PERSICA XIX, 2003

MATHEMATICS AND MEANING IN THE STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION OF TIMURID MINIATURE

Sarah Chapman University of Edinburgh

INTRODUCTION

Even at first glance many Timurid miniature reveal a strong sense of pattern and organization on which much of their overall dynamism depends. One can see the repetition of geometric shapes created by the figures, the very static and linear nature of much of the architecture, and the feeling of proportion and harmony in their composition. The obvious deliberation in their structure suggests that they may have been precisely planned and may even adhere to some kind of mathematical formula. The formal qualities of Persian miniature painting have been remarked on many times, and many techniques and conventions have been identified by scholars. Of particular rel- evance to this investigation are the studies of Guest,1 Zain,2 Adle,3 and Stchoukine.4 Guest identifies the importance of text panels in the calculation of important measurements and relationships within Persian painting, and discusses the repetition of certain measurements and distances as “a kind of counterpoint throughout the design.”5 Zain further investigates the relationship between text and painting, identifies certain formulaic tendencies in the building of Timurid compositions, and discusses the presence of a “hidden structural line” in many paintings which “guide” our experience as a viewer.6 Adle and Stchoukine both investigate the ‘mathematical’ nature of Persian painting in some detail: Adle finds, like Guest, the repetition of certain measurements and goes on to describe a modular system for the organization of hunting and sporting scenes especially. Stchoukine identifies different geometric types of composition, and investigates the presence of preconceived linear struc- tures behind apparently random and unstructured scenes.7

1 G.D. Guest, painting in the sixteenth century (Washington, D.C., 1949). 2 D.H.B.M. Zain, Formal values in Timurid painting (Kuala Lumpur, 1989). 3 C. Adle, “Recherche sur le module et le trace correcteur dans la miniature orientale”, Le Monde Iranien et l’ 3(1975), 81-105. 4 I. Stchoukine, Les peintures des manuscrits Timurides (Paris, 1954). 5 Guest, Shiraz painting, 25. 6 Zain, Formal values, 13. 7 Stchoukine, Les peintures des manuscrits Timurides, 143-54. 34 SARAH CHAPMAN

All these scholars are aware of the presence of a mathematical element in the pat- terned structure of Timurid painting and analyse this to some extent. However, their studies have tended to focus on the broader features of the compositions. A suspicion remains that the full complexity of the mathematics behind some of the very finest Timurid composi- tions, and its full significance, has yet to be discovered. The following study investigates the structure and organization of composition in Timurid painting in even greater detail, in an attempt to reveal the full extent of mathemati- cal conception, and to explore the possibility of an aesthetic meaning behind this math- ematical approach. The paintings analysed here include both architectural scenes and those with some landscape elements. The architectural scenes have been chosen specifically for their general appearance of formal patterning and strong linear structure, and the “semi- landscape” scenes because they include some of the characteristics of architectural scenes within a non-linear setting. It is obviously not possible to include all genres of painting within the scope of this study: hunting and sporting scenes, for example, fill a large part of the canon of Persian miniature paintings and seem to be based on a common conception of a diagonal grid, but they are too big a subject to tackle here. Furthermore, they tend to lack some of the elements, such as architectural features and static groupings, which most lend themselves to precise shapes, measurements and ratios. In order to appreciate the precision of the Persian painter and the intricacies and detail of the compositions, it is necessary to invest the same qualities in the analysis. The present study has involved precise measurements and prolonged scrutiny of the paintings. This detailed examination of the architectural scenes has revealed that a mathematical concep- tion is frequently fundamental to the whole painting. Often there is a considerable variation in the extent, complexity and possible significance of mathematical structuring, not only between different paintings but also between different areas of a single painting. While some paintings have a fairly rudimentary structure, in others the level of complexity and precision is astonishing. Often the painter has employed two layers of structure in the one painting, using different branches of mathematics: for example both geometry and algebra. The strong sense of visual structure which is so immediately apparent can turn out to be only the most basic level of organisation: there is another, far more complex structure which dominates the painting mathematically, but ‘invisibly’. This study makes use of illustrations selected from published works on Persian mini- ature painting. The references are supplied at the point where each painting is introduced. The findings presented below raise several questions. Did the Persian miniature painter employ a mathematical composition purely for its visual effect? Do the differences in struc- turing between architectural and landscape scenes have a metaphorical significance? The arcane nature of some of the mathematics, sometimes so hidden as to have no apparent visual meaning at all, leads to the further problem of the role of the contemporary Persian viewer: how much of the painter’s complex conception did he intend the viewer to perceive? A further investigation into the structural system which underlies also sheds some light on the question of aesthetic meaning. The employment of mathemat- ics to structure the man-made and artificial scenes, and their absence in landscape areas indicates the association of mathematical control with the materialism of the transitory, human present, while uncontrolled space implies the freedom of the natural world. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 35

THE PAINTINGS

A painting which raises all these issues is ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ (pl.1) from a Layla u Majnun of Amir Khusrauw Dihlavi (890-1/1485, Chester Beatty Library, MS 163, f. 104v).8 The overall effect in this painting is vivid and dynamic. This is due to several contrasts within and between the different structural aspects of the painting: for example, between the vertical and horizontal lines of the architecture and the repeated trian- gular pattern of the figures, but also between the generally static quality of these linear and geometric patterns and the animation of the individual figures themselves. The dramatic and compositional use of colour also contributes to the dynamism of the painting. It is the contrast between the lines of the building and the triangles of the figures that gives the painting its immediate structure: this is reinforced by the painter’s use of primary colours. The predominant colour in the architecture is , and a bright sky-blue is used to empha- sise the important shapes in the building and courtyard wall. In contrast to this blue, the painter uses red and yellow, the other two primary colours, to provide force and movement in the figures. As figs. 1a and b show respectively, red and yellow are plotted to draw the eye along the two triangular shapes. The contrast between the verticals of the building and the strong geometric shapes created by the figures provides an immediate visual structure: it allows the eye to receive the painting in terms of two separate compositional ideas. This is the visible structure of the painting; however there is another, more arcane plan which is not readily discernible at a glance and which governs the layout of the building and the placing of the boxes of text. This second structure is also mathematical. As fig. 2 shows, the vertical lines of the architecture in this painting define a highly complex, algebraic pattern of distances A and B. Even the text blocks are integrated into the picture by being a width of 2A and placed at a mathematically appropriate point in the painting: if each text were repeated again on either side they would fit exactly against the left margin of the painting and the end of the pink wall. The curtained gateway, which would appear to interrupt the ordered plan of the building, is in fact mathematically allied to it. The left-hand pole of the gateway is exactly at a distance of 2A from the right-hand margin. This upper part of the painting displays an extraordinary degree of mathematical coherence that, unless the viewer approaches the paint- ing armed with a ruler, is virtually invisible. It is not clear why the painter went to such lengths of precision and detail. The contradiction between the two layers of structure in this painting (first, the obvi- ous triangular and vertical shapes which knit the painting together visually, and secondly the ‘invisible’ mathematical calculations) is not the only puzzle of the painting’s composi- tion. Also curious is the discrepancy between the visual focus of the painting, and the focus of the subject matter, i.e. the baby, Majnun. The eye is drawn naturally towards the apex of the upper triangle of figures; however the baby, who is the cause of the celebrations taking place in the scene and who, one would assume, should be the focus of our attention, simply forms part of the right side of the triangle, and does not stand out at all. Even more curious,

8 E. Bahari, Bihzad. Master of Persian painting (London and New York, 1996), pl. 26. 36 SARAH CHAPMAN however, is the fact that the baby lies virtually in the centre of the painting (fig. 3). There- fore the visual focus is apparently unconnected with the baby, who is nevertheless virtually the mathematical centre of the painting. Again, the underlying mathematical plan of the painting (and, as we now see, also the subject matter) does not intrude upon or dominate the visual structure — it is unconnected with it. Yet another compositional paradox in this painting is the tree to the right of the build- ing. The tree, unlike the rest of the painting, is unconfined, and does not conform to any degree of structural patterning, whether visual or mathematical. It appears to be independ- ent: it is outside the courtyard wall, and indeed grows right out of the picture, breaking the margin. It does not stand out or create a blatant visual contrast, but its complete structural irrelevance to the rest of the painting must have a meaning. It would seem that the tree, the only natural object in the scene, has a separate thematic significance to the rest of the paint- ing which is reflected in its absence of structure or visual integration. Thus, while there are contradictions between structure and subject matter within the greater part of the painting, here nature and a complete lack of structure would seem to be linked. Perhaps the tree’s unconfined growth is a symbolic expression of the new birth being celebrated in the en- closed, human part of the painting.9 The multiple layers of structure described above are by no means peculiar to ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’. Another painting which demonstrates a visual struc- ture that is immediately perceived as well as a hidden mathematical plan is ‘Bathing Maid- ens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ (pl. 2), from a Khamsa of Nizami (900/1494-5, , Or. 6810, f. 190a).10 In its subject matter alone it demonstrates a witty construction of different layers of meaning: at first sight the painting appears just to be revelling in the depiction of naked women disporting themselves while bathing; it takes a long time for the viewer to locate the Master, shown as only an eye peeping out from be- tween two almost closed window shutters. Added to this is the paradox of the voyeur’s title — it is not just any passer-by, but the ‘Master’ who is being so naughty. These different levels of meaning are paralleled in the complex layers of composition and structure. As with ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ visual coherence arises from a geometric shape created by the figures: this time it is a zigzag (fig. 4). It starts with the woman on the bottom left and travels right to the farthest bathing maiden; then travels up the diagonal line of bathing maidens; then diagonally right; and finally up the sweep of the trees to the top left corner of the painting, where it culminates in the box of text. The zigzag here starts very tightly, but then becomes freer and more expansive in its form. In its last stage it is very much suggested rather than shown, although the viewer is given some help in travelling this last stage. At each corner of the zigzag there is a curve to push the eye around the corner and carry it further on: the bent back of the woman at the bottom left, the bent arm of the bottom right-hand bather, the curve of the seated woman’s shoulder and

9 In which case this painting follows tradition in using the motif of a tree breaking the margin as a moral discourse on life (R. Hillenbrand, “The uses of space in Timurid painting”, L. Golombek and M. Subtelny [eds.] Timurid art and culture: and in the fifteenth century [Leiden, New York and Köln, 1992], 91). 10 T.W. Lentz, and G.D. Lowry, and the princely vision: and culture in the fifteenth century (Washington, D.C., 1989), 275. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 37 head, and the big black curve of the harp all make sure that the eye does not falter and keeps up the momentum. This central zigzag shape is complemented by other features in the painting: the diagonals and horizontals of the railings, and the diagonals of the building. Against this dominating shape are set the boxes and rectangles of the architectural features: the windows, the gateway, the door and the pool. These provide an alternative pattern for the eye to the zigzag and bring the whole together in the contained setting of the courtyard. As with ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’, however, there is another layer of mathematically conceived structure: this time even less visible and more crucial to the plotting of the architecture. However, unlike ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ where the vertical lines were decided by measurement and algebraic patterning, here the basis for the disposition of the architectural features is diagrammatic. As fig. 5 shows, the pool and the window to the right of the Master have been plotted so that a line drawn from his eye bisects them exactly, on the vertical and horizontal axis respectively. It follows that lines from the corners of the pool and the window to his eye will make equal angles, or isosceles triangles. Thus it is apparent that the eye of the Master is the focal point to which these architectural features refer. As fig. 6 shows, if the pool is bisected vertically and an isosceles triangle drawn from the edges of the pool on this line, again with the Master’s eye as the apex, the answer to the plotting of more architectural features is found. Yet another triangle drawn from the Master’s eye, this time of 80°, explains even more. The use of the Master’s eye as an apex for a series of isosceles triangles is seen to explain the plotting of features below and on a level with the Master. But what of the tower, positioned above him? As figure 7 shows, by extending the lines from the corners of the window and the pool, and by drawing lines from other significant points in the architecture through the Master’s eye, the positioning of the entire building can be explained. Thus the creation of the setting is entirely with reference to the Master. Although we can barely see him, the world of the painting revolves around him. The only exceptions to this structure are the trees, which make no reference to the mathematical conception (although the two on the right contribute to the zigzag shape). As with the tree in ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ they grow outside the courtyard area, and therefore outside the scene of human action. As before, they seem to be independent of the scene, structurally and thematically. Nature again has a separate, free existence. There are at least two possible interpretations of this unusual method of construction: maybe it is a coded expression of the Master’s power; or perhaps it is the painter’s final joke on him. The Master may think he is in control of the scene, spying from his hiding place, but, ultimately, the scene will play a trick on him and find him out. If the latter is correct, then the zigzag, the visual shape which is superimposed on the geometry and which dominates the viewer’s attention initially, is a red herring, and the painter is playing a game of cat-and-mouse with the viewer too. In ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ the mathematical struc- ture is even more concealed from the casual observer than in ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’, and yet it is even more crucial to the composition of the painting. The role of the Master in creating the composition, however, raises the question of how au fait the contemporary Persian viewer was expected to be with the intricacies of a painting’s struc- 38 SARAH CHAPMAN ture. Did the patron of the painting in some way associate himself with the Master, and if so, is the composition a sort of coded interior joke, reflecting the patron’s power over the world around him? Yet the extraordinary ‘invisibility’ of the detailed, precise structure makes it seem unlikely that anyone but the painter could fully appreciate it. Just how important, then, was the viewer to the conception of a Persian painting? This particular diagrammatic system, which works so well with the bathing maidens story, appears to be quite unique. In other respects, this painting follows the common Per- sian technique of ‘copying’ its predecessors.11 For example, it shares many stylistic features with the earlier ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ from a Khamsa of Nizami of c. 831-56/1425-50 (Metropolitan Museum of Art, 13.228.13, f. 47a) (fig. 8).12 Both paintings have a two-dimensional black pool with the maidens performing the same sort of gestures and creating a stylised shape; both have the convention of the Master peep- ing through a box window with only his eye visible; both have a courtyard with red railings and a building with an arched doorway and three windows; both have the same type of blossoming tree outside the railings. There is also a harpist in the earlier painting, and bun- dles of clothes littering the courtyard. So far, the paintings are so similar that it is obvious the later artist was ‘copying’ the earlier; this comparison is also made by Lentz and Lowry.13 However where the 1494-5 version differs radically is in its astonishingly complex and concealed diagrammatic structure. The earlier painting appears to make no use of this bril- liantly appropriate scheme. The later artist seems to have used and paid homage to the stylistic language of the earlier painting, but used his own ingenuity to improve upon it — thus bearing out Adamova’s conclusion that “only against this background of honouring hallowed tradition … the painter could try his skill at creating new treatments of classical subjects”.14 In ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ and ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’, a precise mathematical structure governs the architecture but not so much the figures. Although in ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ the figures form triangles they are general in shape, not mathematically plotted; and the expansive nature of the zigzag of figures in ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ pre- cludes the sort of precision which characterises the architectural features. However in some paintings the figures both form a general geometric shape and also create a mathematical relationship with the dimensions of the whole. Because the figures are fluid and not linear like architecture, they do not lend themselves to sharply delineated edges and to precise distances; rather they are placed, between or over mathematical divisions. For example, in ‘Iskandar and the Seven Sages,’ also from the Khamsa of Nizami (900/1494-5)15 the figures create a circular shape in the lower half of the painting (pl. 3); they are also placed accord- ing to a mathematical plan involving vertical divisions of the entire painting. It can be seen simply by glancing at the painting that Iskandar and the seven sages fall into three divisions

11 A. Adamova, “Repetition of Compositions in Manuscripts: the Khamsa of Nizami in Leningrad”, Timurid art and culture: Iran and Central Asia in the fifteenth century (Leiden, New York and Köln,1992), 67. 12 E. Grube, The classical style in Islamic painting (n.p., 1968) cover illustration. 13 Lentz and Lowry, Timur, 274-5. 14 Adamova, “Repetition", 74. 15 Bahari, Bihzad, pl. 88. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 39

— this is emphasised by the hard lines and angles of the carpets. In fact, as figure 9 shows, the three divisions are of equal width, and together with the dark portal divide the painting into quarters. However, this is disguised by the contrast between the heavy colouring of the portal and the light and colourful courtyard, which creates a sense of two separate, uncon- nected areas. To the right of the portal the circle of figures is placed in reference only to the width of the courtyard area. Iskandar, being the prince, has a section all to himself and is also placed exactly in the centre of the courtyard. The figures making up the lower part of the circle are placed slightly differently. The upper part of the circle could simply be echoed by placing the six lower figures in three equal groups of two, though this would make the painting rather static. However they are in fact organized in such a way as to avoid rigidity and lifelessness, while still adhering to the vertical divisions of the painting. The two figures on the left are indeed placed in the middle of a quarter-division; however the next quarter is broken up simply by placing the third courtier on the dividing line rather than within a space. By blurring the mathematical divi- sions16 this figure breaks up the monotony of what is really a very simple design and gives the lower part of the circle an air of spontaneous disorganization. The intensity of his blue gown also distracts the eye by contrasting so vividly with the colours of the clothing worn by the other courtiers. The two figures on the right are also adjusted slightly to fit not only in their quarter-division, but also within the suggested line created by the width of the wall of the house. The mathematics involved in the placing of the figures in this painting are not quite in the same league as the calculations of ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ and ‘Bath- ing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’. For one thing, they are much sim- pler; they are also more discernible to the eye. Instead of creating a ‘hidden’ governing structure that has actually very little obvious visual effect on the painting, the mathematics behind the organization of the figures here create a visible pattern for the viewer to grasp. This painting also may have another more complicated and oblique mathematical basis, but if this is so I have not found it. Another example in which the figures are placed according to vertical mathematical divisions is the double frontispiece ‘Timur Granting an Audience in Balkh on the Occasion of his Accession to Power in April 1370’ (pl. 4) from a Zafarnama of Sharaf al-Din {Ali Yazdi (872, 1467-68, Johns Hopkins University, John Work Garrett Collection, ff. 82b- 83a).17 However, in this painting the formula is slightly different. As it is a garden scene, set in a landscape with only one architectural element (a portal) and tents instead of buildings, the composition has a slightly looser feel. The figures in ‘Timur Granting an Audience’ inhabit all areas of the painting and provide the bulk of the composition; the tents do not create a very strong or rigid structure. The overall effect is of a busy scene with figures in artificial but loosely organized groups. As with ‘Iskandar and the Seven Sages,’ the figures are again placed in a mathematical relationship with the dimensions of the whole, which is then disguised somewhat — particularly in the left frontispiece. In these two pages, where

16 A long-established method of softening or linking scenes that was often applied to the rigid visible divisions in earlier Persian painting (Hillenbrand, “The uses of space", 76). 17 Lentz and Lowry, Timur, p. 277. 40 SARAH CHAPMAN there is no dominating architecture to regulate the structure but only a fluid, unobtrusive landscape, there is a sense of free space, even if it is an illusion. Although this painting is a double frontispiece, the two pages are composed as a whole only in their strong ‘visible’ layer of structure; in their mathematical detail they are structured individually. Overall the visual focus of the painting is Timur: by means of “block- ing”18 the figures on the left-hand page into diagonal groups the painter directs the overall current from left to right, leading the eye of the viewer towards Timur; and on the right- hand page the furnishings and figures create an enclosing semi-circle around his throne, where he sits alone in state. However each page has its own, separate underlying structure that determines the exact placing of the figures and quasi-architectural elements (the tent, awning and portal). Both pages use a system of grouping the subject matter according to equal vertical divisions; however the right page is both more complicated and less coherent in its organi- zation than the left. It can be divided into three horizontal bands, each of which has its own vertical divisions (fig. 10). The lowest band is the clearest: the four figures standing at the bottom divide this part of the painting into quarters. The middle band, which includes Timur and the doorway behind him, is divided into equal thirds, with Timur occupying the centre third alone. The top band also is divided equally into thirds, but because this part of the painting has a wider left margin than the rest, the thirds here are rather bigger. The choice of these particular divisions seems rather arbitrary, and if anything creates a sense of confu- sion rather than order; however the divisions do in fact determine some of the plotting of both the figures and the man-made furnishings. As fig. 10 shows, features such as the edge of Timur’s personal cushion, the right leg of the throne, the top of the doorway, the points of the tent and the smoke flap and the leftmost point of the awning are all decided by these ‘hidden’ vertical lines. However, other important plotting points, such as the corners of the carpets and the sides of the tent, do not seem to correspond particularly with this scheme at all. On the whole the relationship between the scene and its mathematical divisions seems rather uneasy. Conversely, the left page is much simpler, clearer and cohesive. This page is also divided into equal vertical zones (thirds), with the figures grouped to fall into these divi- sions (fig. 11). This is especially clear in the upper part. Here the only building in the scene delineates exactly one third of the page (and is itself divided into a further three equal parts by the foreshortened door and the doorway). The tree and the courtiers beneath it occupy the middle third, and the two sitting separately inhabit the last. Below all this the large group of figures, that together form a continuous upward sweep, also fall into the same three divisions. These are defined here by the different dynamics of each sub-group of figures within the larger group. The first division on the left, dominated by the grey horse, contrasts with the four middle figures who make a rough parallelogram; and the last group is again a contrast, with the kneeling courtiers forming a tightly packed diagonal line. The employment of a very few simple disguising devices camouflages any obvious lines created by the mathematical nature of the composition. Courtier A (marked in fig. 11) at the bottom of the tree trunk overlaps exactly the dividing line between the first and sec-

18 Hillenbrand, “The uses of space", 80-83, 94. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 41 ond thirds, thus creating immediately an effective blurring of the vertical divisions (fulfill- ing the same function as the courtier in blue in ‘Iskandar and the Seven Sages’). The under- lying structure is virtually hidden. Likewise, in the lower half, the divisions are blurred by the trays of food: here these devices not only soften the groupings but also provide dynamic links from one to the next, thus creating a flow of energy throughout the general upward sweep of the figures. While the figures in both this painting and ‘Iskandar and the Seven Sages’ are ar- ranged according to mathematically calculated vertical divisions, there is one vital differ- ence. In ‘Iskandar and the Seven Sages’ the mathematics are applied to create a visual focus using the figures. The use of a simple disguise then prevents any rigidity or monotony that could result. However, in ‘In Timur Granting an Audience’, the mathematics do not seem to give the painting much visual focus or coherence. In the right page the mathematical divi- sions seem rather arbitrary, and in the left page it is in fact the disguising device of the trays that creates a current for the eye to grasp. The division of the pages into thirds and quarters and the arranging of the figures accordingly correspond to little visual meaning at all. It could have a non-visual meaning, as the complex mathematics of ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ and ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ must do; yet the simplicity of the system of vertical divisions here make that seem unlikely. There is, it seems, no mystery or hidden complexity of meaning in this mathematical organization. ‘Timur Granting an Audience’ hovers between a simple, visually based organisation of the figures (the different dynamics in the sub-groups in the left page and the semi-circle of figures in the right) and a mathematical, conceptual organization, but with doubtful success. It should by now be apparent that the linear nature of architecture lends itself to a very definite type of composition, often mathematically conceived, and that in a painting such as ‘Timur Granting an Audience’ with its garden setting, where it is mostly the figures that take on an architectural role, the composition is looser and the mathematics are of necessity far more basic. It would seem that the complexity of a mathematical composition is in direct relation to the importance of linear elements in a painting. However, is it only the formal characteristics of a painting that determine the nature of its composition, or is there a par- ticular aesthetic also at work? In a painting such as ‘Timur Granting an Audience’, the garden setting with tents, doorways and figures is a cross between an architectural setting and a landscape, and therefore a cross between the artificial, man-made setting and that of nature itself. Does the basic character and relative weakness of the mathematical structure in this painting therefore express a conflict (or compromise) between two separate worlds, and therefore two separate aesthetic approaches: a mathematically controlled structure for architecture, and an organic fluid composition for landscape? This may seem rather unlikely, yet in some pre-Timurid paintings the inclusion of two contrasting architectural and garden sections in the same painting have been interpreted to represent respectively the vicious circle of greed in the material world and the freedom and purity of the spiritual world.19 This is expressed formally in the contrast between linear and angular architecture, enclosed by the paintings’ margins, and the uninhibited and spi-

19 J.S. Cowen, Kalila wa Dimna: an animal allegory of the Mongol court (New York and Oxford, 1989), 48. 42 SARAH CHAPMAN ralling blossoming trees and bushes growing without restriction. In ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ the human part of the painting, enclosed in the architecture, is controlled algebraically and geometrically, but the area outside the fence, where the tree grows, is significantly untouched by any such regularity. In ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eaves- dropping Master’ too, the trees — again outside the courtyard and therefore outside the enclosed human concerns — are not part of the world controlled (structurally) by the Mas- ter. Landscape, therefore, could be interpreted by the Persian painter as ‘free,’ both for- mally and metaphorically. Thus a painting such as ‘Timur Granting an Audience,’ where the trappings of human life are placed in a natural setting, and which seems to incorporate both the fluidity of landscape and some of the mathematics of an architectural composition, could be interpreted as being either just a semi-successful attempt at a mathematical com- position, or a deliberate aesthetic statement. Another painting which combines both a landscape setting and a mathematical con- ception is ‘Shirin Views Khusraw’s Portrait’ (pl. 5) from the Khamsa of Nizami (900/1494- 5, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 39b).20 Although set in the relatively natural surroundings of a garden with no tents or buildings, it shows elements of the vertical linear structure, along with geometrically arranged figures, that appears so often in paintings with architectural settings. In this painting, the vertical element is very simple and depends on a “hidden structural line”,21 one where we are “actually experiencing a guided perception without any visual disturbances occurring within the composition”.22 We perceive this vertical current through the regular lines of the text panels and the tree trunks. Beneath this there is yet another ‘hidden structural line,’ this time diagonal, flowing from top left to bottom right through the rocks, the stream and Shirin herself. This painting also has the geometric shape of figures that is so characteristic of archi- tectural scenes — here the figures create a circle. Interestingly, although the fluid nature of the features in this painting gives the impression that there is no real mathematical concep- tion, the painting is still mathematically devised, albeit on a very basic level. The artist has arranged some of the features in the painting around an invisible central vertical line (figure 12). This, together with the ‘hidden structural lines’ and the circle of figures, creates an underlying order, even though the overall visual impression of the painting is of free land- scape. Interestingly, although the carpet in this painting stands out as strong and linear, it does not seem to be placed according to any particular mathematical arrangement, either vertically or horizontally. Is the understated but discernible underlying order in this painting a watered-down version of the sort of tight mathematical construction seen in, for example, ‘The Celebra- tion of the Birth of Majnun’, or is it a compromise between an aesthetic of free, uninhibited space and the control of a mathematical sructure? The scene itself is a contradiction be- tween the natural and artificial. It takes place out of doors in what seems to be a sort of tame wilderness. There is not a building in sight. The ground is covered regularly with small plants and the horizon consists of rocks at the top left-hand corner with a stream issuing

20 Lentz and Lowry, Timur, 277. 21 Zain, Formal values, 13. 22 Ibid., 17. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 43 forth from the hill, flanked by trees and a bush. While the rocky spring appears completely natural, the bush does not. The painter has taken great care to paint a bush that had once been a tree (natural), but which has been chopped down and now has new growth sprouting from the base (human intervention). Thus even in the landscape there is evidence of contra- diction or conflict between the natural and the artificial. In even greater contrast to the ‘natural’ setting of a landscape is Shirin, waited upon by servants with food, drink and wine — the sort of scene would expect to find in an indoor room or at least a courtyard. Shirin is seated on a geometrically patterned carpet and cushions, and there is a tray and a porcelain vase with flowers in it set upon the ground, already covered naturally with plants and flow- ers. The overall impression is of a transitory, luxurious artificiality imposed upon a land- scape that is itself paradoxically both natural and manufactured. The contradiction seems to be deliberately expressed even further in the echoes of a controlled and mathematically structured composition. Yet another painting which demonstrates this contradiction between mathematical control and freer space is ‘Iskandar Visiting the Hermit’ (pl.6) from the Khamsa of Nizami (900/1494-95, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 273a). The painting shows a landscape consisting of rampant undergrowth and rocks, with a glade at the bottom containing Iskandar, his retinue and the hermit in his cave. The whole is surmounted by a compli- cated castle with figures on the battlements. Here, the paradox does not occur as a result of inherent contradictions in setting and structure, as in ‘Shirin Views Khusraw’s Portrait’; but in the completely different approaches in structure between the human beings and buildings (mathematically conceived) and the landscape (free, or at least very loosely organized). As fig. 13 shows, the mathematics behind the placing of the figures and the architec- ture is derived from the text panels. In her study of Shiraz paintings Guest writes that, in contrast to earlier Timurid artists, “the painters from … discarded the strict control of the text-area measurements to gain a greater freedom of composition within the enclosing frame. Areas of text are, it is true, introduced into their painted areas but as subordinate to the design rather than masters of it”.23 In this painting the text panels certainly appear “sub- ordinate to the design”, but, upon close examination, are in fact found to dominate it, though very subtly. As fig. 13 shows, if the text is repeated twice to the left, the “hidden structural lines” arising from the vertical divisions provide the plotting for some of the architecture and other linear elements (even the lantern pole at the bottom of the painting!). The figures are also arranged by this method. Thus the text, while appearing insignificant, in fact pro- vides a key to the painting’s structure. The “hidden structural lines” are also taken a step further: they not only guide our perceptions (as in ‘Shirin Views Khusraw’s Portrait’) but also provide a concrete structural basis for much of the painting. The influence of the text panels does not stop here, however. The text panel seems to provide a key measurement (width X) which is used again and again in plotting the features of the painting (fig. 14). This technique is noted by Guest to be a characteristic of Persian painting, a measurement “repeated in a kind of counterpoint throughout the design”24 and is

23 Guest, Shiraz painting, 27-28. 24 Ibid., 25. 44 SARAH CHAPMAN found by Adle to be the structural key to many hunting and sport scenes.25 In this respect it seems to take on the role of a painterly equivalent to the architect’s “module”.26 In contrast, the wild landscape between Iskandar’s party and the castle is rampant, riotous and apparently unstructured, suggesting not only the distance Iskandar has travelled and the difficulties he has surmounted to reach the hermit, but also the impregnable strength of the fortress which he is unable to conquer. In fact, although the landscape is not subject to any precise or dominating mathematical control, there is a general structure that assists the overall composition. The rocks, the cave and the tree all make a mass of sweeping curves which embrace the whole of the lower half of the painting and create the glade in which the interview takes place. The circular motion that leads the eye around the lower half of the painting leads also to the tree, which in its turn sweeps us up its trunk to the castle in yet another hidden structural line. The structure of the landscape, however, is vague and embracing rather than precise and plotted. The contrast between the elaborate and painstaking mathematical structure of the human parts of the painting (artificial, and in the context of this particular tale of Iskandar’s greed for conquest, materialist) and the vigorous, rampant quality of the landscape (natural, unconstrained) is so strong and deliberate that it is very likely to have a further metaphorical significance. According to Lentz, “like geometry, the poetic vision in Persian painting does not appear to be a wholly spontaneous product of the painter’s imagination but a process and formula that could be applied to painting”.27 This would seem to confirm that the pres- ence of mathematical control in architectural paintings and the absence of it in landscapes is not only a formal but also an aesthetic, and perhaps poetic, practice.

CONCLUSION

Close analysis of the composition in these paintings shows that many contain a highly or- ganized and rationalized mathematical structure, sometimes on many levels: geometrically, algebraically or diagrammatically. In ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ and ‘Bath- ing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ it transpires that there are in fact two separate types of mathematical organization: a bold, dramatic geometric shape created by the figures, and a more precise, complex but less visible controlling structure. The ‘con- cealed’ nature of this second type of structure raises the problem of the importance of the viewer: in ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ especially, it seems highly unlikely that the artist could have expected the structure to be appreciated by most viewers. Did the artist intend that there should be an element of mystery to the organization of the painting? In both these paintings there is also an area unaffected by the mathematical structure: the trees. The lack of mathematical control over the natural part of these paintings suggests that the Persian painter associated mathematical control with the materialist human world,

25 Adle, “Recherche”, passim. 26 L. Golombek and D. Wilber, The Timurid Architecture of Iran and Turan (Princeton, New Jersey, 1988), I, 139. 27 T.L. Lentz, Painting in Herat under ibn Shahrukh (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1985), pp. 267-8. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 45 and that freedom from formal control can express a poetic idea of the freedom of the natural world. Analysis of the dual elements of mathematical structure and the more natural land- scape in ‘Timur Granting an Audience’ and ‘Shirin Viewing Khusraw’s Portrait’ seems to confirm this. In the former, the transitory scene of figures and tents seems to be reflected in the basic mathematical division of the natural setting, and in the efforts of the painter to disguise this. In ‘Shirin Viewing Khusraw’s Portrait’ the conflict between the natural and the artificial seems to be expressed not only in the painter’s introduction of a rudimentary mathematical structure but also in the contradictions between the artificial and the natural in the subject matter and setting. The last painting to be analysed, ‘Iskandar Visiting the Hermit’, expresses the conflict between the artificial and the natural most succinctly. In this painting, the two areas of human activity, the unconquered castle in the background and Iskandar and his retinue in the foreground, are organized according to a mathematical plan of precise and repeated measurements. However these two areas, representing Iskandar’s future ambition and his present dissatisfaction, are separated by a mass of rampant undergrowth and formidable rocks, uncontrolled by any mathematical structure. This area not only demonstrates the Persian painter’s rejection of formal control in landscape but is also a metaphor for the futility of Iskandar’s worldly ambition.

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1. ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ (Amir Khusrauw Dihlavi, Layla u Majnun, Chester Beatty Library, MS 163, f. 104v, 890-1/1485) (after Bahari, Bihzad. Master of Persian Painting, p. 26, pl. 26) Plate 2. ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 190a, 900/1494-5) (after Lentz and Lowry, Timur and the princely vision, p. 275) Plate 3. ‘Iskandar and the Seven Sages’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 214r, 900/ 1494-5) (after Bahari, Bihzad. Master of Persian Painting, p. 153, pl. 88) Plate 4. ‘Timur Granting an Audience in Balkh on the Occasion of his Accession to Power in April 1370’ (Sharaf al-Din {Ali Yazdi, Zafarnama, Johns Hopkins University, Milton S. Eisen- hower Library, John Work Garrett Collection, ff. 82b-83a, 872/1467-8) (after Lentz and Lowry, Timur and the princely vision, pp. 264-5) Plate 5. ‘Shirin Views Khusraw’s Portrait’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 39b, 900/1494-5) (after Lentz and Lowry, Timur and the princely vision, p. 277) Plate 6. ‘Iskandar Visiting the Hermit’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 273a, 900/ 1494-5) (after Lentz and Lowry, Timur and the princely vision, p. 250)

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1a ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ (Amir Khusrauw Dihlavi, Layla u Majnun, Ches- ter Beatty Library, MS 163, f. 104v, 890-1/1485): the plotting of red to draw the eye along the triangular shapes created by the figures. Fig. 1b. ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’: the plotting of yellow to draw the eye along the triangular shape created by the figures. 46 SARAH CHAPMAN

Fig. 2. ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’: the algebraic pattern of distances A and B. Fig. 3. ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’: the baby lies virtually at the centre of the paint- ing. Fig. 4. ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 190a, 900/1494-5): the zigzag shape created by the figures. Fig. 5. ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’: horizontal and vertical axes leading from the Master’s eye. Fig. 6. ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’: bisection of pool and 80° tri- angle provides further architectural plotting. Fig. 7. ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’: the entire building can be understood with reference to the Master’s eye. Fig. 8. ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ (Nizami, Khamsa, Metropoli- tan Museum of Art, gift of Alexander Cochran, 1913, 13.228.13, f. 47a, c. 831-56/1425- 50). Fig. 9. ‘Iskandar and the Seven Sages’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 214r, 900/ 1494-5): division of the lower half of the painting into quarters. Fig. 10. ‘Timur Granting an Audience in Balkh on the Occasion of his Accession to Power in April 1370’ (Sharaf al-Din {Ali Yazdi, Zafarnama, Johns Hopkins University, Milton S. Eisen- hower Library, John Work Garrett Collection, ff. 82b-83a, 872/1467-8): division of the right-hand page into different horizontal bands, each with different vertical divisions. Fig. 11. ‘Timur Granting an Audience in Balkh on the Occasion of his Accession to Power in April 1370’: division of the left-hand page into thirds. Fig. 12. ‘Shirin Views Khusraw’s Portrait’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 39b, 900/1494-5): the hidden central line. Fig. 13. ‘Iskandar Visiting the Hermit’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 273a, 900/ 1494-5): the structure of the painting is derived from the width of the text panels. Fig. 14. ‘Iskandar Visiting the Hermit’: the use of width X as a “counterpoint” throughout the painting. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 47

Plate 1. The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ (Amir Khusrauw Dihlavi, Layla u Majnun, Chester Beatty Library, MS 163, f. 104v, 890-1/1485) (after Bahari, Bihzad. Master of Persian painting, p. 26, pl. 26) 48 SARAH CHAPMAN

Plate 2. ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 190a, 900/1494-5) (after Lentz and Lowry, Timur and the princely vision, p. 275) TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 49

Plate 3. ‘Iskandar and the Seven Sages’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 214r, 900/1494-5) (after Bahari, Bihzad. Master of Persian painting, p. 153, pl. 88) 50 SARAH CHAPMAN

Plate 4. ‘Timur Granting an Audience in Balkh on the Occasion of his Accession to Power in April 1370’ (Sharaf al-Din {Ali Yazdi, Zafarnama, Johns Hopkins University, Milton S. Eisenhower Library, John Work Garrett Collection, ff. 82b-83a, 872/1467-8) (after Lentz and Lowry, Timur and the princely vision, pp. 264-5) TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 51 52 SARAH CHAPMAN

Plate 5. ‘Shirin Views Khusraw’s Portrait’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 39b, 900/1494-5) (after Lentz and Lowry, Timur and the princely vision, p. 277) TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 53

Plate 6. ‘Iskandar Visiting the Hermit’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 273a, 900/1494-5) (after Lentz and Lowry, Timur and the princely vision, p. 250) 54 SARAH CHAPMAN

Fig. 1a ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’ (Amir Khusrauw Dihlavi, Layla u Majnun, Chester Beatty Library, MS 163, f. 104v, 890-1/1485): the plotting of red to draw the eye along the triangular shapes created by the figures. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 55

Fig. 1b. ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’: the plotting of yellow to draw the eye along the triangular shape created by the figures. 56 SARAH CHAPMAN

Fig. 2. ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’: the algebraic pattern of distances A and B. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 57

Fig. 3. ‘The Celebration of the Birth of Majnun’: the baby lies virtually at the centre of the painting. 58 SARAH CHAPMAN

Fig. 4. ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 190a, 900/1494-5): the zigzag shape created by the figures. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 59

Fig. 5. ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’: horizontal and vertical axes leading from the Master’s eye. 60 SARAH CHAPMAN

Fig. 6. ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’: bisection of pool and 80° triangle provides further architectural plotting. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 61

Fig. 7. ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’: the entire building can be understood with reference to the Master’s eye. 62 SARAH CHAPMAN

Fig. 8. ‘Bathing Maidens Observed by the Eavesdropping Master’ (Nizami, Khamsa, Metropolitan Museum of Art, gift of Alexander Cochran, 1913, 13.228.13, f. 47a, c. 831-56/1425-50). TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 63

Fig. 9. ‘Iskandar and the Seven Sages’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 214r, 900/1494-5): division of the lower half of the painting into quarters. 64 SARAH CHAPMAN

Fig. 10. ‘Timur Granting an Audience in Balkh on the Occasion of his Accession to Power in April 1370’ (Sharaf al-Din {Ali Yazdi, Zafarnama, Johns Hopkins University, Milton S. Eisenhower Library, John Work Garrett Collection, ff. 82b-83a, 872/1467-8): division of the right-hand page into different horizontal bands, each with different vertical divisions. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 65

Fig. 11. ‘Timur Granting an Audience in Balkh on the Occasion of his Accession to Power in April 1370’: division of the left-hand page into thirds. 66 SARAH CHAPMAN

Fig. 12. ‘Shirin Views Khusraw’s Portrait’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 39b, 900/1494-5): the hidden central line. TIMURID MINIATURE PAINTING 67

Fig. 13. ‘Iskandar Visiting the Hermit’ (Nizami, Khamsa, British Library, Or. 6810, f. 273a, 900/1494-5): the structure of the painting is derived from the width of the text panels. 68 SARAH CHAPMAN

Fig. 14. ‘Iskandar Visiting the Hermit’: the use of width X as a “counterpoint” throughout the painting.