Review: Turkish Manuscripts: Cataloguing since 1960 and Manuscripts Still Uncatalogued: Part

1: The Berlin Catalogue

Author(s): Eleazar Birnbaum
Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 103, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1983), pp. 413-
420
Published by: American Oriental Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/601462 .
Accessed: 13/04/2011 01:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org
 REVIEW ARTICLE

TURKISH MANUSCRIPTS: CATALOGUING SINCE 1960

AND MANUSCRIPTS STILL UNCATALOGUED
PART 1: THE BERLIN CATALOGUE*

ELEAZAR BIRNBAUM

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

Most of the world's Turkish manuscripts have not yet been described. Such catalogues as have
been published in the past twenty years have generally been far from adequate, but the excellent
quality of the new Berlin catalogue shows that good workmanship is still possible. The present
critical review of parts 2-4 (compiled by Manfred Gotz and Hanna Sohrweide) has provided the
opportunity to examine the cataloguing methods in some detail, and to propose improvements
to forthcoming volumes in that series, as well as suggestions for those compiling catalogues of
other collections elsewhere. Further parts of this article (to appear in forthcoming issues of
JA OS) will be detailed critical surveys of most of the other printed catalogues of Turkish
manuscripts in the libraries of Asia, Europe and North America which have appeared since 1960.
They will also give information on collections of manuscripts which are still uncatalogued.

MANY THOUSANDS OF TURKISH MANUSCRIPTS are
preserved in numerous libraries around the world, but
only a minority have been satisfactorily catalogued,
described or even decently listed in print. The appear-
ance of every new catalogue should therefore be an
occasion for rejoicing, yet the vast majority of those
which have been printed in the last twenty years evoke
feelings more akin to despair at lost opportunities,
and sorrow about the invincibility of ignorance. Let
* The present article has been occasioned by the publica-
tion of:
- Turkische Handschriften, Teil 2. Beschrieben von
Manfred Gotz. Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner, 1968.
Pp. ix, 484, 12 plates. DM 140.
- Turkische Handschriften, und einige in den Hand-
schriften enthaltene persische und arabische Werke.
Teil 3. Beschrieben von Hanna Sohrweide. Wies-
baden, Franz Steiner, 1974. Pp. xiii, 354, 10 plates.
DM 296.
- Turkische Handschriften, Teil 4. Beschrieben von
Manfred Gotz. Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner, 1979.
Pp. xix, 601, 27 plates. DM 296. (= Verzeichnis der
orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland. Im Ein-
vernehmen mit der Deutschen Morgenlandischen
Gesellschaft herausgegeben von Wolfgang Voigt.
Band Xlll, 2-4).
413
us say at once that we bring good tidings. The three
recent volumes of the new Berlin Catalogue of Turkish
Manuscripts, by Manfred Gotz and Hanna Sohrweide,
provide a rare treat to scholars.
We propose here to examine these new volumes in
some detail, and to suggest some Corrigenda and
Addenda. In the forthcoming portions of this article
we will survey other catalogues of Turkish manu-
scripts which have appeared since 1960 in various
countries. Information will also be given on collec-
tions of manuscripts which are still uncatalogued.
* * *
The new series of catalogues of Turkish manuscripts
in Berlin is a major event for Turkish and Islamic
studies. It is comparable only to the appearance in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries of the fine cata-
logues of the Turkish, Persian and Arabic manuscripts
preserved in the great European libraries. These in-
cluded such masterpieces as the Arabic, Persian and
Turkish catalogue of the Imperial Library in Vienna
compiled by Gustav Flugel (1865-67); the Turkish
catalogue of the British Museum collection by Charles
Rieu (1888) and its Berlin counterpart (1889) by Wil-
helm Pertsch. Not only did these scholars describe the
individual MSS there, but they quite often included the
results of their own pioneering research on specific
authors, and sometimes systematic surveys of whole
414 Journal of the American Oriental Society 103.2 (1983)
areas of study. Even a century later these volumes
may still be consulted with real profit. Almost none of
the twentieth century catalogues are of comparable
class. Many reasons have been adduced, among these
a shortage of well trained scholars and the lack of
money for printing and publishing. Such specialized
works have, after all, a very limited commercial mar-
ket. The fact is that recent catalogues are much more
skimpy in their descriptions and evaluations, and
compare unfavourably in other ways too with their
counterparts of the nineteenth century. Many cannot
claim to be more than finding lists, furnished with
author or title indexes. Yet we have learned to be
grateful for almost any listing that is published, how-
ever inadequate it may be, because in most cases no
other access is available. As the Turks say: Afa kuru
ekmek bal helvasi gibi gelir, "To a hungry man even
dry bread is like a delicious sweetmeat." It is true that
half a loaf is better than no bread, and in the absence
of that, even a dry crust may become acceptable.
In 1957 the German Oriental Society (Deutsche
Morgenlandische Gesellschaft = DMG) decided to
sponsor a multi-volume catalogue of all oriental MSS
in Germany which had not yet been adequately de-
scribed in printed catalogues. Since 1961 impressive
numbers of large tomes have been completed, and
many more are still in preparation. A total of about
80 volumes is planned. It is to this series, Verzeichnis
der orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland
(VOHD) = 'Catalogue of the Oriental Manuscripts of
Germany,' that the three volumes of Turkish manu-
scripts under review (Tl. 2,3,4) belong.' When Pertsch
completed his Verzeichnis der tirkischen Handschrif-
ten over ninety years ago, he recorded 355 Turkish
works bound in 213 manuscript volumes at the Royal
Library in Berlin. That same library, presently named
Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin,
now owns vastly more MSS. Descriptions of almost
2000 works in Turkish have been published in 4
volumes of the VOHD since 1963, and the manner in
which this has been performed should bring scholarly
joy to all concerned with Turkish and Islamic studies.
' Two more volumes are in preparation: Teil 5 by Hanna
Sohrweide (publication expected in 1982); and Teil 6, de-
voted to Ottoman documents, by H. G. Majer. At least one
further volume of Turkish interest is planned: Bibliographie
turkischer Handschriften-Kataloge by G. Hazai, which will
be number 22 in VOHD's series of Supplementbande. This
information comes from the series' prospectus at the back of
Teil 4 of the Turkish catalogue.
The great traditions of the nineteenth century have
clearly been revived.
The first purpose of our review is to examine in
detail, by the use of scholarly and bibliographical
criteria, how the compilers have carried out their task.
Before doing so, however, high praise must be given
for the external or physical aspect: the beautiful, very
legible typography in both Latin and Arabic charac-
ters, the fine paper, the wide margins, the excellently
reproduced illustrations, forming impressive folio vol-
umes in elegant black binding each handsomely
adorned with a different Ottoman device embossed in
gold on the front cover. All these features create a
very favourable first impression.
The scholarly tone of this new series of catalogues
of Turkish manuscripts was set by Dr. Barbara Flem-
ming, the author of Part One (Tl. 1), published in
1968, which I have welcomed in a previous review.2
Meticulous workmanship of the same kind is evident
in Parts 2 and 4, the fruits of 17 years' labour by
Dr. Manfred Gotz (Tl. 4, p. ix), and in Dr. Hanna
Sohrweide's contribution, Part 3. The miniatures in
the MSS catalogued by them are not described in
detail in these volumes, but may be found at greater
length in Illuminierte islamische Handschriften, be-
schrieben von I. Stchoukine, B. Flemming, P. Luft
und H. Sohrweide (Wiesbaden, 1971, = VOHD, Band
XVI).
It is to be hoped that the prefaces of forthcoming
volumes of Tirkische Handschriften will state clearly
that some Turkish MSS are not catalogued in the
Turkish series, but in other, "non-Turkish," parts of
VOHD, which the Turcologist might otherwise fail to
consult. Thus 28 Arabic and Turkish titles are in-
cluded in Bd. XIV T1. 2, Persische Handschriften T1.
2, 1979 (Gottingen MSS).
The basic arrangement followed in each of these
volumes of Tirkische Handschriften is similar, al-
though there is considerable variation in detail-
reflecting the distinct interests, personalities and meth-
ods of the compilers at least as much as differences in
the material itself. Each volume contains a detailed
Table of Contents, and then, except in T1. 3, a brief
Foreword, stating the number of works described in
it, and expressing gratitude to individual scholars and
institutions for help received. Next follows the In-
troduction (in T1. 2, entitled 'Zum Inhalt der Be-
schreibungen') which summarises and tabulates useful
2 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1971, pt. 1,
pp. 75-77.
 BIRNBAUM: Turkish Manuscripts: Cataloguing Since 1960
information of various kinds, and singles out for
mention some of the more remarkable manuscripts in
each subject area. Except in T1. 2, there is a statistical
summary of dates of copying, century by century.
Only Gotz expressly describes his cataloguing method
(TI. 2, ix-x, 'Zu den Aufnahmen') and provides a list
of general abbreviations (in T1. 2, xvii and, more
comprehensively T1. 4, xix). In each volume the trans-
literation scheme employed (that of the DMG, pub-
lished in 1935) is set forth summarily.3 Illustrations
occupy the next section in each volume: two full-page
plates in color and many in black and white. In the
latter group there are usually two illustrations from
separate manuscripts on each plate. (T1. 2,3 and 4
contain respectively, 10, 8 and 25 black and white
plates.) Although there is no explicit statement to that
effect, these illustrations are arranged by date of copy,
starting with the oldest Ms; the undated manuscripts
are interfiled evidently by estimated age with the
dated ones. The captions to the illustrations are very
limited, and the kind and amount of information
given varies, volume by volume. Users of future parts
of this catalogue would be greatly helped if the caption
for each illustration would routinely include the follow-
ing: (1) catalogue number; (2) author; (3) title; (4) date
of copy, or (5) estimated century; (6) folio number
reproduced. T1. 2 lacks (2), (3), (4) and (5); T1. 3
lacks (2), (3) and sometimes (5); T1. 4 lacks (2), (3),
and (5). It would have been very useful if there had
been some indication, in the descriptive main entry in
the body of this catalogue, whenever a sample page
was included in the illustrations.
The major portion of this catalogue consists of
descriptions of the contents of the MSS. Works are
grouped by subject area, some subjects being in turn
subdivided. There are 15 main classes in T1. 2, 20 in
T1. 3 and 35 in T1. 4. Most assignments are reason-
able, but there are some that are puzzling. For in-
stance, Mergumek Ahmed's Qdbasnime4 (Tl. 2 #226)
In this review I have employed the same system as these
catalogues, for the convenience of their users. The DMG
system has major faults, however, and clashes needlessly
with many conventions used in modern Turkish renderings
of Ottoman Turkish. See E. Birnbaum, "The Transliteration
of Ottoman Turkish for Library and General Purposes," in
JAOS 87.2 (1967) pp. 122-156.
4 In the century before Mergumek Ahmed's
translation of
the Persian text, the pioneering anonymous Turkish version
was produced. It has recently appeared in facsimile, together
with a study of the text by E. Birnbaum, The "Book of
415
would have been much better placed with 'Mirrors for
Princes' than among 'Popular Tales, etc.' Within each
subject group the works are arranged alphabetically
by author. When a single MS contains more than one
work, each is classified separately, with its own run-
ning catalogue number in the appropriate catalogue
section. That number is quite distinct from the li-
brary's accession number or shelf mark for the whole
codex. The scattered catalogue entries into which a
single, physical manuscript volume may be divided
are, however, linked by references to the first work in
the MS. At the end of its description, all the constitu-
ent parts are listed, with their catalogue numbers. The
constituent works are also linked by a reference to the
first entry, e.g. T1. 4 #193: 'Part 7 of the MS [or. oct.
985] described under #101.' Although some bibli-
ographers dislike scattering the contents of a single MS
throughout a catalogue (there are, e.g., 15 works cited
in #101), many scholars find that there are consider-
able advantages attached to the practice. In any case,
this technique was used by Pertsch, so it has become a
tradition in Berlin.
The four volumes of the new Berlin catalogue so far
published (i.e. including T1. 1), describe, in all, 1992
separate works5 there are several copies of some-
from 1284 codices.
Total of
Teil Author Total of Works MS Codices
1 Flemming 446 333
2 Gotz 648 378
3 Sohrweide 339 213
4 Gotz 559 360
At the end of each Teil is a large section headed
'Register,' consisting of up to 14 very useful tables and
lists, including a series of meticulous indexes of titles,
authors, scribes, other persons and groups, and place
names. Many of these may assist general historical,
literary and biographical research, their value extend-
ing far beyond their immediate purpose of indexing
this particular collection of MSS.
Advice" by King Kay-Ka:17sibn Iskandar: the Earliest Old
Ottoman ... "-Kdbisndme." Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Printing Office, 1981.
5 Excluded from the total are 3 Arabic works
in Teil 1, and
16 in Arabic and Persian in Teil 3. These formed parts of
physical volumes of manuscripts mainly in Turkish.
416 Journal of the American Oriental Society 103.2 (1983)
Some users of this admirable catalogue will prob-
ably deplore the way entries for the same subject are
scattered about in different volumes. Indeed, quite
frequently, different copies of a single work may be
found to have been catalogued independently by Flem-
ming, Gotz and Sohrweide, e.g., Katib Celebi's MTzin
el-haqq in Ti. 1 #379, Ti. 3 #129, T1. 4 #135-138.
Even though the effects of this odd policy can be
mitigated by cross referencing, this has been done
incompletely and erratically. Thus the entries for the
M-zdn MSS in Ti. 3 and T1. 4 each refer to the copy in
T1. 1, but T1. 4 omits to mention the MS in T1. 3; and,
of course, Ti. 1 does not refer to the five other MSS
which were to be later catalogued in T1. 3 and Ti. 4.
There are many similar cases. It would be quite
natural for confusion of this kind to arise when an
institution acquired new MSS after cataloguing had
started, but such was not the case here. The vast
majority of the MSS were already in Berlin long before
the cataloguing was begun. Excellent though each
index may be individually, there is, after all, no need
for subjecting users to the frustrating process of
having to examine the indexes of up to half a dozen
volumes in succession when searching for all Berlin
copies of an individual title, of the name of an author
or other person. To make matters worse, the cata-
loguers do not all follow the same system of main
entry for personal names. Indeed, an individual Turk-
ish author's works may appear in different sections of
a single catalogue volume, entered, in each case, under
a different element of his name, or else with the same
names given in a different order! On top of that, yet
another different element is sometimes adopted for
the same person's main entry in the name index of the
same volume! None of the compilers state their system
of author entry, even for their main catalogue descrip-
tion, still less do they explain their refetencing system.
Only Gotz is explicit about his method for main entry
in the author index: under ism and not under ism
ma craf bihi. This means entry under the author's
given name at birth, even though it is often little
known and most likely not distinctive. Thus Mehmed,
Ahmed, Mustafi and so on, are chosen instead of the
literary name or other designation with which the
Turks and foreign scholars are familiar. In fact it is
only occasionally and haphazardly that Gotz provides
references from the literary name, or other designa-
tion. Thus the index main entry for the famous poet
and writer, Fuzul1 has to be sought among several
columns of Mehmeds. Strangely enough, 'FUZULI'6
6 In the following examples, the capitalization of
the
original cataloguesis retained.
(alone, without Mehmed) is the entry word that Gotz
himself uses in the catalogue descriptions in Ti. 2
#573 and Ti. 4 #279. Inconsistently, however, in Ti. 2
#235 and 242, he enters under 'FUZULI Mehmed b.
Suleyman.' To give a single example of the lack of
consistency in catalogue main entries, even for individ-
ual authors, we find in T1. 4 alone the following varia-
tions for one Turkish writer: #77 'ABDOLHALIM
AHIZADE (HalTmTEf.); #97 HALIMI, AHIZADE
cABDOLHALIM; #471 AtjTzade cABDOLHALIM
(HalTmT Ef.); #481 HALIMI (AHIZADE cAB-
DJLHALIM EF.). The author index entry (p. 563) is
cAbdulhalTm,AhTzade HalTmT,without any references
whatsoever to the usual form HalTmTnor from
AhTzade. To take another author at random: the
historian Qaradelebizade is not entered in the index
under Q, even as a reference. He appears only under
his given name cAbdulcazlz. However, most other
catalogues and indexes of Ottoman names are, in fact,
even less satisfactory. In a previous article I have
suggested rules for achieving greater consistency.7 It is
very much to be hoped that when the Berlin Turkish
MSS series of catalogues is completed, the indexes of
all the volumes will be regularized and cumulated into
single sequences of authors, titles, other names, etc.,
so that users may have easier access to these treasures.
The inadequately detailed rules of the DMG trans-
literation scheme are responsible for some of the
inconsistencies, human error for others. The prepara-
tion of "union indexes" would inevitably bring about
the necessary corrections and cross referencing.8
In spite of the above strictures, the standard of
cataloguing by Drs. Sohrweide and Gotz is exception-
ally high and the physical description of each MS is
clear and comprehensive. My only regret, in this
connection, is that they did not usually venture to
suggest even an approximate date (say, by century)
when describing undated MSS. For each title they have
supplied the author's name and dates, when known,
and, sometimes, brief information as to where he
lived, the offices he held, followed by references to the
fundamental biographical notices on him, with per-
haps supplementary details from their own investiga-
tions. The title of each work is given in Arabic script
7 E. Birnbaum, "Ottoman Turkish names: the choice
of
entry for alphabetical listing," followed by "Rules for author
entry of Ottoman and Turkish names," in JAOS 88.2 (1968)
pp. 228-238.
8 Cf., e.g.,
fHadd'iq el-haqd'iq in Tl. 1 p. 226, 369; T1. 3
p. 182, 311, 323; Tl. 4 p. 5, but IHadd'iq al-haqd'iq in Ti. 2
p. 441; T1. 4 p. 537.
 BIRNBAUM: Turkish Manuscripts: Cataloguing Since 1960
and in transliteration. In cases where a work may
have an alternative title, whether official or popular,
such information is also given, even when there is no
mention of it in the particular MS being catalogued.
When a work is unique, rare, or not well described
elsewhere, the compilers often provide a very detailed
description.9 References are given to relevant books
even unpublished dissertations learned articles and
translations into Western languages.
The best printed catalogues traditionally add to the
description of each MS, listings of extant copies of the
same work in other libraries, as recorded in their
published catalogues. Gotz and Sohrweide do likewise.
As we have mentioned earlier, while many libraries in
Turkey own important collections of MSS, hardly any
of them have printed catalogues, even though some
do have bibliographically primitive nineteenth century
defters (registers of books) and/or more recent, but
still very inadequate handwritten fiches (slips) or even
typed cards. Some libraries have deposited copies of
fiches or cards at the Stileymaniye Library in Istanbul.
In one respect Gotz's volumes are unique and outstand-
ingly useful. For each title in his catalogues he cites
other uncatalogued MS copies known to him as being
in libraries in Turkey, providing both the collection's
name and the manuscript's call (shelf) number. Of the
approximately 100 Turkish libraries whose holdings
he has apparently checked, over 40 are in Anatolia.
(Listings in Ti. 2 p. 444-445, and, with modifications,
T1. 4 p. 541-543.) The last five pages of TI. 4 contain
information on additional copies in Turkey of MSS
noted in Ti. 2. A further valuable feature is Gotz's
inclusion of Turkish library locations for copies of
rare printed editions, especially those not cited in
9 As an example of the cataloguers' care, I might cite the
catalogue entry for Cevdhir el-macdrif of Fethulldh 'Arif
Celebi (d. 969/1561-2), a treatise on the morphology of
Persian. Gotz draws attention to a passage in it referring to
the then still continuing conflict between Sultan Suleyman
the Magnificent's sons, SelTm (later Sultan Selim 11) and
Bayezid. I take this opportunity to refer to an unpublished
Turkish polemical work on this struggle, written by a par-
tisan of Selim, entitled htd'atndme, (also known as Ceng-
ndme) by Dervig Celebi. The MS in my private collection
(MS. no. T 1) was copied before the middle of August 1561,
i.e. before the killing of BayezTdin September of the same
year, and is apparently the oldest MS extant. ($erafettin
Turan knew of 2 copies in Istanbul-see his Kanuni'nin oglu
5ehzade Bayezid vak'ast [Ankara, 1968] p. 10, 109. There
are two more copies, one in Cambridge University Library,
the other at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris.)
417
F. E. Karatay's catalogue of Ottoman Turkish printed
books in Istanbul University Library.'0 These refer-
ences are not exhaustive and were probably not in-
tended to be."
Like other good cataloguers, Dr. Sohrweide cites
both the first and last text line or two of each work
she is describing, this being very useful for identifica-
tion. Occasionally, however, undistinctive formulas,
such as are added by many authors and copyists at
the conclusion of their labours, have been treated,
inadvertently, as if they were the concluding words of
the text. In the following examples, at least one
distinctive phrase should have been quoted as the
'real' end of the MS, before the 'final' words actually
cited: Ve 'l-hamdu lillihi Rabbi 'I-'alemTn ve salli
'liaha 'ald Muhammed ve jlihi egma'In (T I. 3 #340);
Temme '7-kitib el-musemmi bi-Hulviydt -i SultjnT
(T1. 3 #25). A similar instance occurs in the entry to
#214. Here the 'real' final words should have been
quoted before a conventional Persian cliche verse
requesting the reader's prayers for the author or scribe:
Har kih khjnad du Cd tam' ddram
Z'dnkih man bandah-'i gunahkdram
This beyt may be found appended to MSS of many
kinds in the areas where Persian and Turkish MSS
were written.
It has long been common practice in good modern
library catalogues and bibliographical works, that
when catalogues of MS collections are listed or cited,
they should be grouped under the name of the city,
followed by the name of the institution in which they
are preserved, e.g., Istanbul. Istanbul iniversitesi
Katiphanesi, followed by, say, Istanbul. Topkapi
Sarayi Mizesi Kutuphanesi. Added entries or cross
references, giving the names of the compilers, should
normally be made automatically. This procedure has
the advantage of bringing together in the listing all
volumes of catalogues of MSS at each institution, even
if they were produced by different people, perhaps
years apart. It is unfortunate that this tradition is
'? Istanbul Universitesi Kutuphanesi Turkfe basmalar al-
fabe kataloku. Istanbul, 1956. Gotz's references take this
form-Drucke: Bulaq 1253 (H. Husnu Pasa Nr. 993,7),
Istanbul, 1265 (Pertevniyal Nr. 806).
E.g., no printed editions are mentioned for the Hilye of
IViqdnT(MS in Ti. 4 #490 p. 461-462), although there were
at least six between 1264/1848 and 1316/1898, four of them
recorded in M. Seyfettin Ozege, Eski harflerle bastlmq
Turkfe eserler kataloku 11(1974) 577, only three in Karatay,
op.cit., s.v. Hakani.
418 Journal of the American Oriental Society 103.2 (1983)
not universally honored. It was not observed by
Dr. Barbara Flemming in her Literatur-und Ab-
kurzungsverzeichnis (= Bibliography and List of
Abbreviations) to T1. 1, and perhaps for this reason,
by neither of her two successors in their volumes. We
find the Munich MSS entered under Aumer, those at
Breslau and Hamburg under Brockelmann, the Cairo
collection under DagistanT, and the treasures of
Topkapi Palace in Istanbul under Karatay, the Tajik
Academy's under Mirzoev-Zand and so on. There are
no references from the place names. Yet two libraries
are cited differently, for reasons not explained: Leiden,
under place (without reference under Dozy), and Mev-
lana Muzesi by name without reference from its loca-
tion (Konya) or its compiler, A. Golpinarlh. It would
surely have been more logical (and convenient for
users) to cite all libraries by location, and provide
references from their compilers' names in the alpha-
betical sequence. The disadvantages of the procedure
adopted in the Berlin catalogue are clearly seen when
the compilers cite each other's volumes. In T1. 4,
whenever Gotz refers to "Sohrweide I," he means T1.
3 of VOHD XIII. In fact the number I appears
nowhere in her volume, whereas the number 3 appears
in many separate places in the book: on the series title
page, the half title preceding it, the binding/spine-
title, the binding signature at the beginning of each
gathering of 16 pages, and in the Gesamtplan (series
list) of VOHD bound into the back of each volume.
Equally awkward is the symbol "Gotz I," whose mean-
ing is explained thus in the Bibliography "Gotz I: M.
Gotz, Thirkische HSS, Teil 2." It would have been
much less confusing to use the symbols: "Berlin 2
(Gotz), Berlin 3 (Sohrweide)" and so on.
In looking through the three volumes under review,
what impression do we get of the 1546 diverse manu-
scripts catalogued there? We notice that the collection
is fairly comprehensive, representing the major areas
of Ottoman spiritual, intellectual and literary interest.
Copies of many standard works in most fields are
present. Nevertheless, the absolute number as well as
the proportion of outstanding MSS is lower than in
such great libraries as the British Library (formerly
the British Museum), the French Bibliotheque Nation-
ale, or the Topkapi Palace. That is hardly surprising,
for those collections were built up earlier than the
Berlin material, which was acquired mainly after
World War 1.
Most of the MSS in these catalogues were copied
long after their compositon. Works composed in the
sixteenth-eighteenth centuries are the most numerous:
only eleven predate the end of the fourteenth century,
and 95 are fifteenth century. The vast majority of the
copies catalogued are from the eighteenth and nine-
teenth centuries. Only about a quarter of the MSS in
the three volumes are dated and my table below
shows the paucity of early copies.
Date of copy by century Total number of MSS
14th or earlier 0
15th 9
16th 36
17th 86
18th 137
19th 124
If the collection as a whole is less than outstanding,
it nonetheless contains important and/ or rare and
even unique manuscripts, including autographs. While
every scholar will have his own preferences as to
which MSS are the most interesting or important, the
two cataloguers make a balanced selection with a sum-
mary evaluation, in their introductions to the volumes
(T1. 2 and 4, 'Zum Inhalt der Beschreibungen'; T1. 3
'Einleitung').'2 Of the many items which I personally
found interesting, mention will be limited here to a
very few. Among them are a fifteenth century DTvdn
of Yinus Emre (T1. 2 #478), and the Mirndme (T1. 2
#482), a unique metaphorical mesnevT(based on the
Kalila and Dimna fable of the hedgehog and the
dove), composed in 953/1546 by the great Bursa
scholar (Mahmud) Lami'c Celibi's son 'Abdullah
LamicT. To the same author, Gotz (and many others
before him), attribute the well-known Lath'if (Ti. 2
#223),'3 anecdotes in prose and verse which have
12A very early copy of an caqd'id work (on fundamental
Islamic doctrines), the Muqaddime of QutbeddTn IzniqT
(d. 821/1418) is described in Ti. 3 (p. ix and, in detail, #23
p. 19). The earliest copy previously recorded was a Topkapi
MS (Karatay #234), dated 837/ 1433-34. The Berlin MS was
copied just a little earlier, in the last 'decade' of Oumada I
836/13-22 January 1433. Still older, and in fact the earliest
dated copy extant, is MS T 33 in my collection. It bears a
colophon by the copyist Yusuf v. gerefeddin el-AnqarT[sic]
dated in words Rebic 11 836/25 Nov.-24 Dec. 1432.
1 Gunay Kut includes it among MahmUd LamicTCelebi's
own writings in 'LamicTChelebi and his works,' Journal of
Near Eastern Studies 35.2 (1976) p. 82. Other MSS are listed
there, note 87. A modern Turkish version, without a word of
introduction, has recently appeared: Lamil-zade Abdullah,
Ldtifeler.HazirlayanYasar lialiskan. Istanbul,1978(= Ter-
ciman 1001 Temel Eser, 118).
 BIRNBAUM: Turkish Manuscripts: Cataloguing Since 1960
affinities with some NasreddTn Hoga stories. Three
treatises on chess (two from the sixteenth century) are
to be found in T1. 3 (#328-330), and documents
recording contemporary polemics over the use of to-
bacco and coffee are included in a book on religious
faith (Mebdhis el-Tmdn)from the seventeenth century
(Tl. 4 #45). Twentieth century scholars interested in
the historical position of women in the Muslim world'4
will find a number of items worthy of further investi-
gation. idab el-mendzil (Tl. 2 #176), composed by
'Abdullatif b. Durmug Faqih (seventeenth century?)
discusses the place of women in the family and society,
her rights and duties in marriage and child-rearing. It
is enlivened with edifying stories about notable women
of the past. Nisd icin bir nush, pendndme (Tl. 2
#189) by the seventeenth century Halvetd dervish
Es'ad Kdaifl is not addressed to women: its title is to
be translated 'A book of advice about women.' It is
directed to men and recommends that they avoid
earthly joys, specifically those represented in women,
and emphasizes the advantages men will find in devot-
ing themselves to a life of godly asceticism. Scraps of
useful information appear in unexpected places. For
example there is passing reference to the education of
girls in the Muslim catechism known as the Muqad-
dime of QutbeddTn Izn-qT(written in the first quarter
of the fifteenth century). QutbeddTn expressly men-
tions that his work is intended for teaching girls,
as well as boys, nearing puberty (ant oqumaq!(ga
oglanguqlara ve q'zgugazlara biltg olmaga yaqrn
oligaq ogredeler. T1. 3 #23 p. 19). In my own MS of
this work, the author interprets in Turkish a hadith
(tradition attributed to the Prophet) which declares
that "study is definitely a religious duty incumbent on
every man and woman.""5
All the works described in these volumes of the
Berlin Turkish catalogue are in Ottoman Turkish,
except for 32 in Chagatay, which are described in a
special section at the end of T1. 4. Of those, sixteen
are "religious" (in a broad sense) and most of the rest
are literary. Both prose and poetry are represented.
Most are well-known works, and the majority are in
14 Musluman Kadinoloji (an interesting linguistic creation
combining Arabic, Persian, Turkish and French elements in
its two words) is the name given to this burgeoning field of
study by a Cypriot lady, Dr. Servet Sami Dedeqay in Journal
of Turkish Studies/ Turkldk Bilgisi Ara~tirmalari (TUBA), 3
(1979), p. 466.
'5 Mutlaqd 'ilim ogrenmek er ve cavrete far? dur-
Birnbaum collection MS no. T 33, fol. 3a, lines 2-4.
419
eighteenth and nineteenth century copies. Navd'T is
represented by six compositions, including three copies
of his DMvan.His MahbiM al-qulib (#551) was copied
by a scribe rejoicing in the name of Molla Amrallah
b. Bi-iznillah Molla Timur b. Padar-i 'Ariis Molla.
The proportion of works in prose in the Berlin
collection seems to, be a little above average. This
applies especially to the translations/ adaptations from
Arabic and Persian. Dr. Sohrweide quotes an interest-
ing passage from a rare, mystical composition from
the sixteenth century by Misa Toqadl,'6 who defines
the task of the truly scholarly translator thus: He
must capture the essential meaning of the original but
must not be led astray by attempting to render pre-
cisely "the beauty of words or the eloquence" of the
text before him. T1. 3 and 4 describe quite a number
of inpa items, which include previously unattested
documents. The learned compilers are to be congratu-
lated on the excellence of some of their miniature
scholarly essays. "
Special mention should be made of Dr. Gotz's
identification of place names which have changed,'8
and the exceptional care with which both cataloguers
have recorded the presence, in the margins of MSS, of
additional works, of comments by former owners, and
of inscriptions on fly leaves.
The beauty of Islamic calligraphy has been extolled
by many. Nine centuries ago, the Qdbiusndme ad-
monished the ambitious scribe thus: "Occupy yourself
constantly, therefore, with writing in an open clear
hand, with the tall letters well up and the words close
knit."'9 Although the advice was repeated in no less
than five different Ottoman versions of the book, it
was evidently not taken to heart sufficiently. Among
other denunciations of careless copyists are witty
Turkish verses of 'AlT Sir Navd'T in the fifteenth
century and Fuziiil in the sixteenth.20 Gotz expresses
his frustration in simple German prose, more briefly
but with real feeling: Repulsive cursive Neshii!21
* * *
16 Mantiq el-gayb, Ti. 3 #81 p. 63.
17 E.g., Dr. Sohrweide in Ti. 3 #123, which should be read
in conjunction with Dr. G6tz's Ti. 2 #222.
1 E.g., Ti. 4 #44, where the town of a scribe called el-
Atran6sT is shown to be the modern Orhaneli.
19
A mirror for princes: the Qabusnama, transl. Reuben
Levy. London, 1951, p. 201.
20
Conveniently quoted together in Agah Sirri Levend, Ali
$ir Nevai, I, Ankara, 1965, pp. 254-255.
21 Hassliches kursives Neshi! T1. 2 #36;
similarly Ti. 4 #88.
420 Journal of the American Oriental Society 103.2 (1983)

In discussing Thrkische Handschriften Teile 2-4 of
VOHD, I have taken the opportunity of making some
suggestions for the consideration of the compilers of
subsequent volumes in the series, and indeed for that
of anyone working on a catalogue of Turkish MSS. In
spite of certain criticisms of these initial Berlin vol-
umes, I hope I have made it clear that none of the
catalogues of Turkish MSS published anywhere in the
world during the past twenty years are comparable to
them for their high level of scholarship, clarity, concise-
ness and comprehensiveness, and for their provision
of quick access to information on current holdings of
the works they describe in libraries throughout the
world. They are a joy to use and are already regarded
as one of the first resorts of scholars, bibliographers
and literary historians seriously concerned with Turk-
ish and related Islamic studies. A splendid new tool
has been placed at our disposal. May future cata-
loguers be inspired to emulation!

CORRECTIONS AND ADDENDA to Turkische Handschriften, Ti. 2,3,4

Catalogue
Teil Number Page
2 29 24 line 7: Arabic script should read /fhym/ not /fhm/.
2 46 37 line 4 from end: should read niedergeschrieben.
2 95 70 line 10: should be MODERRiSZADE.
2 96 72 Nukdt, nukte (twice) should be Nzikat, nukte.
2 102 77 line 5 should read Nasd'ih.
2 485 353 Before Arabic script, insert: Das gleiche Werk wie Nr. 483.
2 521 373 After: Andere HSS, add: See Gunay KUT ALPAY: 'Lami'l Chelebi and his works' in
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 35 (1976) p. 79, note 58.
2 620 420 After: Andere HSS, add: 'As listed in G. Kut Alpay, JNES vol. 35 (1976) p. 80, note 71.
2 - 446 Below caption 'Titel in Originalschrift,' add the explanation given at the top of p. 454.
2 - 456 Register, column 2. Delete third line from bottom.
2 - 457 Register, col. 1. Add the following final entry under the letter N: Nukat el-hikem, 96.
3 283 246 Add: Eth6 no. 2165, vol. 2, p. 1222; see Nuran Tezcan, 'Lami'T'nin Guiy u (7evgdn
mesnevisi' in Omer Asim Aksoy Armagani [ed.] Mustafa Canpolat. Ankara, 1978, p. 201-
225; Gunay Kut Alpay, 'Lami'i Chelebi and his works' in JNES 35.2 (1976) p. 87.
3 284 248 Not the work of Lami'T, according to G. Kut, ibid., p. 82, section 9.
3 344 301 line 5, for amsala read amsilu.
3 317 277 To 'Andere HSS,' add: as listed by G. Kut, ibid., p. 83, particularly note 79.
3 318 278 To 'Andere HSS,' add: as listed by G. Kut, ibid., p. 83, note 94.
4 - - Tafel VIII contains 3 columns, of which the middle and right ones are from MS or.oct. 985.
The middle contains not only #101 (as labelled) but also (lower half) the beginning of #94.
The right column is from #214 (not 101 as indicated). The same errors need correction in
the 'Verzeichnis der Tafeln,' p. 595.
4 - - Tafel XXII. Illustration of #15 is printed upside down.
4 338 324 line 11: 1490 should read 1590.
4 359 345 Mustafa b. 'AlTel-Muvaqqit's death date is given here as "qfter 960/1553," in contrast to
960/1553 at #338 p. 324.
4 488 459 FuratT's Qfrq su'al is not 'Sammlung koreanischer Geschichten' but 'koranischer'!
4 - 544 Below caption 'Titel in Originalschrift' add the explanation as at the top of p. 555.
4 - 557 col. 1. After Hada'iq el-haqa'iq delete 186.
4 - 557 col. 1. Below Hall-i muskilat, insert Haqa'iq al-haqa'iq 186.