An example of this last category could be “Jahangir Preferring a Sufi Shaikh to Kings” (fig. 10).7 At the center is Jahangir enthroned, his physiognomy in the strict profile known from many paintings and even — quite unusually — from gold coins. His head is the only one to be surrounded by a halo, and he is slight- ly larger than the other figures, a phenomenon that is called hierarchical or significance perspective. He is extending a book to Shaykh Husayn of the Chishti order, which played an essential role in the life of the imperial family. Below is an imaginary depiction of an Ottoman sultan, presumably inspired by a Euro- pean model, and in front is a portrait of King James I, copied directly from a contemporary painting brought to India by the English ambassador, Thom- as Roe. At the lower left-hand corner, Bichitr placed a portrait of himself, a custom that became common in the ensuing years, though often with these artist portraits more modestly included in the imperial of the same event from the time of Bahadur Shah (r. made at the Muslim courts could be harrowing in albums as margin decorations.8 A painting like this 1707–1712).10 their realism if the patron wished, and similar hor- one can be viewed as a kind of sophisticated propa- Jahangir, whose character is also familiar from rifying depictions from battlefields are also found in ganda, and this was true to an even greater extent in his autobiography, Jahangirnama or Tuzuk-i Jahangiri, some of the historical manuscripts of the period (e.g. a contemporary miniature on which Jahangir frater- was highly interested in nature, both flora and fau- cat. 43). nally embraces Persia’s Shah Abbas, who, however, na, and they were often depicted by his artists with The religious tolerance and openness to outside is shown somewhat smaller and clearly subordinate a great feel for realism. An almost uncanny natural- influence that had largely characterized art and its to the Mughal emperor.9 Audience scenes (darbar) ism is expressed in the depiction of one of Jahangir’s human depictions under Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah provided an occasion to bring together portraits of courtiers, Inayat Khan. He had become addicted to Jahan subsided under the last of the truly powerful the court’s important men in a single composition, opium, and in the course of a fairly short time was Mughal emperors, the orthodox Muslim Aurangzeb at the same time as the emperor himself, often with transformed from a handsome young courtier into a (r. 1658–1707). Interest in naturalistic depictions of one or more sons, shown in all their glory. The Pad- living corpse. When Jahangir saw Inayat Khan shortly reality decreased and more emphasis was placed in shahnama, which was painted under Shah Jahan, es- before his death, he found the experience so remark- painting in the ensuing centuries on formal quali- pecially excels in these events with detailed portraits, able that he asked one of his artists to document it ties, lyrical moods, and stylized, idealized depictions and cat. 38 shows a later and more idealized version (fig 11).11 The painting is clear evidence that portraits (cats. 38, 50, 53, and 49). This was a development that

Fig. 10 “Jahangir Preferring a Sufi Shaikh to Kings.” Fig. 11 “The Dying Inayat Khan.” Attributed to Balchand Painted by Bichitr India, Mughal; 1618 India, Mughal; c. 1615–1618 The Bodleian Libraries, The University of Oxford, Ms. Ouseley Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. F1942.15a Add. 171, fol. 4v.

37