128 Y. Tzvi Langermann
known to exist in European and American libraries were almost cer-
tainly not consulted. Moreover, Kitāb al-Rūḥ has spawned a small sat-
ellite literature, mainly in the form of epitomes, and these have not
been surveyed. In the following section I present some information
about copies that I have seen.
The following manuscript copies of the complete work have come
to my attention. The first five are listed by Carl Brockelmann.^9 I have
examined, in part or in their entirety, all but the Princeton manuscript:
- Escorial, Derenbourg 1590, dated 798/1395–1396
- Escorial, Derenbourg 1592
- Escorial, Derenbourg 699, dated 920/1514
- London, British Library, India Office Loth 172
- Vienna, Austrian National Library, Cod. Mixt. 186 (= Flügel 1533)
- Leiden, Or. 3001, dated 1204
- Princeton, Yahuda 3866, ff., 194a-302a, Rajab 1058/1648^10
This list is certainly not complete. The Salafi scholar Mashhūr Salmān
owns a manuscript; see below. One would presume that the Hyder-
abad printing was made from a manuscript found in an Indian library,
but I have not been able to learn which.
The earliest dated exemplar is Escorial 1590,^11 which was copied just
one generation after Ibn al-Qayyim’s demise in 1350, and well before
the times of al-Biqāʿī (d. 1480), who, as we shall see, may have authored
the preface to the printed version of Kitāb al-Rūḥ.
The colophon to the Leiden manuscript indicates that that text has
been abbreviated from the twelfth masʾala onwards.^12 I have looked at
the final few folios of this manuscript, and they display the full text;
hence the intention of the colophon remains to be established. Another
manuscript at Leiden, Or. 12.055, has, beginning on f. 98b, a treatise
entitled Fī Taḥqīq al-rūḥ, said to be extracted (lakhkhaṣtuhu) from Ibn
9 Brockelmann, Carl: Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, Weimar 1902, vol. 2,
p. 106, no. 22.
10 No. 2489 in Mach, Rudolph: Catalogue of Arabic Manuscripts (Yahuda Section)
of the Garrett Collection, Princeton 1977. Cécile Bonmariage was kind enough
to inform me that the shelfmark in Mach is mistakenly given as 3886.
11 Derenbourg, Hartwig: Les manuscrits arabes de l’Escurial, Paris 1884, vol. 3,
pp. 147–148; for the dating of mansucripts and the interpretation of colophons,
I rely throughout on the published manuscript catalogues.
12 See Voorhoeve, Petrus: Handlist of Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the
University of Leiden, Leiden 1957, p. 320. I am extremely grateful to Prof. J. J.
Witkam for his very generous help with the Leiden manuscripts.
Brought to you by | Nanyang Technological University
Authenticated