COPY, UNDERDRAWING, MASTERWORK: ANTICIPATING DRAWING’S AUTONOMY AS AN ART FORM THROUGH THE WORKS OF JAN VAN EYCK

R.W.Chamberlain
2007


Jan Van Eyck's facility with oil paint is a matter of legend. In the 16th century, Vasari offered Van Eyck the title of Inventor of Oil Painting, in effect heightening Van Eyck's already mythical throne. So legend goes, through experiments for an oil varnish Jan discovered that pigments could be suspended, bound by oil. Through Antonello de Messina came "colorire aolio" to Italy and the rest of Europe.¹ In 1974, G.E. Lessing discovered the Schedula diversarium artium written by Theophilus Presbyter in the 12th century in the library of Wolfenbuttel.² This effectively dispelled the legend by locating the invention of oil paint before Van Eyck's time. This is where the scholarship ends...with no addendum to the progenitor of oil painting. In the literature there seems to be an urgent necessity for attributing the invention to Van Eyck. A canon of glowing reviews concerning Van Eyck and his work gained almost mythological status during his lifetime. His figures "lacked only breath" according to contemporary Italian accounts. Luminosity is the most oft quoted feature of Eyckian painting and it would seem Panofsky's theory of a "nouvelle practique" holds much water - possibly the invention of a quick drying varnish or was it also the limited use of lead white?³ The "unique colorfulness of early Netherlandish Painting, identified with the name Van Eyck, required that pigments and binding agents, which were not unfamiliar to Italian painter's per se, were combined in a way that was hitherto unknown in Italy".⁴ Eyck's facility was not a matter of "ingredients but the recipe".⁵ A recipe involves timing and measure, in a word: structure.

I submit that the structure, the composition of the sensual reconstructions of reality, from detail to gestalt, is to be found in the drawing of Jan Van Eyck. In this paper I will attempt to navigate the practice of drawing in the works of Van Eyck from its service to the very concept of 'Eyckian', to the relationship of drawings and underdrawings, and finally to Eyck's anticipation of drawing's autonomy as an art form.

But let us begin at the end. There are only 600 Netherlandish drawings from the 15th century that have been preserved and two can be definitively attributed: Jan Van Eyck's study for his Albergati Portrait ⁶ and the St. Barbara panel. [Fig.1,3] According to Max Friedlander, Van Eyck had a "habit of making preliminary drawings".⁷ Where are the drawings? It would seem the answer was hiding in plain sight.


[Fig.1]Jan Van Eyck, Nicolo Albergati, 1435-1440. Silverpoint on prepared paper. Dresden, Kupfestich-Kabinett


[Fig.2] Jan Van Eyck, Nicolo Albergati, 1438. Oil on Panel. Kunsthistoriches Museum, Vienna


Paper was expensive in the 15th century. The Arabs brought paper to Spain. It's use then expanded across Italy and France. The Netherlands relied on imports (mainly) until the 16th century.⁸ Before the 15th century slate tablets were employed for drawing and this might explain why the number of Netherlandish drawings "increased significantly after 1440-1450".⁹ The expense of parchment is only a contributing factor for the paucity of 15th century Netherlandish drawings. Regardless, we know Van Eyck was well connected to bourgeoisie culture (patrons, service of the Ducal), but the drawing on prepared panel is of particular note. In the 15th century the idea of a "finished" drawing was unknown or at least not entertained. Drawings were in the form of copies, studies, and preparations. As today, drawing played a key role in the training of young artists. Copies, records of compositions, preliminary studies, and other student works were stored at the workshops for patrons to make selections.¹⁰ On this basis, we can be sure there is a "loss" of drawings from the 15th century, but to what extent is that offset by a low output based on use?

Friedlander's introduction of a patron is important. We know painting was a point of trade, and held promissory authority, whereas drawing was a means to an end: reenter drawing on panel. Drawing directly on panel would eliminate the middleman (i.e. the transfer of a drawing on paper or slate to panel) and thus the panel itself could be used as a presentation and a preparation. This shows remarkable efficiency. This does not explain the "loss" of Netherlandish drawings but speaks well to a shift in output and use of drawing. I am obligated to give proof for my theory, and the proof is seen through a platinum silicide camera.

Infrared reflectography has allowed this theory to bare the light of day. This technology is a video system responsive to the range of infrared light between 900-2000 nanometers (for Vidicon system - platinum silicide is capable of longer wavelengths).¹¹ Basically, the system can penetrate the layers of paint and uncover the underdrawing - the backbone of the painting. If the concept of Drawing (with a capital 'D') did not exist yet in the 15th century, and the only drawings we do have are studies and preliminary sketches, then it is fair to say we can talk about them interchangeably because they exhibit "more similarities than differences".¹² This is especially the case for Jan Van Eyck. The corpus of Early Netherlandish Drawing (of which Eyck is a member) is steadily unfolding with the help of infrared reflectography. It would seem that many Netherlandish artists, including Van Eyck, produced working drawings directly on the grounded support¹³ (my bibliography includes four scholars who have also suggested this: Taubert, Filedt Kok, Grosshaus, Fairies).

If the armature or structure of Eyck's painting begins with drawing, and the drawings exhibit a dual nature as preparation and presentation, then one should expect to find highly finished drawings under the surfaces of paint. This is implication number one.

Let us smell the roses for a moment. I will return to the specific drawings and underdrawings of Van Eyck, but at present I feel it is important to first elucidate some signature traits of the Master. These 'Eyckian' traits are inseparable from Eyck's drawing, and they are: verisimilitude, reconstruction and elaboration.

Jan Van Eyck seems endlessly fascinated by nature - by his sense of things. His works are a testament to his deep understanding of empirical reality. Friedlander lists 'Eyckian' traits such as clarity, texture, reality/specificity, intricate tile floors, and oriental rugs.¹⁴ These traits are all tied to an elaboration of reality. The forms of Van Eyck's creation are metered. They are all taken into consideration as to their origin in sense impressions as well as to their relative position on the pictorial plane. This metering of space confirms nature as static, as things, whereas dynamism comes in the form of position first, and secondly to color and texture.¹⁵ There exists a cristallisation de l' espace.¹⁶ Everything in Eyck's work seems to fit into place - contain and be contained by its own logic. These paintings are descriptive rather than interpretive and this is evidenced in the underdrawing. The underdrawing is the ground for exactitude. Life is imbued through the "nouvelle practique" (Eyck's use of a resinous varnish?), but the structure was organized and set in stone. I agree with Desneux that "verisimilitude was ever one of Jan Van Eyck's major concerns cannot be doubted....".¹⁷ As Bartolommeo Fazio said, the figures were only "lacking a voice".¹⁸

The second 'Eyckian' trait of reconstruction is illustrated in that the "pieces" of the paintings seem to fit together. The verisimilitude implies the senses, how things look and act, and reconstruction implies order of those things. Every form is in relation to another in that "appearance depends on coordinates, on the light, on the character of the stuff, the way it behaves under illumination".¹⁹ The underdrawings, as highly finished, exhibit this relation, which implies its existence prior to the color. Van Eyck took liberties in the scale of the figures to architecture, this is obvious, but it is the architecture itself that requires a more concentrated inquiry. Lyman dives into great depths in discussing the architecture of the Washington Annunciation.²⁰ But Panofsky's explanation of the symbolic program of the architecture is brilliant:

"The downward path of the ray divine on which the Dove of the Holy Spirit descends, the downward path from the Triune God to the Trinity, is mirrored in the downward transition from
one window to three, and at the same time, Romanesque to Gothic."²¹

Beyond the sensuous depiction of form, and the reconstruction of these forms, there is also a tendency towards elaboration that is echoed in not only the amount of sensuous detail but in the brushwork. This elaboration is a heightening of sorts, of adding information for the eye, increasing sensual qualities by texture building and transparency. It is obvious that Eyck is not reproducing reality. Through the reach toward verisimilitude, reconstruction and elaboration, Van Eyck is seeking a specific formal effect in service to his symbolic program.

"Drawing from the secret treasure of his heart endowed his work
with the semblance of utter verisimilitude what was in fact
imaginary".²²

Question: If we know these 'Eyckian' traits from the paintings, and if my theory is that they derive primarily from drawing concerns, then the drawings should be exceptionally finished. This is implication number two.

Prior to infrared reflectography there was much scholarly debate about the existence, and use of drawings and underdrawings:

"The Flemish primitives, and Jan Van Eyck in particular, never
drew upon their panels; at least, no more than the principal
outlines, the proportions, and here and there some shading."²³

Another example from Panofsky:

"If paint were removed from Eyckian pictures carried out in color
we could hardly expect to find detailed drawing(s) underneath...
such minutiae...would be obliterated by even the first and thinnest
coat of paint."²⁴

From infrared reflectography we can make two positive observations: 1) Ubiquitous existence in Jan Van Eyck's pictures of "carefully made underdrawings", and 2) more or less modification and added late pentimenti²⁵ after the underdrawing. The drawing mentality pervades each composition : "Jan draws when he paints: with stupendous exactitude, placing the means of drawing in the service of optic, painterly registration".²⁶ Or in other words, Van Eyck hatched and crosshatched his way into painting history. For the most part, Van Eyck's paintings were held together by strict drawing, extremely delineated in its preparatory stage (again, for presentation), and then filled with more detail, tiny zones of even tinier brushwork. Van Eyck's metered reconstructions of space were the glue that held together his idiosyncratic genius for the sensual details of physical reality. Let's look at the physical record.

The Albergati portraits are fascinating examples (and a good place to begin) concerning the use of drawing in Van Eyck's oeuvre. The identity of the sitter is hotly debated among scholars. The sitter was identified in an inventory of the Archduke Leopold William in 1659 as the Cardinal of Sante Croce.²⁷ Desneux believes it is "superfluous to go into question of the prelate's identity, which has been sufficiently well established by the research of James Weale (Weale, J. H. And J. Van Eyck. London, 1908, p.61).²⁸ The identity is, in fact, in question. I will not belabor the point but considering the scholarship of John Hunter²⁹ and Malcolm Vale, the sitter could very possibly be the English Cardinal Henry Beaufort.³⁰ At any rate, there exists a drawing and a painting of the unknown man that have both been positively attributed to Jan Van Eyck. [Fig. 1, 2] The drawing is made with silver point on prepared paper. It appears to be a study done from life. This is evidenced by the inscriptions of color notes: geelachtich und witte blauwachtich - "yellowish and white bluish", rotte purpoachtich - "purplish red", and die lippen zeer witachlich - "the lips very whitish".³¹ The drawing is executed with extreme skill and precision. For this paper, my interest is in its relation to the painting of the same name. If Van Eyck made a preliminary study, including color notes, would an underdrawing still be evident? Infrared evidence shows a detailed underdrawing, but that's not the interesting part. [Fig. 3, 4] When the drawing is superimposed (or compared side by side) to the painting, there is a line for line exactitude between drawing and underdrawing.³² [Fig. 5, 6] The only significant shift is a rounding of the forehead in the drawing - compared to the protruding forehead in the painting.


[Fig.3] Jan Van Eyck. Nicolo Albergati (Detail of Drawing). 1435-1440


[Fig.4]Jan Van Eyck. Nicolo Albergati (Infra-Red Detail of Painting)

[Fig.5] Jan Van Eyck. Nicolo Albergati (Detail of Drawing), [Fig.6] Nicolo Albergati (Detail of Painting)


The second of Van Eyck's known drawings (not mentioned earlier due to ongoing debate) is the St. Barbara panel of 1437. [Fig. 7, 8] This is the only document of "sketch-like” expression from an early Netherlandish artist.³³ The St. Barbara is executed with brush and brown - gray pigment, and silverpoint on a prepared panel. It is framed with a typical Eyckian frame that resembles a red and black veined marble, which is inscribed.³⁴ St. Barbara sits in a central location towards the foreground, elevated above the landscape and directly in front of a tower under construction. The tower originally referred to her imprisonment due to her beauty,which protected her from defilement.³⁵ But is this a drawing or underdrawing? Friedlander, DeTolnay, and Baldass seem to think it's an unfinished preparation. Panofsky thinks it's a drawing left unfinished for a reason. Compared to other infrared-revealed underdrawings the St. Barbara is sketchy. Why is there less detail in the St. Barbara? Desneux believes the St.Barabara was made as a Drawing.³⁶ Panofsky remarked that it was left in its current state at the "suggestion of a discriminating client".³⁷ If Panofsky has opened the field to conjecture, I will offer that it was unfinished at Eyck's death and framed at that time (frame could have been made or joined at another time). There is documentation that states it is customary to join and "paint the frames before one set about the picture itself."³⁸


[Fig.7] Jan Van Eyck. St.Barbara. Brush with Brown-Grey Pigment, Silverpoint, White Body Color on Prepared Panel (Probably Oak). Koninklijk Museum Voor Schoone Kunsten, Antwerp

[Fig.8] St.Barbara (Detail)


Underdrawing has been revealed to scholarship in almost all of Van Eyck's paintings (all that have been investigated with infrared reflectography). The following are examples of underdrawing, which I will briefly elaborate.


[Fig.9] Jan Van Eyck. The Virgin and Child with Saint Donatian and St. George and Canon Joris Van Der Peale. 1436. Oil on Panel. Stedelijke Musea, Groeninggemuseum, Bruges

[Fig.10] Van Der Peale Madonna (Infra-Red Detail)


[Fig.11} Van Der Peale Madonna (Detail)


1) The Virgin and Child With Saint Donatian And St. George and Canon Joris Van Der Paele, 1436. [Fig. 9, 10, 11] This painting shows us the extensive armature of an underdrawing. Van Eyck strictly adhered to the underdrawing during the painting process.³⁹ I will focus on the face of Canon Van Der Paele (detail). [Fig. 12, 13]

>[Fig.12] Canon Van Der Peale (Detail), [Fig.13] Canon Van Der Peale (Infra-Red Detail)


When comparing the photograph and the infrared photograph of this section of the painting I find a striking completion of drawing that echoes the similarities (dare I say verisimilitude) between the drawing and painting of Albergati. Van Eyck’s drawing of Albergati exactly matches the painting of the same sitter – line for line. This is also the case for the underdrawing of Canon Van Der Paele. The left side of his head is mapped out completely in the underdrawing. The line in the face is very graphic and primarily vertical (upper right to lower left), accumulating to very dark shadow around the jowls (tempered later in the painting). The Canon’s temple region is drawn with subtle cross hatchings.⁴⁰ Eyck’s variation of mark and attention to detail in the high finish of the underdrawing (as presentation to patron and preparation for painting) could quite possibly be “one of the secrets of that incomparable ‘builder of faces’”.⁴¹

From drawing to painting there were few changes (as seen in the detail images of the Canon’s face). The hand of St. George is another matter. The hand has been shifted in position. The thumb of St. George was originally drawn below the collar of the Canon, then changed to its final, painted position as encroaching the collar.⁴² This subtle yet significant change directs St. George’s presentation from the general location of the Canon and prayer book to the head of the Canon. Van Eyck has focused the relation between St. George and the Canon and thereby further directed the viewer’s gaze throughout the composition.


[Fig.14] Jan Van Eyck. Lucca Madonna. 1435? Oil on Panel. Stadelches Kunstinstitut Und Stadtische Galerie, Frankfurt

Lucca Madonna (Infra-Red Detail)


2) The Lucca Madonna, 1435. [Fig. 14] This Virgin and Child painting is labeled the ‘Lucca Madonna’ as it was once in the collection of the Marquis of Lucca. Infrared reflectography is especially adept at penetrating red paint. Through the Madonna’s red mantle we see another clear example of a highly finished underdrawing that was painstakingly followed. The infrared photographs show a drawing of very hard line. The marks are geometric, cross-hatched with an accumulation in sections that boldly distinguish the planes of the mantle. [Fig. 15]


[Fig.16] Jan Van Eyck. Giovanni Arnolfini and His Wife. 1434. Oil on Panel. National Gallery, London


3) Giovanni Arnolfini And His Wife, 1434. [Fig.16] The extent to which underdrawing is present in this piece is well laid out by Martin Davies, Les Primitfs Flamands, II, 1954, and can be found partially summarized in Desneux’s essay ‘Underdrawings and Pentimenti…”.⁴³ From the evidence, it is safe to say that the question of extensive underdrawing is conclusive. Of particular interest is Van Eyck’s repositioning of Arnolfini’s raised right hand. [Fig. 17]

[Fig.17]Arnolfini(Infra-Red Detail)


Originally, the hand was facing palm outward. The underside of the hand was clearly visible. Van Eyck pivoted the hand to a more condensed profile in the final painting. The original drawing of the hand - palm out and hand pulled back towards Arnolfini’s body – implies anxiousness, hesitation and instability. The change may have occurred at the behest of the patron – this we can’t be sure. According to Seidel, a Spanish inventory of 1700 claims the original frame of the Arnolfini Portrait was inscribed with verses from Ovid: “…y los versos declaran como se engan an el uno al otro”.⁴⁴ She continues to translate the inventory claim as “…the verses explain how they deceive one another”.⁴⁵ The connection is not for this paper to decipher, but the complex iconography and relation between artist/drawing, and presentation/patron is ripe for further investigation.


[Fig.18] Jan Van Eyck. Annunciation. 1434-1436. Oil on Canvas (Transferred). National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.


4) The Washington Annunciation, 1434 – 1436. [Fig. 18] Mary Gifford’s analysis of the Washington Annunciation is instructive when considering the stages of Van Eyck’s working methodology.⁴⁶ I object to her interchangeable use of the words basic and base. To qualify, I agree the underdrawings of Eyck form the ‘base’ of his painting process, but this is not to conclude that they are ‘basic’. This may be simply a matter of semantic opinion. Nevertheless, it is evident through infrared photographs that the underdrawing of the Washington Annunciation is complex, clear, and in a state of exceptional finish. [Fig. 19]


[Fig.19] Annunciation (Infra-Red)


This is not to claim Eyck’s changes to the drawing are insignificant for the changes are iconographically and compositionally important. These additions are strategic yet strictly pentimenti. My observation is challenged by only two examples of later, painterly addition (not seen in underdrawing). One example is to be found in the Washington Annunciation: The Marian symbol of the Lilies, and the other is to be found in the addition of the fountain in the Ghent altarpiece. [Fig.20, 21]


[Fig.20] Annunciation (Detail), [Fig.21] Annunciation (Infra-Red Detail)


Oil paint increases in transparency over time. Dark paint can ‘show through’ lighter pigments over time. As Gifford point out, it is very typical of Van Eyck to leave areas of the painting open for lighter pigments to be added at a later date (asserting the ‘coloring in’ of the paint to a drawing).⁴⁷ Surprisingly, the lilies were painted on top of the blue mantle and the tile floor. Through the chipping of paint, the blue mantle is visible, and the brown tile floor is peeking through.⁴⁸ Other additions: roundels with zodiac and bible scenes replaced a diamond grid on the floor [Fig. 22, 23], the stool was enlarged [Fig. 20, 21], and the pilasters of the back wall were painted with roundels to replace the their original ‘continuous’ nature in the underdrawing.⁴⁹ [Fig. 24, 25] This evidence leads Gifford to the conclusion that Eyck may have presented the drawing to a patron, who suggested additions or changes, before the painting had begun (or even in process).⁵⁰


[Fig.22] Annunciation (Floor Detail)[Fig.23] Annunciation (Infra-Red Floor Detail)


[Fig.24] Annunciation (Pilaster Detail)[Fig.25] Annunciation (Infra-Red Pilaster Detail)


There are many other examples of comprehensive underdrawings in Van Eyck’s known oeuvre including the removal of the ‘change purse’ in the Virgin With Chancellor Rolin. The examples presented, in conjunction with the growth of contemporary scholarship, should give ample evidence to the extent, and high degree of finish, to which Van Eyck employed his underdrawing.

Infrared reflectography has opened many doors in our exploration of Van Eyck’s underdrawings in relation to painting and patron, but there also exists an intertwined undercurrent of drawing’s burgeoning autonomy as an art form. Jan’s paintings do not simply record events. They are part of an ongoing transaction in which the “viewer is intimately implicated”.⁵¹ Painting itself is a ‘middle ground’ between artist and viewer/patron. Van Eyck is a master of binding representation and the viewer’s reality. The specificity and verisimilitude of Eyck’s work positions the viewer, and demands intellectual activity. The reflections (Arnolfini mirror, armor of St. George) inside the work quote an ongoing reality outside of the picture plane. The graphic addition of language (inscription, bible verse) also obligates the viewer. This ‘middle ground’ is increasingly (in the 15c.) for sale to sections of society outside of the church. Jan Van Eyck, “…facilitated the transfer of art’s promissory authority from the church to the ‘street’. It had already assimilated the language of contractual practice…Eyck transformed a future transaction into an occurring one….”.⁵²

What exactly is the ‘ongoing ‘ transaction? The transaction was that of supply and demand: the rising art market in the 15th century. Van Eyck’s paintings were commissioned…but increasingly so was his talent, his name. He not only worked as a ‘court’ painter but also free-lanced for the bourgeoisie. His paintings were ornamentally rich, filled with jewels, gold, luscious fabrics and heavenly, celestial motifs. Glasser points out that artists in the 15th century were obligated through receipt of material; there existed a pact between artist and patron where payment was then given upon completion of the work.⁵³ It is doubtful that this exact method of transaction can be attributable to a notable court painter such as Jan Van Eyck. What we do know, is that Jan was held in the highest regard, and was paid handsomely for his talent.⁵⁴

In Bruges and Antwerp (around 1450), art was growing into a major export commodity.⁵⁵ At the beginning of this paper I stated that Van Eyck was a legend in his own time. He was famous. The Medici’s even owned a Van Eyck.⁵⁶ I will not attempt to prove the fame of Van Eyck in his time, the record is very clear. What we know is that with fame comes demand, and thus attempts to increase supply. There were great art fairs in Antwerp at which patrons from all over Europe descended. Auctions were reserved for the most highly sought after works while lower cost copies were sold at the fairs.⁵⁷ Here is the point at which drawing begins its ascent into autonomous art form. Drawing on paper establishes itself on a broader basis around this time, after mid century.⁵⁸ Might this be related to the lesser expense of paper - in response to higher demand and increased availability? While drawing’s autonomy may have been aided by the presence of a cheap ground, it can only be understood in relation to the monetary value of the Northern European ‘style, which is identified most clearly with ‘Eykian’.

Was the role of efficiency part of this growing art market? Drawing on panel, in effect, expedited the process of painting as well as the steps to appease the patron. Painting was a job. Painters were part of guilds and guild regulated art markets.⁵⁹ As the renown of Netherlandish artists grew, demand rose in turn. Around this time (c.1450), graphic work became another chief product of export. Drawings as copies, sketches, or preparations were well known as academic tools (useful) – originality was relative. The 14th century showed artists reconstructing standard motifs; excellence was to be sought in technique and therefore perception. I advance the theory that Eyck’s particular technical talent as well as the idiosyncratic nature – the genius of his reconstructions, furthered the possibility of monetary value not only for the work but also for the artist. His ‘style’ was iconic, recognizable. In this proclamation, drawing emerged as autonomous art form. Drawing’s difference from painting was no longer a matter of degree, but of kind. Jan Van Eyck was there at the beginning (Johannes de eyck fuit hic).⁶⁰ [Fig. 26] Albrecht Durer and his well known monogram of ‘AD’ [Fig. 27] will solidify the position of artist as much in demand as art - specifically - through the immediacy of drawing and later, the reproducibility of engraving.


[Fig.26] Arnolfini (Detail of Jan Van Eyck's Signature)[Fig.27] Albrecht Durer. The Sojourn of Mary and Joseph In Egypt (Detail of Monogram)


The process of painting in the 14th century, culminating with Van Eyck, was elaborate and absolutely dependent on the finished drawing. Van Eyck’s process has similar significance to a state in the development of an etching. Van Eyck took very deliberate steps in creating a painting. As for the paucity of drawings – we will never know the amount of reworked imagery left as dust in front of Van Eyck’s preparatory/presentational underdrawing. Ainsworth has noted that in Northern European art, the craft tradition was a “super structure” where one “stage of production followed the next”.⁶¹ In terms of the market: Through the presence of a cheap ground, and the rise of the ‘Artist’, drawing’s autonomy was revealed.

Jan Van Eyck’s underdrawing serves as a passage to ‘D’rawing. His underdrawing was a hybrid of painterly hatching and graphic cross-hatching. As presentation it reached a level of finish that anticipated the graphic line and forms of Rogier Van Der Weyden and even to Schongauer and Durer. We must return to the St. Barbara to find the only extant example of a drawing showing the “handwriting of a draughtsman”. The line is sketchy, vital, energized, and personal. Might this be the historical line that leads to Hieronymous Bosch and the purely subjective drawing? Two paths were anticipated and consequently emerge after Van Eyck: Drawing’s autonomy as product and Drawing’s autonomy as subjective artistic expression.



********************
Footnotes


1. Borchert, Till-Holger. "Van Eyck and The Invention of Oil Painting. Artistic Merits in Their Literary Mirror", The Age of Van Eyck. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2002, p.221.
2. Ibid, p.221.
3. Panofsky, Erwin. Early Netherlandish Painting, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953, p.180.
4. Campbell, L., Foister, S., Roy, A., (eds). "Methods and Materials of Northern European Painting", National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 19, 1997, pp.6-55.
5. Borchert. ‘Van Eyck And The Invention…”, p.225.
6. Koreny, Fritz. Netherlandish Drawings of the 15th Century. Antwerp: Rubenshuis, 2002, p.12.
7. Friedlander, Max. Early Netherlandish Painting, vol.1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953, p.57.
8. Koreny. ‘Netherlandish Drawing…’, p.11.
9. Ibid, p.13.
10. Friedlander. ‘Early Netherlandish…’, p.72.
11. Ainsworth, Maryan W. "Northern Renaissance Drawings And Underdrawings:
A Proposed Method Of Study", Master Drawings, vol.27, no.1, Spring 1989, p. 35.
12. Ibid, p.6.
13. Ibid, p.11.
14. Ibid, p.61.
15. Panofsky. ‘Early Netherlandish…’, p.182.
16. DeTolnay, Charles. Le Maitre de Flemalle et les Freres Van Eyck. Brussels: Editions de la Connaissance, 1938, p.31
17. Desneux, Jules. "Underdrawings and Pentimenti in the Pictures of Jan Van Eyck",The Art Bulletin, vol.40, no.1, Mar. 1958, p.17.
18. Baxandall, Michael. "Bartholomaeus Facius on Painting; A Fiftennth Century Manuscript of the Deviris Illustribus", Journal of The Warburg and Courtauld Institute, 27, 1964, pp.90 - 107.
19. Friedlander. ‘Early Netherlandish…’, p.79.
20. Lessing, G.E. Werke in 6 Banden. Gopfert, H.,(ed.), VI, Munich, 1974.
21. Panofsky. ‘Early Netherlandish…’, p.138.
22. Ibid, p.137.
23. Vanderneken, J. “Experimenten met Betrekking Tot de Van Eyck Techniek”, Gentsche Bijdagen Tot De Kunstgeschiedenis, Deel, V. Ghent, 1938, pp.5-14 (translated by Jules Desneux).
24. Panofsky. ‘Early Netherlandish…’, p.185.
25. Desneux. ‘Underdrawing and Pentimenti…’, p.13.
26. Koreny. ‘Netherlandish Drawing…’, p. 24.
27. Friedlander. ‘Early Netherlandish…’, p.57.
28. Desneux. ‘Underdrawing and Pentimenti…’, p.16.
29. Hunter, John. "Who is Jan Van Eyck's 'Cardinal Nicolo Albergati'?", The Art Bulletin,vo.75, no.2, June 1993, pp.207 - 218.
30. Vale, Malcolm. "Cardinal Henry Beaufort and the 'Albergati' Portrait", The English Historical Review, vol.105, no.415, April 1990, pp.337-354.
31. Panofsky. ‘Early Netherlandish…’, p. 200.
32. Desneux. ‘Underdrawing and Pentimenti…’, p.16.
33. Koreny. ‘Netherlandish Drawing…’, p. 42.
34. Panofsky. ‘Early Netherlandish…’, p. 185.
35. Ibid, p.186.
36. Desneux. ‘Underdrawing and Pentimenti…’, p.20.
37. Ibid, p.21.
38. Koreny. ‘Netherlandish Drawing…’, p.42.
39. Desneux. ‘Underdrawing and Pentimenti…’, p. 13.
40. Ibid, p.15.
41. Ibid, p.15.
42. Ibid, p.15.
43. Ibid, p.18.
44. Seidel, Linda. "The Value of Verisimilitude in the Art of Jan Van Eyck", Yale French Studies, no.80, Contexts: Style and Values in Medieval Art and Literature, 1991, p. 40.
45. Ibid, p.40.
46. Gifford, Melanie E. “Van Eyck’s Washington Annunciation: Technical Evidence For Iconographic Development”, The Art Bulletin, vol.81, March 1999, pp.108-116.
47. Ibid, p.113.
48. Ibid, p.113.
49. Ibid, p.115.
50. Ibid, p.115.
51. Seidel. ‘The Value of…’, p.32.
52. Ibid, p.36.
53. Glasser, Hannelore. "Artists Contracts of the Early Renaissance", Ph.D diss., Columbia University, 1965, 5-20.
54. Snyder, James. Northern Renaissance Art. Painting, Sculpture, The Graphic. Arts From 1350-1575. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2nd Ed., 2005, p.94.
55. North, Michael. "Art Markets", The Age of Van Eyck. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2002, p.36.
56. Steyaert, John. “Northern European Painting”, University of Minnesota Lecture, 2005.
57. North. ‘Art Markets…’, p.53.
58. Koreny. ‘Netherlandish Drawing…’, p.24.
59. North. ‘Art Markets…’, p.54.
60. Snyder. ‘Northern European…’, p.103.
61. Ainsworth. ‘Northern Renaissance…’, p.34.


********************
Bibliography


Ainsworth, Maryan W. "Northern Renaissance Drawings And Underdrawings:
A Proposed Method Of Study", Master Drawings, vol.27, no.1, Spring 1989,
pp.5 - 38.

Baldass, L. Jan Van Eyck. London: Phaidon Press, 1952.

Baxandall, Michael. "Bartholomaeus Facius on Painting; A Fiftennth Century Manuscript of the Deviris Illustribus", Journal of The Warburg and Courtauld Institute, 27, 1964, pp.90 - 107.

Borchert, Till-Holger. "Introduction: Jan Van Eyck's Workshop",
The Age of Van Eyck. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2002.

Borchert, Till-Holger. "Van Eyck and The Invention of Oil Painting. Artistic Merits in Their Literary Mirror", The Age of Van Eyck. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2002.

Campbell, L., Foister, S., Roy, A., (eds). "Methods and Materials of Northern European Painting", National Gallery Technical Bulletin, 19, 1997, pp.6-55.

Desneux, Jules. "Underdrawings and Pentimenti in the Pictures of Jan Van Eyck",
The Art Bulletin, vol.40, no.1, Mar. 1958, pp.13-21.

DeTolnay, Charles. Le Maitre de Flemalle et les Freres Van Eyck.
Brussels: Editions de la Connaissance, 1938.

Faries, M., Heller, B., Levine, D. "The Recently Discovered Underdrawings Of The Master Saint Ursula Legend's Triptych of The Nativity", Bulletin of The Detroit Institute of Arts, 62, no.4, 1987, pp.4-19.

Filedt Kok, J.P. "Underdrawings and Other Technical Aspects in the Paintings of Lucas Van Leyden", Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarbook, 29, 1978, pp.1-2.

Friedlander, Max. Early Netherlandish Painting, vol.1, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953.

Gifford, Melanie E. “Van Eyck’s Washington Annunciation: Technical Evidence For Iconographic Development”, The Art Bulletin, vol.81, March 1999, pp.108-116.

Glasser, Hannelore. "Artists Contracts of the Early Renaissance",
Ph.D diss., Columbia University, 1965, 5-20.

Grosshans, R. Bilder im Blickpunkt. Jacob van Utrecht. Der Alter von 1513. Berlin - Dahlem, 1982, pp.51-72.

Hunter, John. "Who is Jan Van Eyck's 'Cardinal Nicolo Albergati'?", The Art Bulletin, vo.75, no.2, June 1993, pp.207 - 218.

Koreny, Fritz. Netherlandish Drawings of the 15th Century. Antwerp: Rubenshuis, 2002.

Koster, Margaret. "Italy and the North: A Florentine Perspective", The Age of Van Eyck. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2002.

Lessing, G.E. Werke in 6 Banden. Gopfert, H.,(ed.), VI, Munich, 1974.

Lyman, Thomas W. "Architectural Portraiture and Jan Van Eyck's Washington Annunciation", Gesta, vol.20, no.1, Essays in Honor of Harry Bober, 1981, pp.263-271.

North, Michael. "Art Markets", The Age of Van Eyck. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2002.

Pacht, Otto. Van Eyck. Prestel: Munich, 1989.

Panofsky, Erwin. Early Netherlandish Painting, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953.

Seidel, Linda. "The Value of Verisimilitude in the Art of Jan Van Eyck",
Yale French Studies, no.80, Contexts: Style and Values in Medieval Art and Literature, 1991, pp.25-43.

Snyder, James. Northern Rennaissance Art. Painting, Sculpture, The Graphic Arts From 1350-1575. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2nd Ed., 2005.

Steyaert, John. “Northern European Painting”, University of Minnesota Lecture, 2005.

Taubert, J. "Zur kunstwissenschaftlichen Auswertung von naturwissenschaftlichen Gemaldeuntersuchungen", Ph.D diss., Philipps-Universitat, Marburg, 1956, pp.21-23.

Vale, Malcolm. "Cardinal Henry Beaufort and the 'Albergati' Portrait",
The English Historical Review, vol.105, no.415, April 1990, pp.337-354.

Vanderneken, J. “Experimenten Met Betrekking Tot De Va Eyck Techniek”, Gentsche Bijdagen Tot De Kunstgeschiedenis, Deel, V. Ghent, 1938, pp.5-14 (translated by Jules Desneux).

THE ‘FAMILIAL INCLINATION’ OF MUGHAL COURT PAINTING: SAFAVID TO INDIA

R.W.Chamberlain
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.