Nakhshabi Tutinama - Revision history

Bildhauer at 10:42, 10 March 2026

2026-03-10T10:42:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:42, 10 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Version		{{Version
	\|Has Description=~~The Indian physician and Sufi mystic Ziya~~' ~~al-Din Nakhshabi possibly included a heavily abridged version~~ of ~~the Sindbadnama in his Tutinama, a 14th century~~ Persian ~~adaptation of the Sanskrit~~ ''~~Śukasaptati~~''~~. However,~~ the ~~earliest~~ manuscripts ~~we have~~ of ~~the Tutinama date from the 1560s,~~ which ~~saw an explosion of interest in~~ the ~~text under the Mughal Emperor Akbar, who was a great benefactor~~ of ~~the Chishti Sufi order, of which Nakhshabi was a prominent member.~~ The ~~most well known product of this is a version~~ and ~~possible abridgement by Muhammad Kadiri at~~ the ~~turn~~ of the 17th century, with which the Sindbadnama abridgements are always associated, and which was used in most early European editions of the text, to the extent that Brockhaus felt confident enough in 1845 to publish on the topic of 'Nachshebis sieben weisen meister'. However, it is difficult to assess to what extent Kadiri was simply a ~~compiler with access~~ to ~~the original Nakhshabi text or an adapter of~~ his ~~underlying material~~. ~~Some, but by no means all, of these manuscripts contain an abridged version~~ of the ~~Sindbadnama, but it is impossible to know whether it was included~~ in ~~Nakhshabi's original, or whether~~ the ~~story was inserted by Kadiri because of its later popularity. The manuscripts which do contain the Sindbadnama are also inconsistent~~, ~~with some containing only the frame narrative and others containing very brief abridgements~~ of ~~some of the inset stories, though all are associated with~~ the ~~8th~~ night ~~of tales in the narrative~~. ~~It is also impossible to be sure that the Samarqandi Sindbadnama was the version~~ which ~~was used:~~ the Tutinama ~~abridgements are far more focused on the Makr al Nisa (wiles of women), whereas Samarqandi~~'s version is significantly more nuanced. Given that the late 9th century polymath al-Yaqubi refers to the Sindbadnama of his day as a Makr al Nisa text, it is perhaps more likely that Nakhshabi was working off an earlier version (likely either the Fanaruzi or Rudaki versions, both now lost or highly fragmentary and difficult to attribute.~~<div><div><div></div></div><div><div><div>~~		\|Has Description=Nachshabi’s ''Tutinama'' (c. 1330CE) is one of three extant Persian versions.
	*
	~~</div></div></div></div><div></div>~~		Pertsch (1867) describes Nachshabi’s ''Tutinama'' on the basis of three manuscripts, all of which contain the story of The Prince and the Seven Veziers as one of the embedded tales told by a parrot to prevent his female owner from committing adultery. Two of the manuscript feature this story in the eighth night, one of them in the ninth night. We have not yet traced which of the many manuscripts of Nachshabi’s ''Tutinama'' contain this embedded story.
	\|Has Title=Nakhshabi, Tutinama		\|Has Title=Nakhshabi, Tutinama
	\|Has Author=Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi		\|Has Author=Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi
Line 8:		Line 8:
	\|Has Parent Version=Persian Sindbadnama		\|Has Parent Version=Persian Sindbadnama
	\|Is Adapted From=Persian Sindbadnama		\|Is Adapted From=Persian Sindbadnama
			\|Has Source For Composition And Adaption Information=Perry (1960)
	\|Has Language Of Version=Persian		\|Has Language Of Version=Persian
	\|Has Regional Language=Dari (Insha)		\|Has Regional Language=Dari (Insha)
	~~\|Has Place Of Text Composition=Delhi~~		\|Has Date Of Text Composition=1330
	\|Has Date Of Text Composition=~~14th century~~
	\|Has Islamic Date Of Text Composition=8th century		\|Has Islamic Date Of Text Composition=8th century
	\|Is Date Uncertain=No		\|Is Date Uncertain=No
			\|Has Source For Date Of Text Composition=Perry (1960)
			\|Has Modern Research Literature=Perry (1960); Pertsch (1867)
	\|Has Modern Edition=Nakhshabī, Z̤iyāʼ al-Dīn. Ṭūṭī-nāma. Edited by Fatḥ-Allāh Mujtabāʼī and Ghulām-ʿAlī Āryā. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Zuvvār, 1372 SH		\|Has Modern Edition=Nakhshabī, Z̤iyāʼ al-Dīn. Ṭūṭī-nāma. Edited by Fatḥ-Allāh Mujtabāʼī and Ghulām-ʿAlī Āryā. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Zuvvār, 1372 SH
	\|Has ~~Note~~=Notable Tutinama manuscripts containing a Sindbadnama abridgement:		\|Has Internal Notes=From Alfie Watkins:

			"The Indian physician and Sufi mystic Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi possibly included a heavily abridged version of the Sindbadnama in his Tutinama, a 14th century Persian adaptation of the Sanskrit ''Śukasaptati''. However, the earliest manuscripts we have of the Tutinama date from the 1560s, which saw an explosion of interest in the text under the Mughal Emperor Akbar, who was a great benefactor of the Chishti Sufi order, of which Nakhshabi was a prominent member. The most well known product of this is a version and possible abridgement by Muhammad Kadiri at the turn of the 17th century, with which the Sindbadnama abridgements are always associated, and which was used in most early European editions of the text, to the extent that Brockhaus felt confident enough in 1845 to publish on the topic of 'Nachshebis sieben weisen meister'. However, it is difficult to assess to what extent Kadiri was simply a compiler with access to the original Nakhshabi text or an adapter of his underlying material. Some, but by no means all, of these manuscripts contain an abridged version of the Sindbadnama, but it is impossible to know whether it was included in Nakhshabi's original, or whether the story was inserted by Kadiri because of its later popularity. The manuscripts which do contain the Sindbadnama are also inconsistent, with some containing only the frame narrative and others containing very brief abridgements of some of the inset stories, though all are associated with the 8th night of tales in the narrative. It is also impossible to be sure that the Samarqandi Sindbadnama was the version which was used: the Tutinama abridgements are far more focused on the Makr al Nisa (wiles of women), whereas Samarqandi's version is significantly more nuanced. Given that the late 9th century polymath al-Yaqubi refers to the Sindbadnama of his day as a Makr al Nisa text, it is perhaps more likely that Nakhshabi was working off an earlier version (likely either the Fanaruzi or Rudaki versions, both now lost or highly fragmentary and difficult to attribute."

			"Notable Tutinama manuscripts containing a Sindbadnama abridgement:

	Cambridge University Library MS Ff. 2. 21 (Browne 308): 19th century manuscript, central India		Cambridge University Library MS Ff. 2. 21 (Browne 308): 19th century manuscript, central India
Line 21:		Line 27:
	British Library Or. 15665 (East India Library 754): undated but likely Mughal based on stylistic evidence. Early Kadiri translation.		British Library Or. 15665 (East India Library 754): undated but likely Mughal based on stylistic evidence. Early Kadiri translation.

	Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Perzsza O.060: 17th century (commissioned at Akbar's court)		Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Perzsza O.060: 17th century (commissioned at Akbar's court)"
	}}		}}

Watkins at 00:56, 10 March 2026

2026-03-10T00:56:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:56, 10 March 2026
Line 16:		Line 16:
	\|Has Modern Edition=Nakhshabī, Z̤iyāʼ al-Dīn. Ṭūṭī-nāma. Edited by Fatḥ-Allāh Mujtabāʼī and Ghulām-ʿAlī Āryā. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Zuvvār, 1372 SH		\|Has Modern Edition=Nakhshabī, Z̤iyāʼ al-Dīn. Ṭūṭī-nāma. Edited by Fatḥ-Allāh Mujtabāʼī and Ghulām-ʿAlī Āryā. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Zuvvār, 1372 SH
	\|Has Note=Notable Tutinama manuscripts containing a Sindbadnama abridgement:		\|Has Note=Notable Tutinama manuscripts containing a Sindbadnama abridgement:
	~~{{{!}} class="wikitable"~~
	~~{{!}}~~British Library ~~''Ṭūṭīnāma'',~~ Or. 15665		Cambridge University Library MS Ff. 2. 21 (Browne 308): 19th century manuscript, central India
	~~{{!}}British~~ Library
	~~{{!}}Late 16th/early 17th century (commissioned by Akbar the Great for the~~ Mughal ~~court)~~.		British Library Or. 15665 (East India Library 754): undated but likely Mughal based on stylistic evidence. Early Kadiri translation.
	~~{{!}} rowspan="3" {{!}}~~
	~~{{!}}-~~		Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Perzsza O.060: 17th century (commissioned at Akbar's court)
	~~{{!}}Cambridge University~~ Library~~, MS Add~~. ~~3139~~
	~~{{!}}Cambridge University Library~~
	~~{{!}}19th century~~
	~~{{!}}-~~
	~~{{!}}Chester Beatty ''In 21''~~
	~~{{!}}Chester Beatty Library~~
	~~{{!}}Late 16th/early~~ 17th century (commissioned by Akbar ~~the Great for the Mughal~~ court).
	~~{{!}}}~~
	}}		}}

Watkins at 00:20, 10 March 2026

2026-03-10T00:20:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:20, 10 March 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Version		{{Version
	\|Has Description=The Indian physician and Sufi mystic Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi possibly included a heavily abridged version of the Sindbadnama in his Tutinama, a 14th century Persian adaptation of the Sanskrit ''Śukasaptati''. However, the earliest manuscripts we have of the Tutinama date from the 1560s, which saw an explosion of interest in the text under the Mughal Emperor Akbar, who was a great benefactor of the Chishti Sufi order, of which Nakhshabi was a prominent member. Some, but by no means all, of these manuscripts contain an abridged version of the Sindbadnama, but it is impossible to know whether it was included in Nakhshabi's original, or whether the story was inserted because of its later popularity. The manuscripts which do contain the Sindbadnama are also inconsistent, with some containing only the frame narrative and others containing very brief abridgements of some of the inset stories. It is also impossible to be sure that the Samarqandi Sindbadnama was the version which was used: the Tutinama abridgements are far more focused on the Makr al Nisa (wiles of women), whereas Samarqandi's version is significantly more nuanced. Given that the late 9th century polymath al-Yaqubi refers to the Sindbadnama of his day as a Makr al Nisa text, it is perhaps more likely that Nakhshabi was working off an earlier version (likely either the Fanaruzi or Rudaki versions, both now lost or highly fragmentary and difficult to attribute.<div><div><div></div></div><div><div><div>		\|Has Description=The Indian physician and Sufi mystic Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi possibly included a heavily abridged version of the Sindbadnama in his Tutinama, a 14th century Persian adaptation of the Sanskrit ''Śukasaptati''. However, the earliest manuscripts we have of the Tutinama date from the 1560s, which saw an explosion of interest in the text under the Mughal Emperor Akbar, who was a great benefactor of the Chishti Sufi order, of which Nakhshabi was a prominent member. The most well known product of this is a version and possible abridgement by Muhammad Kadiri at the turn of the 17th century, with which the Sindbadnama abridgements are always associated, and which was used in most early European editions of the text, to the extent that Brockhaus felt confident enough in 1845 to publish on the topic of 'Nachshebis sieben weisen meister'. However, it is difficult to assess to what extent Kadiri was simply a compiler with access to the original Nakhshabi text or an adapter of his underlying material. Some, but by no means all, of these manuscripts contain an abridged version of the Sindbadnama, but it is impossible to know whether it was included in Nakhshabi's original, or whether the story was inserted by Kadiri because of its later popularity. The manuscripts which do contain the Sindbadnama are also inconsistent, with some containing only the frame narrative and others containing very brief abridgements of some of the inset stories, though all are associated with the 8th night of tales in the narrative. It is also impossible to be sure that the Samarqandi Sindbadnama was the version which was used: the Tutinama abridgements are far more focused on the Makr al Nisa (wiles of women), whereas Samarqandi's version is significantly more nuanced. Given that the late 9th century polymath al-Yaqubi refers to the Sindbadnama of his day as a Makr al Nisa text, it is perhaps more likely that Nakhshabi was working off an earlier version (likely either the Fanaruzi or Rudaki versions, both now lost or highly fragmentary and difficult to attribute.<div><div><div></div></div><div><div><div>
	*		*
	</div></div></div></div><div></div>		</div></div></div></div><div></div>

Bildhauer at 12:08, 3 March 2026

2026-03-03T12:08:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:08, 3 March 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	*		*
	</div></div></div></div><div></div>		</div></div></div></div><div></div>
	\|Has ~~Display~~ Title=Nakhshabi ~~abridgement~~		\|Has Title=Nakhshabi, Tutinama
	~~\|Has Title=Nakhshabi abridgement~~
	\|Has Author=Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi		\|Has Author=Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi
	\|Has Branch Of Tradition=Book of Sindbad		\|Has Branch Of Tradition=Book of Sindbad
Line 14:		Line 13:
	\|Has Date Of Text Composition=14th century		\|Has Date Of Text Composition=14th century
	\|Has Islamic Date Of Text Composition=8th century		\|Has Islamic Date Of Text Composition=8th century
			\|Is Date Uncertain=No
	\|Has Modern Edition=Nakhshabī, Z̤iyāʼ al-Dīn. Ṭūṭī-nāma. Edited by Fatḥ-Allāh Mujtabāʼī and Ghulām-ʿAlī Āryā. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Zuvvār, 1372 SH		\|Has Modern Edition=Nakhshabī, Z̤iyāʼ al-Dīn. Ṭūṭī-nāma. Edited by Fatḥ-Allāh Mujtabāʼī and Ghulām-ʿAlī Āryā. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Zuvvār, 1372 SH
	\|Has Note=Notable Tutinama manuscripts containing a Sindbadnama abridgement:		\|Has Note=Notable Tutinama manuscripts containing a Sindbadnama abridgement:

Bonsall at 16:11, 9 February 2026

2026-02-09T16:11:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:11, 9 February 2026
Line 6:		Line 6:
	\|Has Title=Nakhshabi abridgement		\|Has Title=Nakhshabi abridgement
	\|Has Author=Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi		\|Has Author=Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi
	~~\|Has Siglum=Persian Sindbadnama~~
	\|Has Branch Of Tradition=Book of Sindbad		\|Has Branch Of Tradition=Book of Sindbad
	\|Has Parent Version=Persian Sindbadnama		\|Has Parent Version=Persian Sindbadnama

Watkins at 20:04, 8 February 2026

2026-02-08T20:04:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:04, 8 February 2026
Line 3:		Line 3:
	*		*
	</div></div></div></div><div></div>		</div></div></div></div><div></div>
			\|Has Display Title=Nakhshabi abridgement
	\|Has Title=Nakhshabi abridgement		\|Has Title=Nakhshabi abridgement
	\|Has Author=Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi		\|Has Author=Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi
			\|Has Siglum=Persian Sindbadnama
	\|Has Branch Of Tradition=Book of Sindbad		\|Has Branch Of Tradition=Book of Sindbad
	\|Has Parent Version=Persian Sindbadnama		\|Has Parent Version=Persian Sindbadnama

Watkins at 20:02, 8 February 2026

2026-02-08T20:02:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:02, 8 February 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Version		{{Version
	\|Has Description=The Indian physician and Sufi mystic Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi possibly included a heavily abridged version of the Sindbadnama in his Tutinama, a 14th century Persian adaptation of the Sanskrit ''Śukasaptati''. However, the earliest manuscripts we have of the Tutinama date from the 1560s, which saw an explosion of interest in the text under the Mughal Emperor Akbar, who was a great benefactor of the Chishti Sufi order, of which Nakhshabi was a prominent member. Some, but by no means all, of these manuscripts contain an abridged version of the Sindbadnama, but it is impossible to know whether it was included in Nakhshabi's original, or whether the story was inserted because of its later popularity. The manuscripts which do contain the Sindbadnama are also inconsistent, with some containing only the frame narrative and others containing very brief abridgements of some of the inset stories. It is also impossible to be sure that the Samarqandi Sindbadnama was the version which was used: the Tutinama abridgements are far more focused on the Makr al Nisa (wiles of women), whereas Samarqandi's version is significantly more nuanced. Given that the late 9th century polymath al-Yaqubi refers to the Sindbadnama of his day as a Makr al Nisa text, it is perhaps more likely that Nakhshabi was working off an earlier version (likely either the Fanaruzi or Rudaki versions, both now lost or highly fragmentary and difficult to attribute).<div><div><~~div><div></div></~~div></div></div><div><div><div>~~</div></div><div><div><div><div>~~		\|Has Description=The Indian physician and Sufi mystic Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi possibly included a heavily abridged version of the Sindbadnama in his Tutinama, a 14th century Persian adaptation of the Sanskrit ''Śukasaptati''. However, the earliest manuscripts we have of the Tutinama date from the 1560s, which saw an explosion of interest in the text under the Mughal Emperor Akbar, who was a great benefactor of the Chishti Sufi order, of which Nakhshabi was a prominent member. Some, but by no means all, of these manuscripts contain an abridged version of the Sindbadnama, but it is impossible to know whether it was included in Nakhshabi's original, or whether the story was inserted because of its later popularity. The manuscripts which do contain the Sindbadnama are also inconsistent, with some containing only the frame narrative and others containing very brief abridgements of some of the inset stories. It is also impossible to be sure that the Samarqandi Sindbadnama was the version which was used: the Tutinama abridgements are far more focused on the Makr al Nisa (wiles of women), whereas Samarqandi's version is significantly more nuanced. Given that the late 9th century polymath al-Yaqubi refers to the Sindbadnama of his day as a Makr al Nisa text, it is perhaps more likely that Nakhshabi was working off an earlier version (likely either the Fanaruzi or Rudaki versions, both now lost or highly fragmentary and difficult to attribute.<div><div><div></div></div><div><div><div>
	~~== Contents ==~~
	~~</div>~~

	*		*
	*		</div></div></div></div><div></div>
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	*
	</div></div></div></div><div~~><header>~~
	~~= ''Śukasaptati'' =~~
	~~</header~~></div>
	\|Has Title=Nakhshabi abridgement		\|Has Title=Nakhshabi abridgement
	\|Has Author=Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi		\|Has Author=Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi

Watkins: Created page with "{{Version |Has Description=The Indian physician and Sufi mystic Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi possibly included a heavily abridged version of the Sindbadnama in his Tutinama, a 14th century Persian adaptation of the Sanskrit ''Śukasaptati''. However, the earliest manuscripts we have of the Tutinama date from the 1560s, which saw an explosion of interest in the text under the Mughal Emperor Akbar, who was a great benefactor of the Chishti Sufi order, of which Nakhshabi was a pr..."

2026-02-08T19:59:25Z

Created page with "{{Version |Has Description=The Indian physician and Sufi mystic Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi possibly included a heavily abridged version of the Sindbadnama in his Tutinama, a 14th century Persian adaptation of the Sanskrit ''Śukasaptati''. However, the earliest manuscripts we have of the Tutinama date from the 1560s, which saw an explosion of interest in the text under the Mughal Emperor Akbar, who was a great benefactor of the Chishti Sufi order, of which Nakhshabi was a pr..."

New page

{{Version
|Has Description=The Indian physician and Sufi mystic Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi possibly included a heavily abridged version of the Sindbadnama in his Tutinama, a 14th century Persian adaptation of the Sanskrit ''Śukasaptati''. However, the earliest manuscripts we have of the Tutinama date from the 1560s, which saw an explosion of interest in the text under the Mughal Emperor Akbar, who was a great benefactor of the Chishti Sufi order, of which Nakhshabi was a prominent member. Some, but by no means all, of these manuscripts contain an abridged version of the Sindbadnama, but it is impossible to know whether it was included in Nakhshabi's original, or whether the story was inserted because of its later popularity. The manuscripts which do contain the Sindbadnama are also inconsistent, with some containing only the frame narrative and others containing very brief abridgements of some of the inset stories. It is also impossible to be sure that the Samarqandi Sindbadnama was the version which was used: the Tutinama abridgements are far more focused on the Makr al Nisa (wiles of women), whereas Samarqandi's version is significantly more nuanced. Given that the late 9th century polymath al-Yaqubi refers to the Sindbadnama of his day as a Makr al Nisa text, it is perhaps more likely that Nakhshabi was working off an earlier version (likely either the Fanaruzi or Rudaki versions, both now lost or highly fragmentary and difficult to attribute).<div><div><div><div></div></div></div></div><div><div><div></div></div><div><div><div><div>
== Contents ==
</div>

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
</div></div></div></div><div><header>
= ''Śukasaptati'' =
</header></div>
|Has Title=Nakhshabi abridgement
|Has Author=Ziya' al-Din Nakhshabi
|Has Branch Of Tradition=Book of Sindbad
|Has Parent Version=Persian Sindbadnama
|Is Adapted From=Persian Sindbadnama
|Has Language Of Version=Persian
|Has Regional Language=Dari (Insha)
|Has Place Of Text Composition=Delhi
|Has Date Of Text Composition=14th century
|Has Islamic Date Of Text Composition=8th century
|Has Modern Edition=Nakhshabī, Z̤iyāʼ al-Dīn. Ṭūṭī-nāma. Edited by Fatḥ-Allāh Mujtabāʼī and Ghulām-ʿAlī Āryā. Tehran: Intishārāt-i Zuvvār, 1372 SH
|Has Note=Notable Tutinama manuscripts containing a Sindbadnama abridgement:
{{{!}} class="wikitable"
{{!}}British Library ''Ṭūṭīnāma'', Or. 15665
{{!}}British Library
{{!}}Late 16th/early 17th century (commissioned by Akbar the Great for the Mughal court).
{{!}} rowspan="3" {{!}}
{{!}}-
{{!}}Cambridge University Library, MS Add. 3139
{{!}}Cambridge University Library
{{!}}19th century
{{!}}-
{{!}}Chester Beatty ''In 21''
{{!}}Chester Beatty Library
{{!}}Late 16th/early 17th century (commissioned by Akbar the Great for the Mughal court).
{{!}}}
}}