INVENTORIES OF COLLECTIONS OF ORIENTAL MANUSCRIPTS INVENTORY OF THE ORIENTAL MANUSCRIPTS OF THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIDEN VOLUME 1 MANUSCRIPTS OR. 1 – OR. 1000 ACQUISITIONS IN THE PERIOD BETWEEN 1609 AND 1665. MAINLY THE COLLECTIONS OF JACOBUS GOLIUS (1629), JOSEPHUS JUSTUS SCALIGER (1609) AND PART OF THE COLLECTION OF LEVINUS WARNER (1665) COMPILED BY JAN JUST WITKAM PROFESSOR OF PALEOGRAPHY AND CODICOLOGY OF THE ISLAMIC WORLD IN LEIDEN UNIVERSITY INTERPRES LEGATI WARNERIANI TER LUGT PRESS LEIDEN 2007 © Copyright by Jan Just Witkam & Ter Lugt Press, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2006, 2007. The form and contents of the present inventory are protected by Dutch and international copyright law and database legislation. All use other than within the framework of the law is forbidden and liable to prosecution. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and the publisher. First electronic publication: 14 March 2006 (Or. 1– Or. 500 only) Penultimate update: 1 January 2007. Latest update: 4 August 2007 © Copyright by Jan Just Witkam & Ter Lugt Press, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2006, 2007 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface to the new edition Prefice to the first edition. Inventory of the Oriental manuscripts of the Library of the University of Leiden Or. 1 – Or. 211 The Golius collection Or. 212 – Or. 268 The Scaliger collection Or. 269 – Or. 1000 Part of the Warner collection Bibliography © Copyright by Jan Just Witkam & Ter Lugt Press, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2006, 2007 3 PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION The arrangement of the present volume of the Inventories of Oriental manuscripts in Leiden University Library does not differ in any specific way from the volumes which have been published earlier (vols. 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 22 and 25). For the sake of brevity I refer to my prefaces in those volumes. A few essentials my be repeated here. Not all manuscripts mentioned in the present volume were viewed by autopsy. The sheer number of manuscripts makes this impossible. At a later stage this may be achieved, but trying to achieve this at the present stage of inventorizing would seriously hamper the progress of the present project. When a manuscript was not inspected this can be seen from a simple typographical device. Whenever the indication of the shelf-mark is put between round brackets, I have not, or not extensively or sufficiently, inspected the manuscript, and its entry in the inventory is based mostly or entirely on secondary sources, be they published or not. These have, of course, always been indicated. When the shelf-mark is put between square brackets and preceded by an asterisk, this means that I have had the manuscript in my hands, at least once but probably more often, and that the description contains elements that can only be seen in the original manuscript. Such autopsy does not mean that I am, automatically, the author of all information given under that particular class-mark. The basic elements for each entry of the present inventory are: 1. class-mark, 2. language(s), 3. details of physical description, 4. survey of the contents, 5. provenance, 6. location on the shelf. Depending on the nature of the material, exceptions and divergences are made from this strict arrangement. The collective provenance of a series of manuscripts may be concentrated into a short text, preceding that series, without being repeated under each class-mark. I end with an important note. Although the inventories which I am publishing here contain descriptions of public and private collections, which will no doubt profit of the existence of electronic versions of my work, none of my inventories has ever been made at the express insistence or by the specific demand of these institutions. The idea to compile such inventories, the invention of their structure, the acquisition of the necessary information from a multitude of primary and secondary sources, the way of publishing, all this is my idea and my work alone. It is therefore my sole property and I assert the moral right of the authorship of form and content of these inventories, with reference, of course, to what I have said elsewhere about the method of compilation. Prof. Jan Just Witkam, Leiden, 4 August 2007 Interpres Legati Warneriani © Copyright by Jan Just Witkam & Ter Lugt Press, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2006, 2007 4 PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION This is the first volume of a complete survey of the collections of Oriental manuscripts in the library of Leiden University. The enormous amount of Oriental manuscripts in the Leiden Library implies that the following survey cannot be but very incomplete, and incomplete in many respects. First of all there is the consideration that each entry should be as concise as possible. On numerous entries I could have said much more than I have done now. Secondly, there is the sad but inevitable fact that nobody in the world has a direct knowledge of all languages in the collections described hereafter. From that follows that the quality of the inventory cannot be but very uneven. For large parts of the collection for which I have some sort of expertise, which is mainly the material written in the Arabic and Latin alphabets, the reader can be assured that the short descriptions in the inventory have been checked first hand, or will be in the future. For those parts of the collection to which my access is by necessity limited and through the work of others only, I had to rely on a great variety of published and unpublished sources. It goes beyond saying that these are always indicated, either as part of the description of the manuscript, or, when they are frequently used sources, under the list of references at the end of the inventory. It was precisely that great variety of sources about the Oriental manuscripts in the Leiden library gave me a powerful motive to compile the present inventory in the first place. The many years of handling handwritten inventories of all sorts that had been made of the collections made it clear to me that so much information about parts of the collection was hidden in so many places, that it became imperative to bring all disparate pieces of knowledge together in one comprehensive list. These sources range from notes of my many learned predecessors in the Leiden Library and Leiden University, which were left somewhere in the collection, to published catalogues, and everything inbetween. An effort has been made to capitalize on the method chosen for the compilation of the present inventories. Even if all philological knowledge about the individual items of the collection seems to have been randomized by the present approach, at least the history of the collection, and of the numerous sub-collections contained therein, gets its full share, which, in earlier catalogues almost never received. In the philologically orientated catalogues that have been published during the past two centuries, that aspect has almost entirely been neglected. In course of time I have come to consider precisely that as an essential starting point for any further research on the Oriental manuscripts in the Leiden collections. There are a few additional motives by which I let myself be guided while compiling this list. A great number of the original sources about the contents and provenance of the collections is written or published either in Latin or in Dutch, neither being very well known in the 21st century. An effort has been made to summarize the information contained therein, not to entirely replace them, but to provide those who do not read Latin easily anymore with an easy tool to their first acquaintance to the Leiden collection. © Copyright by Jan Just Witkam & Ter Lugt Press, Leiden, The Netherlands, 2006, 2007 5 The problem of diacritics for all these Oriental languages has not been solved in this inventory. Nor could it be expected to be within the scope of this project. Instead, an effort has been done to give a sensible, recognizable transliteration for titles and names. But it must be clear that the amount and the variety of the material could not but cause numerous inconsistencies in the presentation of the bibliographical information. There exists in the Leiden Library a handwritten volume (called ‘Journaal’), which serves as an inventory to the Oriental collections. It was possibly conceived and written by the learned curator and adjutor interpretis Legati Warneriani, Cornelis van Arendonk (d. 1946), but this register does not mention his name. Younger entries have been registered by Van Arendonk’s successors, P. Voorhoeve (1899-1996) and others. For the older Oriental collections the ‘Journaal’ is nothing more but a concordance of class- marks with references to older catalogues, usually the CCO. Hereunder follows the integral English translation of the introductory pages of the ‘Journaal’, which is relevant not only for the present inventory but also for the following volumes of the present survey. The highest inventory number in that first volume of the ‘Journaal’ is Or. 8470. Introductory remarks and notes Originally (that is to say already in the beginning of the eighteenth century (see H.E. Weijers, Orientalia I, p. 302, line 4) the Oriental manuscripts were divided into two parts, the smaller of which consisted of 21 (almost exclusively) Hebrew codices from the Legacy of Scaliger and also 63 (equally almost exclusively) Hebrew manuscripts from the Legacy of Warner. The larger part comprised all other manuscripts (mainly Arabic, Persian and Turkish ones) of the Scaliger Legacy (No.