely different approach can be seen in a much later Indian copy, namely a Ḵāvarān-nāma manuscript at the National Library in New Delhi (Acc. 89.1065). Copied by Maḥbub Šāh Musavi Ḥosaynī, and containing 38 paintings, it was completed on 21 Moḥarram 1127/27 January 1715, for Mir Moḥammad-Mahdi Khan, a nobleman at the Mughal court of Moḥammad Farroḵsiār (r. 1713-19). According to Schmitz and Akhtar, the paintings were made by a Kashmiri-trained artist, representing the 18th century Kashmiri style (qalam); it is probably the earliest dated manuscript to show the hallmarks of this simplified style, which developed in a provincial school working away from the Mughal Empire. As in most Kashmiri paintings, both the Prophet and ʿAli are portrayed with veiled faces and high flames surrounding their heads; for example, in the episode of the two meeting in Medina towards the end of the epic, where the painter also added ʿAli’s two sons, rendered in a similar manner as the two main protagonists (National Museum, New Delhi, Inv. No. 89.1065, fol. 280). The veneration of ʿAli is also expressed by the fact more than half of the 38 paintings illustrate ʿAli’s battlefield feats: e.g., he lifts the enemy by the belt while wielding the Ḏhu’l-Faqār against a whole army (fol. 144a), in a manner rather like that depicted in the Tehran manuscript (Anvari, p. 101), and he cuts his mounted enemy in two, with decapitated corpses and battered limbs sprawled under the chargers’ hooves and trumpeters celebrating his victory from behind a high rolling hill (fol. 156b). The influence of the iconographic plan of the Tehran copy on the Kashmiri one is evident also in other of the paintings; for example, the illustrations of Abu’l-Meḥjan bathing beside the encampment of Golandām (fol. 112a; Canby, 1998, p. 32, pl. 11 [from Sadruddin Aga Khan Collection Ir.M.13]) and ʿAli releasing Qanbar from captivity by the king of Ḵāvarān (fol. 133a; Anvari, p. 125).


Guide to Manuscript Illustrations (*=Tehran manuscript and associated pages).

*Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Cambridge, Mass., nos. 1936.23, 57.1965 (2 pages; Sackler online collection).

British Library Asia, Pacific, and African Collections, London, India Office MS 3443 (see Ethé, no. 897)

British Library, London, Add. 19,766 (Rieu, II, pp. 642-43; Titley, p. 203; Losty, p. 133, fig. 105).

*Brooklyn Museum, New York, Ernest Erickson Collection 86.227.128 (1 page; see Feber et al., pp. 242-43, nos. 185, 186).

Buhar Library, Calcutta, cat. no. 328 (Kesavan, pl. 22).

*Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, Pers. MS 293 (10 pages; see Arberry et al., III, pp. 60-62, Robinson, 1965, p. 11, pl. 9, idem., 1966, p. 111, Hillenbrand, pp. 49-50, no. 101, pp. 79-80, no. 181, p. 90, no. 198, Soucek, 1990, pp. 55-70, fig. 2 on p. 59).

*David Collection, Copenhagen (1 page; Folsach, pl. 21).

*Edwin Binney 3rd Collection, , (2 pages; Ettinghausen, no. 32; Robinson, 1976, p. 24, no. 13, ill. on p. 106; Soudavar, 1992, p. 138, no. 50; current location unknown).

*Fogg Museum of Art, Cambridge, Mass., no. 1956.23 (1 page; see Hillenbrand, pp. 55-56, no. 116; Simpson, pp. 42-43, no. 11).

*Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Rogers Fund, 1955 acc. nos. 55.125.1, 55.125.2, 55.125.3, 55.184.1, 55.184.2 (5 pages; see Dimand, 1956, pp. 85-102, illustration on p. 91; Grube, 1962, p. 66, pl. 47 [opp. p. 50]; Grube, 1963, p. 293; Lukens-Swietochowski, 1978, p. 20, Canby, 2011, p. 186, no. 125A, 125B; all are available online at http://www.metmuseum.org).

*Museum of Decorative Arts, Tehran (formerly in the Golestan Palace Library, MS 5750; Anvari; Ḏokā).

National Library, New Delhi, Acc. 89.1065 (Schmitz and Akhtar, pp. 57-61, figs. 1-3).

*Olsen Foundation, Bridgeport, Conn. (1 page, Grube, 1962, p. 66, pl. 48; formerly in Bridgeport, Conn., current location unknown).

*Philadelphia Museum of Art, Philadelphia, Penn., William P. Wood Bequest 1996-120-19 (1 page, accessible at the Museum’s online collection http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/90035.html?mulR=992353181|1).

*Prince and Princess Sadruddin Aga Khan Collection, Geneva, MS Ir.M 13 (2 pages; see Canby, 1998, pp. 32-33, pls. 11-12, Falk, 1985, p. 62, no. 31, Hillenbrand, 1977, p. 18, no. 16, Welch, 1978, vol. 3, pp. 50-51).

*Private Collection (1 page, Sotheby’s Catalog, 12 December 1972, lot 189; Grube and Fabris, 1962, pp. 64-67, no. 46).

*Private Collection (1 page, Sotheby’s Catalog, 12 December 1972, lot 190; whereabouts unknown).

*Private Collection (1 page; see Grube and Fabris, p. 66, no. 49; Gray, p. 107; wrongly identified by both as “Gabriel Announces the Apotheosis of ʿAli”).

Reza Library, Rampur, MSS P4149, P4150 (Schmitz and Desai, pp. 190-91, plates 283-85).

Topkapi Palace Library, Hazine 677 (Karatay, p. 98; Stchoukine, p. 94, pl. Xa-b).

Texts, Studies, and Catalogs.

[Anvari] Muza-ye honarhā-ye tazyini, Ḵāvarān-nāma: šāhkār-i az adabiyāt va honar-e naqqāšī-ye Irān, with preface by Saʿid Anvari, Tehran, 1381/2002 (illustrations with excerpts of text; introduction based largely on Ḏokāʾ [see below]).

Arthur J. Arberry et al., eds. The Chester Beatty Library, a Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts and Miniatures, 3 vols., Dublin, 1959-62.

Serpil Bagci, “From Texts to Pictures: ‘Alī in Manuscript Painting,” in Ahmet Yaşar Ocak, ed., From History to Theology: ‘Alī in Islamic Beliefs, Ankara, 2005, pp. 229-63.

Sheila R. Canby, “Painters of Persia and their Art,” Marg 41/3, 1990, pp. I-XII.

Idem, Princes, Poets & Paladins: Islamic and Indian Paintings from the Collection of Prince and Princess Sadruddin Agh Khan, London, 1999.

Idem, “Art of Iran and Central Asia (15th to 19th Centuries),” in Maryam D. Ekhtiar et al., eds., Masterpieces from the Department of Islamic Art in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (catalogue), New York, 2011, pp. 170-284.

Simon Digby, et al., “Arts of the Book,” in The Arts of Islam Exhibition: Hayward Gallery 8 April-4 July 1976, London 1976, pp. 316-72.

Maurice S. Dimand, “An Exhibition of Islamic and Indian Paintings,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 14 (summer 1955 to June 1956), pp. 85-102, illustration on p. 91.

Yaḥyā Ḏokāʾ, “Ḵāvarān-nāma,” Honar va Mardom 20, new series, Ḵordād 1343/1964, pp. 17-29.  

Hermann Ethé, Catalogue of Persian Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office, 2 vols., Oxford, 1903.

Richard Ettinghausen, Islamic Art from the Collection of Edwin Binney 3rd, Washington, 1966.

Toby Falk, ed., Treasures of Islam, Geneva, 1985.

Linda S. Feber et al., eds. The Collector’s Eye: The Ernest Erickson Collection at the Brooklyn Museum (catalog), Brooklyn, 1987.

Kjeld von Folsach, For the Privileged Few: Islamic Miniature Painting from the David Collection, Copenhagen, 2007. 

Basil Gray, Persian Painting, London and Geneva, 1977.

Ernst J. Grube, Muslim Miniature Paintings from the XIII to XIX Century from Collections in the United States and Canada, Venice, 1962 (with assistance of Alberta Maria Fabris).

Idem, “The Miniatures of Shiraz,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 21, April 1963, pp. 285-295.

Robert Hillenbrand, Imperial Images in Persian Painting: A Scottish Art Council Exhibition, Edinburgh, 1977. 

Fehmi E. Karatay, Topkapi Sarayi Müzesi Kütüphanesi Türkçe Yazmalar Katalogu, Istanbul, 1961.

Bellary Shamanna Kesavan, ed., The Book in India: A Compilation, 2nd ed., New Delhi, 1992.

Francesca Leoni, “Picturing Evil: Images of Divs and the Reception of the Shahnama,” in Charles Melville and Gabrielle van den Berg, eds., Shahnama Studies II: The Reception of Firdausi’s Shahnama, Leiden, 2012, pp. 101-18.

Jeremiah P. Losty, The Art of the Book in India, London, 1982.

MarieLukens-Swietochowski, “Persian Painting,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 36/2, 1978, pp. 6-33. 

Vladimir Minorsky, “The Struggle for Supremacy in Persia after the Death of Tīmur,” Der Islam 40, 1964, pp. 35-65.

Charles Rieu, Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum, 3 vols., London, 1879-83.

Basil W. Robinson, “Origin and Date of three famous Shâh-Nâmeh illustrations,” Ars Orientalis 1, 1954, pp. 105-12.

Idem, Persian Paintings, London, 1965.

Idem, Les plus beaux dessins persans, Paris, 1966.

Idem, Persian and Mughal Art, London, 1976. 

Uri Rubin, “Pre-Existence and Light: Aspects of the Concept of Nur Muhammad,” Israel Oriental Studies 5, 1975, pp. 62-119.

Barbara Schmitz and Nasim Akhtar, “Important Illustrated Manuscripts in the National Museum, New Delhi,” in Barbara Schmitz, ed., After the Great Mughals: Painting in Delhi and the Regional Courts in the 18th and 19th Centuries, Mumbai, 2002, pp. 57-73. 

Barbara Schmitz and Ziyaud-Din A. Desai, Mughal and Persian Paintings and Illustrated Manuscripts in the Reza Library, Rampour, New Delhi, 2006. 

Raya Y. Shani, “Some Comments on the Probable Sources of Ibn Ḥusām’s Khāvarān-nāma and the Oral Transmission of Epic Material,” in Julia Rubanovich, ed., Orality & Textuality in the Iranian World, Leiden and Boston, 2015, pp. 242-70.

Idem, “The Shahnama Legacy in a Late 15th Century Illustrated Copy of Ibn Husam’s Khavaran-Nama, the Gulistan Palace Library, Tehran, MS 5750” in Gabrielle van den Berg and Charles Melville, eds., Shahnama Studies III, Leiden, 2017, pp. 1-55 (forthcoming).

Marianna Shreve Simpson, Arab and Persian Painting in the Fogg Art Museum, Cambridge, Mass., 1980.

Priscilla Soucek, “Sultan Muhammad Tabrizi: Painter at the Safavid Court,” Marg 41/3, 1990, pp. 55-70.

Abolala Soudavar, Art of the Persian Courts: Selections from the Art and History Trust Collection, New York, 1992.

Idem, “Between the Safavids and the Mughals: Art and Artists in Transition,” Iran 37, 1999, pp. 49-66.

Ivan Stchoukine, La Peinture turque d’après les Manuscrits illustrés IIème Partie: De Murâd IV à Mustafa III 1623-1773, Paris, 1971.

Norah M. Titley, Persian Miniature Painting and its Influence on the Art of Turkey and India: The British Library Collections, London, 1983.

Antony Welch, Collection of Islamic Art: Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan, Geneva, 1978.

(Raya Shani)

Originally Published: August 28, 2017

Last Updated: August 28, 2017

Cite this entry:

Raya Shani, “ḴĀVARĀN-NĀMA ii. The Illustrated Manuscripts,” Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition, 2017, available at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/khavaran-nama-illustrations (accessed on 28 August 2017).