2007
As the Mughals established their authority in India they also created a unique style of courtly painting. In tracking the progression from what is today called the Mughal School, there exists a wide range of painterly influences adopted and re-informed from sources such as the Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian to the indigenous styles of the firmly established Hindu and Jain painting practices. As the first Mughal emperors in India, Babur (r.1526-1530) and his son Humayun (r.1530-1540, 1555) transitioned their fledgling dynasty from Iran to Afghanistan to India, where the hallmarks of the Mughal School of painting were forming as well. I will argue that there existed a ‘familial inclination’ towards Nature-as-Symbol observed in literature and art - beyond purely historical influences - that paternally passed and evolved from Babur to Humayun and eventually to the great patron of the arts Akbar (r.1556-1605). I am primarily concerned with the initial foothold of the Mughals in India. More specifically, I will focus on the manifestations of literary and painterly aspirations in the transition from Safavid Iran to Afghanistan to India in the 14th through the 16th centuries.
To offer an account of the Mughals in India and the myriad of artistic influences responsible for the shaping of the Mughal School, I need to begin with some commentary on the art of Persia and more specifically the Safavid Dynasty in Iran (r.1501-1576). Restraining the depth of my commentary for a very introductory lineal history, a few notes are in order concerning the great Timur (the lame). It is important to understand the legacy of the Timurids for the great Mughal Empire is of direct descent. In 1393 Timur took Shiraz from the Muzzafarids. Timur fixed his capital in Samarqand around 1370 and died in 1405 when Shah Rukh took over and moved the capital to Herat.1 We see a style of Shiraz Timurid painting develop with figures that are stiff with large round heads, and an almost naive quality. This style culminates in the Shahnama commissioned by Ibrahim Sultan in 1433.2 After Ibrahim Sultan’s death in 1435, Shiraz was the center for manuscript export until the first century of Safavid rule.3 In 1453 the Turkmans took Shiraz.4 Two distinct styles can be said to dominate Persia in the first half of the 15th century. One: The style in Shiraz was vigorous and powerful, although not technically accomplished. Two: The style in Herat was brilliant, academic and highly finished.5 The clans of northwest Iran were kept in order by Shah Rukh until his death in 1447. This is the point at which the Turks began to move east and challenge the Timurid power base.
The Turks can be divided into two early groupings: Black Sheep (Qara Quyunlo) and White Sheep (Ad Quyunlo). A new national revival was underway in the beginning of the 16th century lead by Isma’il e-Safavi (r.1501-1524) and the burgeoning Safavid dynasty. The Turks established a mixed style of painting combining the styles of Herat and Shiraz. When Ya’qub Beg took power (1462) we see the emerging grains of later Safavid Imperial style.6 In the 1480’s the famous Shaykh Muhammud and Darwish Muhammud worked in Tabriz under Ya’qub Beg. The great Safavid painter Sultan Muhammud trained in this Herat – Shiraz style that merged into the Shiraz Safavid style in the first quarter of the 16th century.7 This brief outline of early Persian rule and general style markers lands us at the early Safavids under Isma’il I and Tahmasp I (r.1524-1576). The makings of the Mughal School are forging. Isma’il –e Safavi entered Tabriz after defeating Aq-Quyunluamy.8 His son Tahmasp I succeeded the throne. Tahmasp managed to drive back the Ottomans and the Uzbeks and finally stopped the warring with the Treaty of Amasya in 1555.9 Tahmasp named Bihzad the head of the Tabriz Royal Library. The style of painting was mixed even more with the cool and logical style of Bihzad with the exuberance and vibrant brushwork of the Turkmans under Isma’il. Iranian painting at the end of the 14th century has some significant aspects including: intimate and sensitive response to nature, foreground and background as one integral structure, and decoration.10
This 15th c. Timurid style is a tradition that will eventually make its way into Afghanistan first and then to India. Trademarks of Iranian painting at this time are soft and sensuous compositions, increasing romanticism, and pure mineral color with very little (if any) tonal effects.11 Under Tahmasp, further changes in painting occur. We see a shift in style as evidenced in illustrations [1-3] (all from 1556-1565).
[1]A Father's Discourse.By Mirza Ali. From the Haft Awrang. Iran, Tabriz, ca.1556-1565
[2]DETAIL of [1]
[3]Manjun Eavesdrops on Layla's Camp.By Shaykh Muhammud. From the Haft Awrang.Iran, Tabriz, ca.1556-1565
Illustration [1] (‘A Father’s Discourse’, att. To Mirza Ali, Haft Awrang) and the detail [2] show a shift from logic, restraint and subtlety in composition (breaking from Timurid or Bhizadian Schools) with an increase of distortion in the forms, expression and vigorous design elements.12 I am primarily interested in the shift, not from earlier schools to a Safavid courtly style, but the change within Safavid painting under Tahmasp. This is evidenced by comparing [1] and [2] with [3] (‘Manjun Eavesdrops on Layla’s Camp’) where logical space is further disregarded. The details are complicated in this piece, and the style is highly mannered.13 Illustration [3] is also a good example of the encroaching prospect of illustration without text that will gain precedence in the Mughal School. The ‘classical spirit’ of earlier Iranian miniatures is fading.14 Iranian artistic interests under Tahmasp were waning, but what is important to note here is the way the viewer interacts with Iranian painting.
The cumulative impact is only after ‘prolonged looking’.15 What can safely be noted about this Iranian work is its two-dimensionality, combined perspectives (aerial and direct view of the figure’s faces), stereotyped gestures, reduction of natural forms to types, isolation of figures, intricate reproduction of pattern, and arbitrary coloring (like a tapestry).16 As I have presented, Persian painting in Safavid Iran is an amalgam of different schools with no definite center. Iranian painting is a product of a cosmopolitan culture of Islam.17 To restate a few main points: One, we should remember the painter Bihzad under Shah Isma’il (founder of the Safavid dynasty) taught a whole generation of painters which will be expounded upon later in this essay. The list of painters includes Muhammud Dost18, Mir Sayyid Ali, Abdus Sammad, and Mir Mussavir (look at the footnote page for both sources).19 Bihzad marks the passage from Mongol and Timurid to Safavid finery. It has been said that painting in China and Japan can be characterized by the line, Persian by line and color, and India by pure color.20 To reinforce the connection between all these histories I will remind the reader that Persian painting owes a debt to China and closer to home, the Mongols and Timurids. The word Mughal is the Persian word for Mongol.21 This connection will be brought up again with the introduction of the first Mughal emperor in India: Babur.
The weakened state of the Sultans of Delhi, and the feuding of the Rajputs buttressed the advent of the Mughals in India. Vijayanagar was a force but too far south (history tells us) to be of any immediate concern for the Mughals. I will begin my exploration into the formative years with Babur. He was born in 1483 in Central Asia as Zahiru-q din Muhammad and surnamed Babur (the Tiger).22 Babur is a descendant of Timur and Chengiz Khan (Mongols and Timurid lineage). Babur’s father, Omar Shaykh, was a man of letters and this interest becomes a hallmark of Babur’s reign as well as what is to become the Mughal School. In April 1526, Babur entered Delhi and defeated Sultan Ibrahim Lodi. In May that same year Babur conquered Agra. He continued to lead his army to victory over Rana Sangram Singh and in 1529 defeated the Afghans in Behar and Bengal. As Stanley Lane-Poole aptly states:
‘Babur is the link between Central Asia and India, between predatory hordes and imperial government, between Tamerlane [Timur] and Akbar’
(‘Rulers of India series, 1899, p.9,10)
No paintings survive from the reign of Babur. The evidence of his contemplation of nature, his keen literary eye, and his overall personality and history is to be found in his memoirs/autobiography: Waqi’at-Baburi (Persian Translation).23 Babur had no time to lay the machinery of government or any administration. He died only four years after conquering Delhi. The story of Babur’s death has folk tale and possibly Indian flavor to it. The story unfolds as Humayun (Babur’s eldest son) lies dying from a mysterious disease that is beyond medical help. Babur offers his own life as a sacrifice to God in order to trade his life for Humayun’s. Humayun makes a miraculous recovery and Babur dies soon after.24
Babur’s small but impressive foothold established in India was handed to his son Humayun (23 years old at the time) while his three other sons Hindal, Askari, and Kamran were left in jealousy. Kamran received a position in control over Kabul and Punjab, which made him powerful and eventually disloyal to Humayun. This disloyalty will sit like a tattoo on the face of Humayun’s reign. Humayun was a less able ruler than Babur (from virtually every text I’ve come across) with a heavy opium habit (rivaled only Jahangir’s lust for alcohol). Humayun ruled from 1530-40 and managed to defeat the weakened Muhammud Lodi in Jaunpur. Nevertheless, he was driven to Agra in 1539 by the Afghan chief Sher Khan (who assumed the title Sher Shah).25 Sher Shah ruled briefly from 1538-1540. Salim Shah rule was even shorter, and on the death of Sher Shah in 1555 Afghan power faded. A bit before this, Humayun was forced out of India and took refuge under the Safavid ruler Tahmasp I (around 1542). In Persia, Humayun acquainted himself with the arts of the Safavid court, as well as the gardens of Khurasan.26 Humayun made an agreement with the troubled Safavid court: If Tahmasp I would supply the troops, Humayun would capture Qandahar and return it to the Safavids. In 1545 Humayun succeeded in capturing Qandahar.27 He then moved along to Kabul where he was situated in prime position for a run on Delhi and Agra. To back up briefly, we must focus on Humayun’s 15 years in exile to understand the true beginnings of the Mughal School of painting.
As Humayun ‘borrowed’ troops from Tahmasp he was also given his choice of painters from the royal court (of which he eventually took to Kabul and established a workshop there). Qadi Ahmad reported in 1606 that Humayun promised to send Shah Tahmasp 1000 Tomans if he permitted Mir Mussavir to go to India.28 Despite the exchange, it is clear that Humayun had his choice and chose the following painters from Tahmasp (who was increasingly religious and giving up patronage): Mir Sayyid Ali, (father) Mir Mussavir, Abdus Sammad, and Muhammud Dost (a later arrival).29 These painters were well established, Imperial painters who studied under Bihzad in Safavid Iran. At this time the paintings at Kabul look exactly like the paintings from Tabriz, except for the Mughal costumes.30 I believe Humayun’s choice of artists is based in large part to an interest in close observation, and a keen sense of nature. This is evidenced by a 1542 reference recalling Humayun calling a painter to depict a curious bird that had flown into an imperial tent (Jauhar. Tezkereh al Vakiat , trans. C.Stewart, reprint;Delhi: Kumar Bros., 1970,p.43). This is the seed that separates what becomes the Mughal School from its influences (East Asian, European, Hindu, Jain, Persian). The Mughal School is a pluralism of styles for certain, but the uniqueness of this style can only be explained by a familial then dynastic ‘inclination’ to establish a new style. Humayun is the founder of the Mughal School of painting.31 Humayun eventually passes his ideals on to Akbar as well. It has been argued that Humayun establishes a ‘princely practice’ of painting – far from the ateliers of Akbar or an Imperial Studio.32 I can agree with this assertion, and add a bit of clarification that this ‘princely practice’ of the Kabul workshop was the very same ‘familial inclination’ of which I noted earlier. I believe Babur laid the conceptual framework for the painting ideals in the transition from the Kabul workshop of Humayun to the manifestations of the Imperial Mughal painting created by Akbar. There is strong evidence to suggest Humayun picked painters from the court of Tahmasp who reflected this ‘familial inclination’ of exacting naturalness, painting from life, and close observation of everyday events. The proto-Mughal style developed in Kabul was directly affected by the temperament of the artists chosen by Humayun.
Persian models doubtless influenced painting under the reign of Humayun. The artists were from the Safavid courts but things were again changing. Illustration [4] was painted by Abdus Sammad around 1555.
[4]Prince Akbar Presents a Painting to Humayun in a Tree-House.By Abd as-Samad.From the Golshan Album.Mughal, ca.1555
Although of Mughal origin, the painting is still holding to established Safavid style. Only the turbans of the Humayun court stand out.33 The forms create a rich pattern with little recognition of space (no perspective, only overlapping and receding diagonal lines). The faces are generally all the same type. Compare this with illustration [5] by Mir Sayyid Ali, Tabriz, ca.1540.
[5]Encampment Scene. By Mir Sayyid Ali.Iran, Tabriz, ca.1540
The ‘equal stress’ of the composition is typical of Iranian miniatures. Compare this to illustration [6] from 1569-1577, a later Mughal painting, we see where the style is developing.
[6]Tul Being Flayed Alive by the Order of Tahmasp.From a Hamza-nama manuscript. Mughal, ca.1569-1577
There is a centralized figure, a more hierarchical composition, and a ‘shocking’/powerful narrative. The breaking of figure ‘types’, and energy/vibrancy of contesting figures is clearly evident. What is found in the Mughal break from Persian painting styles is an approaching specificity of nature, observation and identity, which will lead more obviously to the categorization and advanced hierarchy of the compositions executed during Akbar’s reign. The compositional structure seems to loosen from a Persian filigree to a more relaxed and simple structure. I believe the change of composition during Humayun’s reign is tied to another outside influence: Indic painting practices.
It follows that no painting style can remain homogenous when the workshop and artists of the court are surrounded by established traditions (such as the Rajputs and the Jains). A few brief notes on Indic painting traditions will be useful here. Jain work is usually bold, filled with primary colors and are un-modulated. Hindu work tends toward a flat ground, monochrome backgrounds subdivided in small compositions of form. The figures are simple, energetic and in profile. Compositions are shallow and simple. Some examples of Hindu work contemporaneous with Humayun are illustrations [7-10].
[7]Brahma Prostrates Himself Before Krishna.Unknown Artist. Delhi/Agra, ca.1520-1530
[8]Krishna Battles The Armies of the Demon Naraka.Unknown Artist.Delhi/Agra, ca.1520-1530
[9]The Gopis Beseech Krishna to return Their Clothing.Unknown Artist.Delhi/Agra, ca.1560-1565
[10]Krishna Kills the Evil King Kamsa's Washerman.Unknown Artist.Delhi/Agra, ca.1560-1565
Mughal themes were temporal. In contrast, the Hindu themes were a matter of concretizing oral traditions. In a Hindu context, time is understood as cyclical, temporal matters were (in painting) insignificant. Hindu paintings were folklore illustrated for the courts.34 Mughal taste and ‘familial inclination’ reached the Rajasthani kingdoms as much as the reverse. Rajput warriors were given land and incorporated into the working administration of the Mughal Empire. Adoption of Mughal culture was logically not far behind. Illustration [7] is from the Delhi/Agra area and titled ‘Brahma prostrates Himself before Krishna’.35 Now see in illustration [8] a single event taking place with very little illusion of space. The color is striking and stops the time of this piece by making the overall effect almost pattern like. Illustrations [7/8] are dated 1520-30. Two later illustrations [9/10] are dated 1560-1565.36 The space is starting to open in these later examples of Hindu court painting. The naturalism of the details reveals some understanding of contemporaneous Mughal painting. The influence of painting traditions was mutual. This is more than evident in this page of illustrations [11-13].37
[11]The Disguised Arab is WHipped by Her Husband.From a Tuti-nama manuscript.Mughal, ca.1556-1560
[12]The Merchant's Daughter Meets the Gardener.From a Tuti-nama manuscript.Mughal, ca.1556-1560
[13]Nanda and the Elders.From a Bhagavata Purana series.India (probably Rajput), ca.1540
The painters in Mughal workshops at this time were catering to Hindu and Jain patrons.38 The styles of painting being fused is astonishing. Persian painting was a provincialized form of Chinese art (connected by the Far East schools of the Mongols and Timurids). Hindu painting was founded on the pictorial art of Buddhist priests.39 The resulting Mughal style has only a cursory resemblance to any of these styles. The ‘familial inclination’ of Babur, Humayun and Akbar was sectioned off by the Mughal advent into India and allowed to spread and create itself as a new entity entirely.
One of the Safavid artists who traveled to Kabul under Humayun was Muhammud Dost. Muhammud Dost was the most eccentric and idiosyncratic of the artists under Humayun. His work shows more than enough evidence of this. I’m not sure where Stuart Cary Welch arrived at his conclusions, but I have found at least one other scholar who agrees that Muhammud Dost was a ‘wandering alcoholic’.40 S.C. Welch also attributes (loosely) the ‘hallucinatory imagery’ in ‘Humayun and His Brothers In a Landscape’ [14] as a possible metaphor for the artist’s ‘inner torment’.41
[14]Humayun and His Brothers In a Landscape.By Muhammud Dost.Mughal, ca.1550
Whether any of this is true is entertaining but irrelevant for my purposes here. I am curious of S.C.Welch’s seeming monopoly of color images of this work (I did find one B&W image in a book by a student of his: M.C.Beach). According to J.L. Wescoat, this painting portrays an historically identifiable scene in which Humayun visited the orange gardens in the mountain passes outside of Kabul.42 Muhammud Dost studied in Herat with the great Bihzad before moving to Tabriz.43 Personally, this painting strikes me instantly as a masterpiece for the sheer beauty of the forms, the undulating, inhospitable rock formations, and tension between formal – visual pathways of my eye interaction within the line work and the speed at which I stop to ‘look into’ the areas where the figures reside. This abstraction and overall design are reminiscent of Iranian miniatures of the time. In contrast, there is a softening of the contours. The landscape has all the personality whereas the figures remain on the line between specifics and types. Bayazid Bayat, a servant under Humayun, once said:
‘In the opinion of experts Mulla Dost’s landscape paintings excelled those of Mani [the legendary inventor of the art of painting]. And God knows the truth.”44
The hills hide grotesques (a Safavid cliché) and beasts (like the elephant in the upper right). The similarity of Muhammad Dost to Bihzad is striking. Notice the way the rocks are painted (spongy), the hiding grotesques and in contrast the lack of rectilinear forms and the breaking of the margin so characteristic to Bihzad. Muhammud Dost explores an increasing sense of formal and spatial distortion which are quite different from Mir Sayyid Ali and Abd as- Sammad.45 Illustrations [15/16] show the similarity of Dost to his Indian pupil Bhagavati.46 As M.C. Beach states, it is very plausible that not unlike Persian artists who came from Iran to Humayun’s court, ‘painters from the subcontinent may have come north to find employment’.47
[15]Abu'l-Ma'ali. By Muhammud Dost. Mughal, ca.1555-1556
[16]Humayun with Two Hajjis.By Bhgavati. Mughal, ca.1556-1560
Finally, let us turn to the famed Golshan Album (illistrations [17-20]).
[17]Calligraphy.From the Golshan Album.Mughal, ca. 16th c.
[18]Teymur on the Battlefield.From the Golshan Album.Mughal, ca. 16th c.
[19]Teymur on Procession.From the Golshan Album.Mughal, ca. 16th c.
[20]Calligraphy.From the Golshan Album.Mughal, ca. 16th c.
The illustrations show work accomplished during the reign of Humayun but assembled in a volume during the reign of Jahangir.48 The Golshan Album originally held Persian, Turkish, Deccanni, and European works. ‘Humayun and His Brothers In a Landscape’ [14] was originally part of this album (now in Berlin and Tehran) and has the exact, later addition margins as the painting ‘Teymur On The Battlefield’ [18].49 At this point, in early Mughal painting, there is a separation of text and illustration. The two pages of calligraphy [17/20] faced each other; as did the illustrations [18/19]. The Golshan Album is adequate evidence to understand how 15th century Persian painting combined with indigenous traditions, European influence and a ‘familial inclination’ to establish a new style (anchored by the chosen artists at work in Kabul) intermingled and breed a unique school of painting. ‘Teymur On The Battlefield’ [18] is characterized by bold composition patterning and a characteristic Persian influence in tight design. The simplicity of the decorative patterning possibly suggests Indian influence. It should be noted that a narrow strip and the buildings in the upper right of this painting were added later to ensure its size exactly matched that of the facing illustration.50 The importance of the central, bushy-bearded figure is of obvious imperial importance and the physiognomy is specific.
Between the facing illustrations [18/19] we see a similarity in design, but I believe they were painted at different dates and by different artists. Before being placed in the album for Jahangir (Golshan Album), we can safely attribute these works to having originally been a part of a Zafarname’ or Teymurname’. ‘Teymur’s Army In Procession’ [19] has the same characteristics but again, there seems to be less of a stiffness, or ‘type’ and increasing attention to observed detail. This is an aspect of the ‘familial inclination’ as evidenced in the memoirs of Babur which are ‘full of careful descriptions of flora and fauna; the son’s [interest] is a continuation of that interest’.51 Again, this ‘familial inclination’ was only an armature under Babur (memoirs), developed slightly but decisively under Humayun (Kabul workshop) and later manifested concretely as the Mughal School under Akbar. To return to ‘Teymur’s Army In Procession’ [19], it is very possible that the design (so similar to ‘Teymur On The Battlefield’ [18]) was by the same Master artist, but completed by another artist at two different dates. The facial types of [19] are highly differentiated and closely parallel the Mughal illustration of the Hamzaname’. There seems to be a combination of a Persian penchant for decorative composition and pattern and the aesthetic impact of technical bravado.52 Compositions seem to ease as Mughal tastes mature and come into their own. Illustrations [18/19] were most likely inked out at the same time (under Humayun’s reign) but ‘Teymur’s Army In Procession’[19] was completed at a later date. This addition and completion is compelling to witness a static armature of design remain, while increasing observation and a keen eye for specific physiognomy (‘familial inclination’) was evolving into a new Mughal style.
In summary, the cement that bound all of the disparate influences surrounding the evolution of the Mughal School was Mughal temperament and a ‘familial inclination’. Babur laid the conceptual armature for a Mughal interest in the minutiae of the world around them; these are interests in nature, close observation, and the specifics of detail. Humayun continued this tradition. Whereas little painting (if any) was accomplished under Babur we have a small but richly inventive collection of paintings from the last years of Humayun’s reign. I argue that this ‘familial inclination’ took root as Humayun was exiled in Persia. He would retake India via Qandahar and Kabul with the help of the Safavid ruler Tahmasp I. Humayun also, and more importantly for this paper, had his choice of painters from the Royal Safavid Court. The stars seem to have aligned for the Mughal painting tradition and the legacy of Humayun during those years! Humayun is generally known for his interest in astrology and belief in the stars (aided no doubt by his hunger for opium). The stars aligned to set in motion a core of significant Persian artists, bookbinders, and a gold smith to generate the first fledgling works of art in a grand Mughal style. After successful triumph into the Indian subcontinent, the loose workshop of masters, ‘familial inclination’ and Indic traditions combined to form the cocktail that is the Mughal School of painting.
********************
Bibliography
Bahari, Ebadollah. Bihzad: Master of Persian Painting.
New York: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 1996.
Beach, Milo Cleveland. Early Mughal Painting.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1987.
Blair and Bloom. The Art and Architecture of Islam 1250-1800.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
Eduardes, SM. Mughal Rule in India.
London: Humphrey Ford and Oxford University Press, 1930.
Gascoigne, Bamber. The Great Moghals.
New York: Harper and Row Publishing, 1971.
Hajek, Tubor. Indian Miniatures of the Moghul School.
London: Spring Books, 1960.
Kossak, Steven. Indian Court Painting: 16th-17th c.
New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, distributed by Harry N. Abrams,Inc.,1997.
Mason, Darielle. ‘The Courtly Painting of the Indian Subcontinent’,
Intimate Worlds: Indian Painters from the Alvin O. Bellak Collection, exhibition;
Phila: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2001.
O’Kane, Bernard. Early Persian Painting: Kalila and Dimna Manuscripts of the
Late 14th Century. London: I.B. Tauris, 2003.
Ray, Niharranjan. Mughal Court Painting.
Calcutta: Indian Museum, 1975.
Robinson, BW. Fifteenth Century Persian Painting: Problems and Issues.
New York: New York University Press, 1991.
Soudavar, Abolala. Art of the Persian Courts.
New York: Rizzoli, 1992.
Welch, Stuart Cary. Art of Mughal India.
New York: Asia Society Inc., distributed by Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1964.
Welch, Stuart Cary. Imperial Mughal Painting.
New York: George Braziller, 1978.
Welch, Stuart Cary. India Art and Culture 1300-1900.
New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, distributed by Holt, Rinehart,
Winston,1986.
Welch, Stuart Cary. Persian Painting: Five Safavid Manuscripts of the 16th
Century. New York: George Braziller, 1976
Welch, Stuart Cary. 'The Mughals', The Emperors Album: Images of Mughal
India. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, distributed by
Harry N. Abrams, 1987.
Wescoat, J.L. 'Gardens of Invention and Exile: The Precarious Context of Mughal
Garden Design During the Reign of Humayun', Journal of Garden History 10, no.2,
1990.
********************
Footnotes
1. Robinson. 'Fifteenth...', p.47.
2. Ibid, p.13.
3. Ibid, p.14.
4. Ibid, p.16.
5. Ibid, p.17.
6. Ibid, p.40.
7. Ibid, p.40.
8. Soudavar. 'Art of The Persian...', p.147.
9. Ibid, p.149.
10. Ray. 'Mughal Court...', p.56.
11. Ibid, p.56.
12. Welch. 'Persian Painting...', pp.103-104.
13. Blair and Bloom. 'The Art and Architecture...', p.172.
14. Welch. 'Persian Painting...', p.123.
15. Beach. 'Early Mughal...', p.14.
16. Hajek. 'Indian Miniatures...', p.48.
17. Ibid, p.47.
18. O'Kane. 'Early Persian...', p.207.
19. Ibid, p.207.
20. Eduardes. 'Mughal Rule...', p.314.
21. Gascoigne. 'The Great Moghuls...', p.15.
22. Eduardes. 'Mughal Rule...', p.3.
23. Welch. 'India Art and Culture...', p.141.
24. Welch. 'Art of Mughal...', p.16.
25. Eduardes. 'Mughal Rule...', p.18.
26. Ibid, p.315.
27. Welch. 'Imperial Mughal...', p.14.
28. Bahari. 'Bihzad...', p.232.
29. Soudavar. 'Art of the Persian...', p.303.
30. Welch. 'Art of Mughal...', p.17.
31. Eduardes. 'Mughal Rule...', p.316.
32. Ray. 'Mughal Court...', p.31.
33. Beach. 'Early Mughal...', p.9.
34. Kossak. 'Indian Court Painting...', p.3.
35. Ibid, p.30.
36. Ibid, pp.30-31.
37. Beach. 'Early Mughal...', p.16.
38. Mason. 'The Courtly Painting...', p.xv.
39. Eduardes. 'Mughal Rule...', p.313.
40. Welch. 'The Mughals...', pp.15-17.
41. Ibid, pp.15-17.
42. Wescoat. 'Gardens...', pp.106-116.
43. Welch. 'India Art and Culture...', p.144.
44. Beach. 'Early Mughal...', p.23.
45. Ibid, p.23.
46. Ibid, pp.24-25.
47. Ibid, p.26.
48. Soudavar. 'Art of the Persian...', p.305.
49. Ibid, p.305.
50. Ibid, p.305.
51. Beach. 'Early Mughal...', p.27.
52. Soudavar. 'Art of the Persian...', p.305.
********************
List of Illustrations
[1] A Father’s Discourse. By Mirza Ali. From the Haft Awrang. Iran, Tabriz, ca. 1556-
1565.
[2] Detail.
[3] Manjun Eavesdrops on Layla’s Camp. By Shaykh Muhammud. From the Haft Awrang.
Iran, Tabriz, ca.1556-1565.
[4] Prince Akbar Presents to Humayun in a Tree-House. By Abd as-Sammad. From the
Golshan Album. Mughal, ca.1555.
[5] Encampment Scene. By Mir Sayyid Ali. Iran, Tabriz, ca.1540.
[6] Tul Being Flayed Alive by the Order of Tahmasp. From a hamza-nama manuscript.
Mughal, ca.1569-1577.
[7] Brahma Prostrates Himself Before Krishna. From Delhi/Agra, ca.1520-1530.
[8] Krishna Battles the Armies of the Demon Naraka. From Delhi/Agra, ca.1520-1530.
[9] The Gopis Beseech Krishna to Return Their Clothing. From Delhi/Agra,ca.1560-1565.
[10] Krishna Kills the Evil King Kamsa’s Washerman. From Delhi/Agra,ca.1560-1565.
[11] The Disguised Arab is Whipped by Her Husband. From a tuti-nama manuscript.
Mughal, ca.1556-1560.
[12] The Merchants Daughter Meets the Gardener. From a tuti-nama manuscript.
Mughal, ca.1556-1560.
[13] Nanda and the Elders. From a Bhagavata Purana series. India (probably Rajput),
ca.1540.
[14] Humayun and His Brother’s in a Landscape. By Muhammud Dost. Mughal, ca.1550.
[15] Abu’l-Ma’ali. By Muhammud Dost. Mughal, ca.1555-1556.
[16] Humayun with Two Hajjis. By Bhagavati. Mughal, ca.1556-1560.
[17] Calligraphy Page. From the Golshan Album. Mughal, ca.16th century.
[18] Teymur on the Battlefield. From the Golshan Album. Mughal, ca.16th century.
[19] Teymur on Procession. From the Golshan Album. Mughal, ca. 16th century.
[20] Calligraphy Page. From the Golshan Album. Mughal, ca. 16th century.
No comments:
Post a Comment