Thirteen The Transformation of Arabic Writing: Part 1, Qurʾānic Calligraphy

The conversion of Qur^ʾānic and monumental calligraphy from angular to cursive is one of the most important but least discussed developments in Islamic art. Occurring first in Qur^ʾān manuscripts in the tenth century and later in monumental inscriptions, this transformation had a deep and long-lasting impact, shaping the subsequent evolution of Islamic calligraphy for several centuries. It was also a geographically widespread change, and although it began in the central Islamic world – most likely in Baghdad – no Muslim country from India to Spain was left unaffected by it.

A development of this magnitude, occurring in the most visible medium of Islamic art, requires an explanation. Furthermore, in view of the fact that in the medieval Islamic world calligraphy fulfilled a central iconographic function (as the transmitter of pietistic messages and political propaganda), this explanation cannot be restricted to the mere formal alteration of the script but must reach to the underlying cultural factors that would have made such a change necessary. The following paper will therefore attempt to address both formal and iconographic aspects of this transformation as they apply to Qur^ʾān manuscripts. Since the change in monumental epigraphy lagged by about one century behind the Qur^ʾānic transformation and was contingent upon it, it seems logical to proceed chronologically from Qur^ʾān manuscripts to monuments.

Given the central importance of this problem, why has it attracted so little attention among specialists in Arabic manuscripts and monumental inscriptions? It is certainly not for lack of diligence and creativity: specialists in these areas have, over the last century and a half, examined countless manuscripts and fragments and documented nearly all the important monumental inscriptions in the Islamic world. In the process they have laid the foundations of the two fields of palaeography and epigraphy, which today are among the most developed fields in Islamic studies. Instead it seems that the main reason for this neglect is methodological, emanating from the specialised approaches and rather inflexible agendas prevailing in epigraphy and palaeography.

Research in Islamic epigraphy has generally been restricted to the recording and translation of inscriptions on monuments and art objects, and somewhat later to their interpretation.¹ Little attention has been given to calligraphic form, whose relevance to the very specialised endeavour of the first epigraphers was not at all perceived. While this is understandable given the enormous scope of epigraphic documentation and the outline format of its early publications, the dismissal of the formal qualities of the script is far more problematic in the recent works of art historians who have used epigraphy as an interpretive tool.² By simply perpetuating the restrictive methodology of the first epigraphers, they have generally reduced calligraphy to mere information, thus diminishing the artistic meaning and visual impact of inscriptions instead of enriching them.³

The analysis of the formal qualities of scripts has traditionally fallen in the domain of palaeography, although in recent years a number of art historians have also made important contributions towards charting the course of Arabic calligraphy and distinguishing its many varieties. But, with rare exceptions, these writers have been disinclined to consider the reasons behind changes in calligraphic form.⁴ Instead of searching for underlying cultural causes, most writers on calligraphy have tended to explain the great developments in Arabic and Persian scripts in terms of regional variation, autonomous chronological change, or artisanal improvements determined primarily by the innovations of a few well-known calligraphers and the lesser contributions of minor calligraphers.⁵

This overly specialised approach is problematic in at least two respects. First, in its emphasis on authenticating the works of the most important calligraphers and its dismissal, or at least negative evaluation, of all ‘questionable’ specimens, it has tended to lose sight of the broad artistic trends of the period and even of the legacy of the calligrapher under consideration. This is especially troublesome in the case of Ibn Muqla, of whose calligraphy no specimens have survived but whose method is known to have influenced one or two generations of calligraphers. Second, traditional palaeography has left unexamined the impact of external factors, such as politics and religion, on the world of the calligrapher – factors that may have directly or indirectly contributed to palaeographic changes.⁶ Just as the specialised approach of epigraphers limited them to the content of the inscriptions, so the approach of palaeographers has restricted them to problems of dating, provenance and authorship.

The question of the transformation of Arabic writing, though closely related to both epigraphy and palaeography, seems to fall in a methodological middle ground between the two disciplines. Being equally concerned with the formal and semiological aspects of this transformation, this piece and its sequel will draw on the findings of both epigraphers and palaeographers while at the same time charting an entirely new course. More than anything, it will attempt to examine the various dimensions of the relationship between the form(s) and meaning(s) of certain new calligraphic styles: how and why these new forms were created; how and why meanings were ascribed to them; and what religious or political requirements these meaningful forms were intended to address.⁷

We begin, therefore, by examining the formal qualities of the new Qur^ʾānic calligraphy produced by and under the influence of Ibn Muqla and Ibn al-Bawwāb, basing our investigation on a fairly large number of manuscripts culled from several American, European and Middle Eastern libraries.⁸ We proceed next to investigate a number of factors that may have contributed to this transformation, including the gradual replacement of vellum by paper; the wide application of geometric principles to Islamic art, including calligraphy; and finally the attempts to create a canonical recension of the Qur^ʾān in the tenth and eleventh centuries.

Methodologically, this piece follows a tradition perhaps first established by Nabia Abbott, whereby evidence derived from the palaeographic analysis of Qur^ʾānic manuscripts and fragments is juxtaposed against a wide variety of literary sources.⁹ Although Abbott’s work has enjoyed widespread influence, it should be noted that two recent writers on Qur^ʾānic palaeography have taken exception to her textual approach on two entirely different grounds. Estelle Whelan has correctly questioned Abbott’s reliance on secretarial manuals for the identification of Qur^ʾānic scripts, suggesting that this undermines the usefulness of her conclusions for the study of extant manuscripts.¹⁰ Yet despite this methodological flaw, Whelan reaffirms in her conclusion the importance of a comprehensive approach to the material, one that takes into account ‘paleographical, codicological, textual, and ornamental’ criteria.¹¹

Déroche, on the other hand, having voiced some objections about the ‘relatively modest’ impact of Abbott’s method on palaeography, nearly dismisses the literary sources and bases his entire investigation on the close examination of large collections of Qur^ʾān manuscripts.¹² While the thoroughness and meticulous care of his approach are indeed admirable, the absence of the cultural backdrop, which in the case of calligraphy is quite elaborate, casts some doubt on his detailed classifications and formalist schemes. At best, such an ahistorical approach may be convenient for purposes of taxonomy and classification, but it falls far too short when one attempts to deal with problems of change and transformation in calligraphic styles – problems that have long been identified by the writers on calligraphic and scribal arts.

What seems needed, therefore, is not to silence these sources but to utilise them with a greater sense of purpose and focus than Abbott or others have. Despite their often ambiguous statements, impressionistic ideas and incomplete schemes, these texts can nevertheless provide an adequate framework for posing questions to the available specimens. Most researchers in Islamic art agree that all these sources have their limitations and are often silent about matters that seem to us of the greatest importance.¹³ The challenge, then, is to establish links among these specialised sources and between them and the works of art in the hope of composing a reasonably coherent picture of a particular cultural or artistic phenomenon. While such a reconstruction may remain incomplete and may even lack the apparent authority of positivist classification, the juxtaposition and interlinking of a variety of texts, including the artistic one, will ultimately enrich the cultural discourse and enhance our experience of its various facets. Often in Islamic art, that is the most one could wish for.

Our attempt to present the transformation of Arabic writing in the fourth and fifth centuries a.h. is made infinitely easier by the substantial palaeographic research on the first three centuries of Islam. The main points of this body of research that are relevant to this paper can be summarised as follows. First, cursive Arabic writing did not originate from an older angular script, but rather the two forms coexisted from the earliest days of Islam (Figure 13.1).¹⁴ Second, the early cursive scripts were used exclusively for secular purposes, never for the Qur^ʾān, which was written in the angular Kūfic script (Figure 13.3).¹⁵ Third, secular and Qur^ʾānic scripts were subject to totally different calligraphic rules, those applied to the Qur^ʾān being far more exacting.¹⁶ And finally, most treatises on calligraphy dealt with secular not Qur^ʾānic scripts since their authors tended to be scribes and officials of the administration.¹⁷

With few exceptions, Qur^ʾānic script from the first two and a half centuries of Islam is extremely uniform, a fact that Arthur Arberry attributed to ‘the tenacious conservatism of many Koranic scribes’.¹⁸ There is in fact so little variation in the Kūfic script of these Qur^ʾāns that palaeographers have had to depend on diacritical and orthographic marks and decorations for their dating and classification.¹⁹ In contrast, judging from the literary sources and the few preserved specimens, secular scripts exhibited far greater variety.²⁰ By the end of the ninth century Ibn al-Nadim had listed twenty-six styles ranging from large and angular to small and cursive.²¹

Indeed, such a large number of these ‘secular’ scripts existed by the end of the ninth century that Ibn Wahb al-Kātib, a contemporary of Ibn al-Nadīm, complained that ‘the scribes were no longer aware of all the different styles of the olden days’.²² Nabia Abbott maintained that many of these scripts represented subtle variations on the major

scripts,²³ but their sheer number and the subsequent need for reform suggest a loss of standard and a general decline in scribal writing.

Thus, on the eve of the reforms of Ibn Muqla (886–940), Arabic was being written in a standard Qur^ʾānic script that only a select few copyists (muḥarrirūn) had mastered and in an unwieldy variety of secular scripts, many of inferior quality and none following an established standard (Table 1).²⁴ It has been firmly established that, contrary to legend, Ibn Muqla did not create any new scripts²⁵ and certainly was not the inventor of cursive writing, incorrectly referred to today as the naskh script. Known primarily as ṣāḥib al-khaṭṭ al-mansūb (master of the proportioned script), Ibn Muqla gained fame

chiefly for inventing a system of proportional writing based on the principles of geometric design (handa sat al-ḥurūf).²⁶ Some idea of the geometric quality of his script may be derived from the laudatory remarks of the tenth-century writer Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī: ‘Ibn Muqla is a prophet in the field of writing. It was poured upon his hand, even as it was revealed to the bees to make their honey-cells hexagonal.’²⁷

Ibn Muqla^ʾs rules of proportion were not intended for Qur^ʾānic Kūfic but for the large variety of scribal scripts. In other words, Qur^ʾānic Kūfic, which by the tenth century had reached a very high standard, was not directly affected by the changes of Ibn Muqla; the reform was at first intended for the more mundane scripts. The result of these reforms, therefore, was not the gradual softening of the angular Kūfic script but its supplantation by the redesigned scripts of the chancery. I will return to this important point below.

The system of proportion that Ibn Muqla devised was based on measurement by dots. The dot was formed by pressing the nib of the qalam (reed pen) on paper until it opened to its fullest extent, after which it was released evenly and rapidly. This produced a square on edge, or a rhombus. The size of the dot affected only the size of the writing; the relative proportions of letters remained constant for each individual script. Placing dots vertex to vertex, Ibn Muqla then proceeded to straighten the Kūfic alif, which had been bent to the right, and adopt it as his standard of measurement (Figure 13.4). His next step was to standardise the individual letters of the various corrupted secular scripts by bringing them into accord with geometric figures. By giving each letter a proportional relation (nisba) to the alif, Ibn Muqla was able to construct a canon of proportions for the entire alphabet.²⁸ This allowed the creation of a number of systematic methods or templates for each of the major scripts, which henceforth could be produced accurately to scale.

This standardisation came at a price: a relatively small number of scripts was admitted into the canon of reformed scripts, while others were neglected and gradually slipped into oblivion (Table 1). The canonical scripts, known collectively as al-aqlām al-sitta or shishqalam, were thuluth, naskh, muḥaqqaq, riqāʿ, tawqīʿ and rayḥān. Of these scripts thuluth was to attain the greatest importance in view of its nearly exclusive use for monumental inscriptions and for sūra headings in the Qur^ʾān. Naskh, originally a minor and somewhat disdained script, became the preferred style for literary manuscripts and small Qur^ʾāns, especially during the Ottoman period. Muḥaqqaq and rayḥān achieved the peak of their fame in the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when they were used for writing the splendid Mamlūk and Mongol Qur^ʾāns, the former script for large copies and the latter for smaller ones. Riqāʿ was employed for correspondence, while the use of tawqīʿ was restricted to royal decrees and official letters.²⁹

Although the name of Ibn Muqla is second to none in the history of Islamic calligraphy, no authentic specimen in his hand has been found. Some specimens bearing his name have at different times been suggested as authentic, but all of these have ultimately been dismissed as forgeries.³⁰ Unfortunately, in their zeal to authenticate works by Ibn Muqla, palaeographers may have dismissed certain evidence that, though of no particular use in finding definitive specimens by him, may help us to approximate the appearance of his calligraphy and therefore determine the extent of his influence. This evidence can be summarised under two headings: the method of Ibn Muqla as described in his own treatise Risālah fi’l-khaṭṭ al-mansūb (Treatise on proportioned writing) and the specimens that have been spuriously attributed to Ibn Muqla.

Given Ibn Muqla^ʾs far greater fame as the innovator of a method than as a calligrapher, the obsessive search for authentic specimens in his hand may have been misguided. Those efforts could perhaps have been more fruitfully spent in examining Qur^ʾānic manuscripts that postdate him but may have been influenced by his method. By comparing samples of such manuscripts with the reconstructed alphabet of Ibn Muqla, we may be able to establish the circle of influence of his method.³¹ Following the instructions given in the Risālah, Nabia Abbott, and more recently Aḥmad Muṣṭafa,³² have obtained a script characterised by regularity, verticality, semi-angularity, short sublineal curves and the triangular appearance of some of the characters (Figure 13.5). Its alifs are pointed and almost vertical and its knots always open. In all these respects, this reconstructed script resembles the so-called semi-Kūfic script³³ used in many tenthand eleventh-century Qur^ʾāns.³⁴ Some specimens of this script are so regular as to be somewhat rigid, which might be seen as the result of strict adherence to the geometric precepts of Ibn Muqla.

A second kind of evidence comes from Qur^ʾānic fragments and album pages that have been spuriously attributed to Ibn Muqla

(Figure 13.6). Although certainly not in his hand and often written two or three centuries after him, these manuscripts nevertheless display striking similarities both to one another and to the group of semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns mentioned above.³⁵ Such consistency is significant even in forgeries, for a forger after all has to pay due respect to the original he is copying. In this case, there is no doubt whatsoever that what is being copied is an especially precise form of the semi-Kūfic script. For these reasons, it seems quite likely that semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns – which immediately follow Ibn Muqla – are written in a style that resembles his, at first perhaps by calligraphers who were directly under his guidance.

Within the body of Qur^ʾānic manuscripts, semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns form a fairly distinct group sharing a number of features. In terms of their date, these manuscripts tend to cluster from the late tenth century to about 1100 although the script continued to be used and further evolved in eastern Iran up to the end of the twelfth century and even later.³⁶ The few examples that have been suggested from the first half of the tenth century are quite different from regular semi-Kūfic. Of these the earliest is perhaps CBL 1417, which consists of four small juzʾs of a single Qur^ʾān on vellum, dated to 292/905 and signed by Aḥmad ibn Abi^ʾl-Qāsim al-Khāyqānī (Figure 13.7). James suggested that it was ‘one of the earliest Eastern Kufic manuscripts,³⁷ and Déroche³⁸ compared it with BN 382 and TIM 12800, which are dated 325/936–7. But the script in all these manuscripts, though somewhat cursive, is quite irregular, resembling contemporary secular manuscripts such as CBL 3494 (dated 279/892) more than semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns.³⁹ In fact the loose form of many of the letters, especially the alif with a pronounced hook to the right, shows no sign of having been influenced by the conventions of Ibn Muqla.⁴⁰

Eliminating these problematic fragments from our sample, we may then proceed to outline the prominent features of semi-Kūfic manuscripts. With consistently clear letter forms and distinct words separated by spaces on either side – instead of the previous practice of dramatically scattering word fragments across the line – the most striking feature of the semi-Kūfic script is its legibility, especially when compared to the preceding ^ʿAbbasid Kūfic script (cf. Figures 13.2 and 13.10). This legibility is further enhanced by a clear and often complete system of orthography and vocalisation. The old system of using large coloured dots for vocalisation and groups of black dots for orthographic marks was abandoned in a two-step fashion:⁴¹ first, the orthographic dots were standardised and made smaller (Figure 13.9), and second, a totally new system of vocalisation was introduced, consisting of slashes for fatḥa and kasra, a small waw for dhamma, a small circle for sukūn and other signs for shadda and madda (Figures 13.14 and 13.17).⁴² This is the system still in use today.

The semi-Kūfic script is also remarkable for its consistency and regularity, as demonstrated by numerous fragmentary and complete Qur^ʾāns in European and Middle Eastern libraries.⁴³ It appears generally as a small and rather compact script with very simple letter forms and crisp, angular ligatures. The uprights are nearly vertical although the alif can vary from being slightly bent to the right to being perfectly straight (cf. Figures 13.16 and 13.18). The ‘eyes’ of the letters ṣād, ṭāʾ, ʿayn, qāf, mīm and hāʾ are always open and have a generally triangular appearance. An exercise in the art of restraint, it has neither the deep sublineal curves of Maghribi Kūfic nor the flourishes of later cursive writing. In fact, most examples seem to follow rather closely the method of Ibn Muqla, although divergences begin to occur from the second half of the eleventh century with the widespread use of the so-called Eastern Kūfic (Figure 13.8).⁴⁴

In addition to their distinctive and legible script, semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns display at least three other features that distinguish them from their predecessors. The first is that they are almost all written

on paper instead of vellum (Table 2). Out of our sample of eight manuscripts, two (BL 11, 735 and TKS R-38; Figures 13.12 and 13.15) use vellum and the rest paper. Statistical information on the percentage of the use of vellum in semi-Kūfic or Eastern Kūfic Qur^ʾān manuscripts is still unavailable, but the present investigation suggests something under 20 per cent. Although paper began to be used for secular manuscripts sometime in the late ninth century,⁴⁵ these are the earliest Qur^ʾāns written on paper and represent the transition from Kūfic Qur^ʾāns on parchment to fully cursive Qur^ʾāns on paper.⁴⁶ In fact the earliest known dated paper Qur^ʾān is written in a very upright and regular semi-Kūfic script. This is CBL 1434 (Figures 13.8 and 13.9), a large fragment of a manuscript, portions of which also exist at the Ardabil Shrine and the University Library in Istanbul (A 6758), whose section is dated 361/972 and signed by ^ʿAlī ibn Shādhān al-Rāzī (of Rayy).⁴⁷

The second is that these semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns abandon the horizontal format of ^ʿAbbasid Kūfic and adopt the vertical format that had been used previously in the so-called Ḥijāzī Qur^ʾānic manuscripts of the māʾil script and even more commonly in secular manuscripts.⁴⁸ The motive for this change has not been determined, but it is unlikely to

have been due to the switch from vellum to paper since both formats had been used previously with vellum. It is more likely that the use of the vertical format of secular manuscripts went hand in hand with the adoption of scripts that had been primarily used in the chancery and in literary manuscripts. The change in format, therefore, could

have been simply an outgrowth of the calligraphic change. But it could also have been intentional, as a way of further differentiating the new Qur^ʾānic manuscripts from their predecessors.

The third feature shared by several semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns is that they begin with single- or double-illuminated folios that refer to the particular recension of the Qur^ʾān and give a verse count (Figures 13.9, 13.13 and  13.15). As far as we know, this feature did not exist in ^ʿAbbasid Kūfic Qur^ʾā^ns49 but begins with the earliest dated semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾān, namely CBL 1434, dated 972. Since most semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns

exist as fragments with missing frontispieces and colophons, it is impossible to say what percentage of them would have included a verse count. But out of seven complete or nearly complete semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns from before the end of the eleventh century, four contain a verse count. Although admittedly a small sample, it does suggest at least that the use of verse count was a prevalent and quite deeply rooted practice in semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns between c. 950 and c. 1100.

The content of the verse count varies slightly from one manuscript to the next, but it generally includes the number of sūras and words in the Qur^ʾān. CBL 1434 begins with two folios (ff. lb, 2a) that give within circular medallions the number of sūras (114), verses (6,226), words (27,439) and even letters (321,015) (Figure 13.10). BL 11,735, which is datable to the second half of the tenth century in view of its use of vellum, contains the second folio (f. la) of a double-folio verse count (Figure 13.14). It gives exactly the same figures as CBL 1434 for the number of words and letters. TKS R-38, which is also a vellum manuscript, contains in its last folio (f. 317b) the first part of a two-folio verse count that gives the number of sūras in the Qur^ʾān as 114 and the number of verses as 6,224 (Figure 13.16). In TKS R-10, a paper manuscript, the statistical information also once covered two folios, one of which (f. 235a) is still preserved but in such a fragmentary condition as to render it practically illegible with any accuracy. Finally, the highly unusual fragments at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 40.164. 2la-d, contain a rather detailed verse count in very small semi-Kūfic script at the beginning of each chapter (Figure 13.19).

Semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns, therefore, differ from ^ʿAbbasid Kufic Qur^ʾāns in terms of their medium, format, script, diacritical marks and verse count. Despite their superficial similarity to the earlier Qur^ʾāns, they should not be seen simply as a stage in a continuous evolution from angular to cursive but rather as a complete, and as I will argue deliberate, departure from past custom. Once this transformation is accepted on these terms, we must then look for the factors that led up to it. But before doing that we should examine next the second step in the transformation of Qur^ʾānic calligraphy, the one traditionally associated with Ibn al-Bawwāb.

The second most important stage in the reformation of Qur^ʾānic calligraphy took place under Ibn al-Bawwāb (d. 1022). All the sources agree that Ibn al-Bawwāb followed the method of Ibn Muqla but further improved it by making the script clearer, more cursive and more elegant. Ibn Khallikān, the thirteenthcentury historian, said that ‘Ibn al-Bawwāb revised and refined [the method of Ibn Muqla] and vested it with elegance and splendor’.⁵⁰ Ibn Kathīr, the fourteenth-century Damascene historian, added that ‘[Ibn al-Bawwāb^ʾs] writing is clearer in form than Ibn Muqla’s and that in the author’s time ‘all people in all climes follow his method except a few’.⁵¹

Only one small Qur^ʾān has been securely attributed to Ibn al-Bawwāb, the famous copy at the Chester Beatty Library (1431), dated 391/1000–1 (Figures 13.20–13.22).⁵² This is the earliest known cursive Qur^ʾān and undoubtedly one of the earliest made, since Ibn alBawwāb was the first to write Qur^ʾāns in fully cursive scripts (Table 3). Written on brownish paper in a clear and compact naskh, this manuscript is rather easy to belittle: it has neither the majesty and mystery of early Kūfic folios nor the grandeur and sumptuous-

ness of later cursive Qur^ʾāns. But it is precisely because it looks so familiar and legible to the contemporary reader that this Qur^ʾānic manuscript is in fact so original. In effect, this copy makes a clear and final break with the majestic but ambiguous script of the first three Islamic centuries, replacing it with a robustly cursive and perfectly legible script that has survived until the present day.⁵³

The two most important cursive scripts are represented in this manuscript, naskh in the text and a variety of thuluth in the opening folios and sūra headings. Naskh was one of the pens in which Ibn alBawwāb excelled, and his particular style in writing seems to have been imitated until near the end of the twelfth century (e.g. Figures 13.29, 13.31 and 13.40). James has recently suggested that ‘the naskh of Ibn al-Bawwāb seems to be associated with areas east of Baghdad’,⁵⁴ an observation that is readily confirmed by several Iraqi and Persian manuscripts of the eleventh and twelfth centuries.⁵⁵ In fact, the renown of Ibn al-Bawwāb^ʾs Qur^ʾānic naskh immediately brings to mind the wide appeal of Ibn Muqla^ʾs calligraphic method. As with Ibn Muqla, the manuscripts closest in date to Ibn al-Bawwāb (before 1100) adhere the most closely to his hand while those from the succeeding century begin to show some divergence (e.g. Figures 13.35 and 13.36).⁵⁶

The thuluth used in the statistical pages and the sūra headings of the Qur^ʾān of Ibn al-Bawwāb is no less remarkable than the naskh used in the text (Figures 13.19 and 13.20). Despite its early date, it shows a number of refinements that remain with Qur^ʾānic calligraphy for nearly two centuries and that even influence monumental writing. The script is of a type called thuluth-ashʿar, appearing here as a fully cursive script, thinly outlined in gold. Although somewhat densely written, the script is especially noteworthy for its clarity and legibility, achieved in part by its totally explicit letter forms, with open ‘eyes’ and pointed uprights (tarwīs of the alif and lām).

The overall squatness of the script is relieved by variation in the thickness of its lines and by the very distinctive feature of interconnection: normally unconnected letters and even independent words are connected smoothly to one another through the use of thin, sinuous extensions. This identifying feature occurs a number of times in the introductory folios, as for example on f. 6b, line 5 (Figure 13.21), where the waw of huwa is connected to the sīn of sabʿūn, and on f. 8a, line 1, where the alif and the bāʾ of abī are interconnected (Figure 13.22). Some of the manuscripts in the present sample and several later ones slavishly copy this peculiarity, or perhaps embellishment, at first because of the immediate impact of Ibn al-Bawwāb but later perhaps as a sign of homage to the great calligrapher (Figure 13.20).⁵⁷ In fact, it can be said that nearly all the manuscripts in Table 3 that employ thuluth (i.e. BL Or. 13002, TIM 431/2, CBL1430, DK 227, DK 144, UMP NEP-27, CBL 1438) copy the style of Ibn al-Bawwāb, down to the feature of interconnection (e.g. Figures 13.23, 13.25 and13.36).⁵⁸

The influence of Ibn al-Bawwāb extended even farther than that of Ibn Muqla, and calligraphers continued to employ his method for more than two centuries after his death.⁵⁹ Later calligraphers not only honoured and emulated him, but a few even made forgeries bearing his signature and attempted to sell them as originals. Some of these forgeries were almost contemporary with Ibn al-Bawwāb⁶⁰ while others postdated him by several centuries.⁶¹ Although his impact was mainly felt in the lands east of Baghdad, at least one Qur^ʾān manuscript from North Africa (TKS A3), datable to the late eleventh century, tries to copy the thuluth of Ibn al-Bawwāb in its sūra titles (Figure 13.28). The calligrapher, who was quite proficient in the Maghribi style in which most of the manuscript is written, betrays a certain naivété when trying to write such a distinctive cursive script.

An even greater illustration of Ibn al-Bawwāb’s prominence among later calligraphers is an early sixteenth-century manuscript that attempts to reproduce his various styles.⁶² Written five hundred years after Ibn al-Bawwāb and dedicated almost in its entirety to his various calligraphic styles, this manuscript must be seen as an homage to the great master and as an attempt to perpetuate his legacy.

It is important to note, however, that despite their great renown and immediate influence in the eastern Islamic world, Ibn Muqla and Ibn al-Bawwāb had virtually no impact on Egypt. Out of our two samples of eight semi-Kūfic and thirteen early cursive Qur^ʾān manuscripts, not one was produced in Fatimid Egypt. In fact the vast majority were made in Iraq and Iran, with Baghdad occupying a position of honour. Geography may have played a role: Baghdad, the centre of this calligraphic transformation, was in the period under consideration better connected with Iran than with Egypt. But the absence of any semi-Kūfic or cursive Qur^ʾān manuscripts from Egypt until the beginning of the thirteenth century must have another explanation, to which I will return.

In addition to perfecting the cursive proportioned script, the Qur^ʾān of Ibn al-Bawwāb contains other important developments. The two-folio verse count, which we have seen in several semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns, is further expanded here to enumerate the words and letters in each sūra, the total number of words and letters in the Qur^ʾān, and even the number of dotted and undotted letters (ff. 6b and 7a; Figure 13.21). Such obsessive record keeping seems to stand in sharp contrast to the early Kūfic Qur^ʾāns, none of which included even the most casual verse count.

The verse count is followed by another double folio (7b and 8a; Figure 13.22), which mentions the particular recension of this Qur^ʾān. Placed within hexagonal cartouches, six per page, the inscription reads:

[f. 7b:] According to the count of the people of Kūfa, which is told after the Commander of the Believers

[f. 8a:] ^ʿAlī ibn abī Ṭālib and Muhammad our Prophet, peace be on him

Despite being the first documented Qur^ʾān to refer to any recension, it does not provide quite enough information, since Kūfa boasted not one but three canonical Qur^ʾānic readers, namely ^ʿÅṣim, Ḥamza

and al-Kisā^ʾī.⁶³ It is possible that this was a deliberate ambiguity, intended to establish the authority of this Qur^ʾān by reference to all three of these recensions.

Of the thirteen dated eleventh- and twelfth-century Qur^ʾāns in this sample, the first six (all from the first half of the eleventh century) are quite easily comparable with the Qur^ʾān of Ibn al-Bawwāb in terms of calligraphy, size and the reliance on accurate verse count (Table 3). The closest to his hand are without doubt BL Add. 7214 (1036), CBL 1430 (1037) and TIM 449, which must be very close in date to these manuscripts but whose colophon has been rewritten to refer to Ibn al-Bawwāb (Figures 13.27–13.31).⁶⁴ Produced about two decades after the death of the master, possibly by students of his, the naskh hand used in these splendid manuscripts is extremely close to that of Ibn al-Bawwāb. BL Or. 13002, the closest in date to Ibn al-Bawwāb, also uses a similar naskh hand but is on the whole a less accomplished manuscript (Figure 13.25). TIM 431/2 (Figures 13.24 and  13.25), which seems to have been intended for the Ṣulayḥid ruler of Yemen, clearly belongs to a higher level of patronage than the only extant Ibn al-Bawwāb manuscript. Although the undotted thuluth ash ʿar used in some of the sūra headings (Figure 13.27) recalls the

thuluth of Ibn alBawwāb, the text itself is written in a totally original mixture midway between naskh and golden thuluth. Indeed, the lavish use of gold, the numerous illuminations and, for the time, the large size of the script seem to describe a royal manuscript that has yet to be properly studied.

As would be expected, manuscripts from the twelfth century, which are separated from Ibn al-Bawwāb by five or more generations, display much greater calligraphic freedom. One of the most original is the little-known manuscript BN Ar. 6041, written in Bust (Iran) in 505/1111–12. Déroche has convincingly identified its script as tawqīʿ, which is a larger and more cursive pen than naskh (Figure 13.32 and 13.33).⁶⁵ NEP-27 at The University Museum in Philadelphia uses a rather sparse naskh script, which is comparable though not identical to that of Ibn al-Bawwāb (Figure 13.37). CBL 1438, dated 582/1186 and written by ^ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Kātib al-Malikī ^ʿZarrin Qalam^ʾ, has been identified by James as a royal manuscript.⁶⁶ It displays a bewildering array of scripts, including Eastern Kūfic, muḥaqqaq, naskh, and a thuluth that is remarkably close to the hand of Ibn al-Bawwāb (Figures 13.36 and 13.37). As with the earlier TIM 431/2, its royal status sets it apart from the less

elaborate Qur^ʾān of Ibn al-Bawwāb. The last two manuscripts in the sample, CBL 1435 and 1439, dated respectively 1195 and 1200, are both written in a clear and sober naskh that resembles the style of Ibn al-Bawwāb in most respects but has taller uprights and far fewer lines per page (Figures 13.38–13.41).

Taken as a group, six out of the thirteen manuscripts in the sample contain a verse count (Figures 13.20, 13.23, 13.34, 13.37, 13.39 and 13.41). Restricting the sample to the ten complete Qur^ʾāns, we still get six manuscripts with full verse count, leaving the possibility of an even higher ratio since folios bearing the verse count are especially vulnerable to destruction and loss.⁶⁷

In short, then, this group of Ibn al-Bawwāb-related Qur^ʾāns exhibits some continuity and some development over Ibn Muqla-related tenth-century Qur^ʾāns. The new scripts are totally cursive, betraying none of the formulaic regularity of the semi-Kūfic group. Orthographic signs, while similar to those of the previous century, are more consistently used; verse counts are expanded and also used in sūra headings; and the particular recension is often clearly stated.

Between about 930 and the first decades of the eleventh century, Qur^ʾānic calligraphy therefore underwent two decisive changes that completely transformed the physical appearance of the Qur^ʾān, both in sum and in detail. The first change led to the creation of a paper Qur^ʾān written in a crisp, sometimes rigid script with full diacritical marks, while the second resulted in a variety of fully cursive Qur^ʾāns, which have remained relatively unchanged until recently. Palaeographic and artistic concerns aside, what really distinguishes these Qur^ʾāns from the earlier Kūfic ones is legibility. Semi-Kūfic Qur^ʾāns are, with the exception of some ornate examples, reasonably legible, while the fully cursive ones can be easily read by any literate person.

This raises a number of important questions. What was behind this two-phase but total transformation of Qur^ʾānic calligraphy? Why was a script as old as Islam itself abandoned in Qur^ʾānic writing and replaced by the reformed scripts of Ibn Muqla and Ibn al-Bawwāb – scripts that had originated in the secular sphere? In what ways was the old Kūfic script considered deficient, and what new associations did the new scripts convey vis-à-vis their predecessor? And lastly,

what was the reason for the compulsion to count verses and record them accurately?

A technical explanation may stress the change from parchment to paper in Qur^ʾāns – a change that had begun in other manuscripts as early as the late ninth century. Ernst Kühnel, for example, has suggested in passing that the spread of paper as an inexpensive writing medium in the succeeding centuries led to the development of a less cumbersome and pretentious style.⁶⁸ Actually, the impact of paper on literacy and book production in the Islamic world, which remains a poorly studied subject, was far more complicated than Kühnel suggests.⁶⁹ There is little doubt that the availability of Chinese paper from the eighth century and its widespread manufacture in the

Islamic world by the tenth century contributed to the expansion of literacy. As a cheap writing medium became available, the number of scribes (nussākh) increased and so did the number of scripts, which in turn led to the relaxation of calligraphic standards and the general decline in the quality of writing.⁷⁰ Some system was urgently needed for secular writing, and it was provided, as explained above, by Ibn Muqla in the form of al-khaṭṭ al-mansūb. But although paper and literacy were significant factors in this transformation, they do not explain why the new script was used for the Qur^ʾān, thereby ending a four-centuryold tradition of angular writing. A technical explanation is simply untenable for a matter of such importance.

One is also tempted to see in the proportioned script yet another of the many applications of geometric principles to Islamic art in the late tenth and eleventh centuries. Certainly, the method of Ibn Muqla has more to do with geometry than with calligraphy – a fact that was not lost on contemporary authors. We might also add that there is a clear difference between the visible geometry of the angular Kūfic script and the invisible geometry of the proportioned script of Ibn al-Bawwāb, often described as a script without any visible external edges (an lā turā min al-khāriji zawāyāhu).⁷¹ It is this assimilated geometry that pervades a variety of artistic forms in the eleventh century, namely geometric strap work and muqarnas. In fact, it can hardly be accidental that these calligraphic and architectural changes occur simultaneously and within the same geographic regions.⁷²

Yet, despite the key role played by geometry in the formation of the proportioned script, it could not have been the primary cause for this development, and one has to search for the factors that led up to its application in Qur^ʾānic calligraphy. What the geometry of Ibn Muqla did was to make certain mundane scripts such as naskh sufficiently worthy for writing the Qur^ʾān. But the question remains as to why this development was demanded in the first place. Why was this new script preferred over the Kūfic for writing the Qur^ʾān?

To answer these questions we must look closely at certain contemporary ideas about the content of the Qur^ʾān. The need to produce a universal recension of the Qur^ʾān was strongly felt in the early Islamic period; finally, under the third caliph ^ʿUthmān, the official recension was finished, and all other variants were allegedly destroyed.⁷³ Only one reader, Ibn Mas^ʿūd, refused to destroy his version of the Qur^ʾān or stop teaching it when the ^ʿUthmānic recension was made official.⁷⁴ His codex, which differed from the ^ʿUthmānic recension in several important respects, was later taken over by the Shi^ʿi Fatimids.⁷⁵ As time went on, even the so-called canonical version once more became a source of great confusion because of the ambiguity of the script, ‘to the point that it became impossible to distinguish ^ʿUthmānic from non-^ʿUthmānic ones’.⁷⁶

By the end of the tenth century, the differences in the texts became more pronounced as a result of the general use of more precise scripts, making it possible for the authorities to enforce a greater measure of uniformity. Under the patronage of Caliph al-Muqtadir, a jurist named Aḥmad Ibn Mujāhid produced Qur^ʾānic codices based on the seven canonical readings belonging to important qurrāʾ of the eighth century. His views, set forth in a book called Kitāb al-Sabʿa,⁷⁷ were adopted by none other than the Ibn Muqla, in his position as vizier of the ^ʿAbbasid state, and made official in the year 322/934.

In fact, Ibn Muqla’s involvement in the creation of a canonical body of Qur^ʾānic recensions went much further than that. He was certainly involved in the trials of two of the variant readers, Ibn Miksam and Ibn Shanabūdh.⁷⁸ The persecution of Ibn Shanabūdh, who had persisted in teaching the Qur^ʾān according to the non-^ʿUthmānic variant of Ibn Mas^ʿūd, by Ibn Mujāhid and Ibn Muqla is especially noteworthy. He was brought to trial at a court presided over by the vizier Ibn Muqla, where he at first quite confidently and belligerently defended the variant readings that had provoked the charges. But after he had been flogged, he completely disavowed his previous position and signed a document stating that in the future he would adhere to the ^ʿUthmānic text.⁷⁹ Ibn al-Nadīm, who also mentions Ibn Shanabūdh’s flogging at the order of Ibn Muqla, quotes his alleged recantation: ‘I used to read expressions differing from the version of ^ʿUthmān ibn ^ʿAffān, which was confirmed by consensus, its recital being agreed upon by the Companions of the Apostle of Allah. Then it became clear to me that this was wrong, so that I am contrite because of it and from it torn away. Now before Allāh, may his Name be glorified for Him is acquittal, behold the version of ^ʿUthmān is the correct one, with which it is not proper to differ and other than which there is no way of reading.’⁸⁰

We have therefore in the person of Ibn Muqla both the calligrapher who created the calligraphic system that led to the conversion of the form of the Qur^ʾān and the vizier who enforced the caliphal order to establish a body of canonical Qur^ʾānic readings. There is every indication that the two matters are related: that the creation of al-khaṭṭ al-mansūb and its adoption for copying the Qur^ʾān were inspired by the canonisation of the text of the Qur^ʾān. This reforming zeal is further reflected in the emphasis on correct verse count in the Qur^ʾāns of the tenth century. The new script, with its improved orthography and the correct numeration, would have left no doubt in the mind of Muslims that they were reading one of the new orthodox recensions, certainly not a Qur^ʾān with aberrant readings.

It is very likely that the act of al-Muqtadir and his vizier Ibn Muqla was politically motivated. The caliphate and orthodox Islam were under attack from many different sides by heterodox groups of various Shi^ʿi persuasions. Closest to Baghdad were the Qarāmiṭa, who had, during the reign of al-Muqtadir, occupied Baṣra and Kūfa and threatened Baghdad several times. Farther away, but nonetheless a threat to the orthodox caliphate, were the Fatimids, who in the first quarter of the tenth century had conquered central North Africa and Sicily and were pushing eastwards. In the face of these overwhelming threats the caliphate could resort to one of the very few weapons it had left, namely its nominal position as the safeguard of the Islamic community and the enforcer of the correct religion. Establishing the canonical recensions of the Qur^ʾān and creating a new unambiguous script for these standard versions were acts in keeping with that role.

The second reform of the Qur^ʾānic script, the one that led to the Qur^ʾān of Ibn al-Bawwāb, also may have had its source in contemporary events. In 945 the ^ʿAbbasid caliphate fell under the control of a foreign dynasty, namely the Buyids, who, to make matters worse, were Shi^ʿis. By the second half of the tenth century, in fact, most of the Islamic world was controlled by Shi^ʿi dynasties, with the Fatimids even proclaiming a Shi^ʿi counter-caliphate centred in Cairo. Only the Ghaznavids in north-eastern Iran actively supported the staunch orthodoxy of the ^ʿAbbasid caliph.

While the office of the caliph was immensely weakened under the Buyids, it was still possible for a strong caliph to reclaim some measure of power and authority, especially in times of disunity among the actual rulers. This is precisely what happened during the long reign of the assertive caliph al-Qādir (991–1031). Taking advantage of the strong popular reaction against the Buyids, al-Qādir gradually introduced measures that would undermine Shi^ʿi law and keep the Shi^ʿis out of governmental offices. In 1011, he issued a manifesto condemning the Fatimid doctrine, denigrating their genealogy and declaring the Ismā^ʿili Fatimids to be among the enemies of Islam.⁸¹ In 1017 al-Qādir attempted something not tried since the caliph al-Ma^ʾmūn in the ninth century, namely to promulgate an official theology that condemned all opposing doctrines. The so-called Epistle of al-Qādir (al-Risāla al-Qādiriyya) took aim primarily at the Mu^ʿtazili-Shi^ʿites but also numbered much more moderate groups among its enemies. It forbade kalām and all other forms of theological argumentation and negation. It even permitted the imprisonment, exile and execution of all those jurists and rulers who persisted in their unorthodox practice. Finally, it decreed the cursing of heterodox rulers at the pulpits of mosques and encouraged rebellion against them.⁸²

The cornerstone of the arguments in the Epistle of al-Qādir, as explicated by his chief apologist alBāqillānī, concerned the nature of the Qur^ʾān: It was not created in time, as the Mu^ʿtazilis and others believed, but simply recorded the eternal words of God.⁸³ Moreover, it was uncreated in whatever form it existed: maktūb (written), maḥfūz (memorised), matluw (recited) or masmūʿ (heard). It had only one meaning, not two – a surface meaning (ẓāhir) and a deeper reading (bāṭin) – as the Mu^ʿtazilis and Isma^ʿilis maintained. Third, the Qur^ʾān of Ibn Mas^ʿūd, which was used by the Fatimids, constituted an unacceptable alteration of the Qur^ʾānic text.⁸⁴ The first two tenets were related, for a Qur^ʾān that was created in time can be interpreted with greater freedom than one that is, like God, eternal. And a Qur^ʾān with two levels of meaning must be interpreted by those who know for those who do not. Conversely, an eternal Qur^ʾān with a clearly manifest truth cannot be further interpreted, and therefore one had to accept the traditional exigesis presented by the jurists in the first two centuries of Islam. Therein lies the political importance of al-Risāla al-Qādiriyya. By closing the door to interpretation after the first two centuries of Islam and by insisting on the incorrectness of the recension of Ibn Mas^ʿūd, it was undermining the religious foundations of the Fatimid and Buyid states and affirming the legitimacy of the ^ʿAbbasid caliphate.

The Qur^ʾān of Ibn al-Bawwāb represents the creation of a perfectly cursive and easily legible script suitable for expressing the clear and explicit nature of the Word of God. Although ultimately based on the script of Ibn Muqla, the uncompromising clarity of the new script must be seen as a direct reflection of the Qādirī creed^ʾs insistence on the single and apparent truth in the Qur^ʾān.

Conversely, the reformed Qur^ʾān was equally intended to challenge the earlier Kūfic Qur^ʾāns, whose use seems to have continued in Fatimid Egypt until the establishment of the Ayyubid dynasty in the late twelfth century. As noted above, not one semi-Kūfic or early cursive Qur^ʾān seems to have been produced under the Fatimids. In fact very few Fatimid Qur^ʾāns of any description are known, and to my knowledge, only the so-called ‘Blue Qur^ʾān’ has been attributed with any degree of authority to the early Fatimid period in North Africa (Figure 13.44).⁸⁵ Scholars have often commented on the archaising nature of the script, whose unvocalised and undotted letters seem to recall ninth-century Qur^ʾāns.⁸⁶ In fact, the ambiguity of the script is further enhanced in this manuscript by the fact that it is written in gold over dark blue. The gold shimmers and seems to flow over the receding blue background, creating an evanescent effect that appears to affirm the Mu^ʿtazili belief in the created and mysterious nature of the Word of God. One can hardly imagine a greater contrast than that between a page from the ‘Blue Qur^ʾān’ and one from the Qur^ʾān of Ibn al-Bawwāb.

The symbolic implications of the proportioned script have long been lost, but its usefulness remains as a clear and legible script. Yet, at the time of its inception and particularly its adoption throughout the only recently Sunnī Islamic world, it literally reflected the triumph of a theological view and all its political ramifications. The actual image – not just the content – of the Word became the symbol of the most important principle of the Sunnī revival, a movement that redefined the course of medieval Islam.

For his help in the area of Qur^ʾānic readings, I would like to express my special gratitude to Professor Wolfhart Heinrichs. I would also like to thank Professor Oleg Grabar for his valuable comments on several drafts of this piece. I am also grateful to Dr Sheila Blair for her many helpful comments and bibliographic notes and to Muhammad Zakariyya for providing me with the ‘insider’s view’ as a practising calligrapher and for his assistance in the question of qirāʾāt. Obviously, I am alone responsible for the conclusions reached in this piece.