The Soas Anv@R-I Suhaylµ: the Journey of a “Reincarnated” Manuscript

the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 331

MIKA NATIF

THE SOAS ANV@R-I SUHAYLµ: THE JOURNEY OF A “REINCARNATED” MANUSCRIPT

Recognized as one of the masterpieces of early Mughal these characteristics pose, I will link this codex to sim- painting, the manuscript of the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº (Lights ilar books that may shed light on it and explain its of Canopus) now in the Library of the School of Ori- peculiarity. Next I will demonstrate the existence of ental and African Studies (SOAS) is the focal point of two different styles in the paintings, identify the ori- this essay.1 The great beauty, elegance, and style of its gin of these styles, and establish a new chronology and twenty-seven illustrations have attracted the attention history for the manuscript as a whole. Ultimately, I will of many scholars of Islamic art. Reputed to embody discuss these ideas in the broader context of the art the fusion of Persianate style with local indigenous of the book and consider their implications for our Indic motifs, all twenty-seven paintings are dated by understanding of early-Akbar-period painting. art historians, in accordance with the manuscript’s The stories of the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº were written by colophon, to 978 (1570).2 A careful inspection of the Kamal al-Din Husayn ibn Ali al-Va}iz, known also as SOAS paintings, however, yields a somewhat different Kashifi , by the end of the fi fteenth or early sixteenth chronology for the manuscript and its illustrations and century, probably in Timurid Herat.4 The work itself is by extension forces us to reevaluate the conventional dedicated to Amir Suhayli (hence its title), who com- narrative of early-Akbar-period painting. These minia- missioned Kashifi to rewrite, in up-to-date language, tures also invite a reassessment of the history not only the stories of Kalºla wa Dimna.5 These fables, involv- of this book but also, more generally, of illustrated ing humans and animals, often have surprising and manuscripts in sixteenth-century Central Asia, Iran, somewhat harsh conclusions and morals.6 In this essay and Mughal India; they carry broad implications with I will not deal with the content of these stories, as fas- respect to style, aesthetic criteria, cultural geography, cinating as they are, or with their transformation into and the importance of the hand-written word—i.e., images, but rather will examine the physicality of the the conscious preference for hand-copied, rather than book and the style and layout of the paintings, which printed, manuscripts. will serve as a key for understanding this manuscript Scrutinizing paintings for small optical units and and the early period of Mughal painting.7 engaging in a detailed study of each element in every Scholars have tended to approach the twenty-seven painting constitutes the core of the methodology miniature paintings in the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº as a that I have been developing and practicing together homogeneous group and to classify them as still retain- with Oleg Grabar since our fi rst joint project.3 The ing strong Persian characteristics with respect to their underlying theory holds that nothing in a painting style, composition, and palette. Such a categorization is redundant or accidental; its presence is the result conforms only superfi cially with the master narrative of conscious decisions made by the artist or artists. regarding the birth of Mughal painting, according to A meticulous identifi cation and understanding of which this art was developed under the close guidance the functionality of all visual features in any illustra- and supervision of two Safavid painters, Mir Sayyid {Ali tion will reveal the processes by which artists formu- and {Abd al-Samad, who were brought to the Mughal lated specifi c approaches to their work. This method court by Humayun, and to whom the establishment allows us to reconstruct a history for illustrated man- of the Mughal atelier is credited. uscripts, and the present essay is a further step in this A closer analysis of the manuscript’s illustrations reconstruction. reveals that two of the twenty-seven paintings (folios After presenting the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº, its dis- 28a and 40a, fi gs. 1 and 2) were painted in a style dif- tinctive and unusual characteristics, and the questions ferent from that of the rest of the illustrations and thus 332 mika natif

Fig. 1. The Young Hawk Steals the Bird from the King’s Hawk, fol. 28a, Anv¸r-i Suhaylº, copied in 1570. School of Oriental and African Studies, ms. no. 10102. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 333

Fig. 2. The Monkey and the Carpenter, fol. 40a, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) 334 mika natif raise fundamental questions regarding the history of smaller scale, dimensionality is transformed through the manuscript, the date of the paintings, and their the rendering of each stone in several tones or shades artists.8 The unusual layout of the remaining twenty-fi ve of color, giving it the illusion of volume and weight pictures further indicates a change from the original (fi gs. 6 and 7). Depictions of architectural structures design of this codex. Although several scholars have in these paintings further suggest that the artists were noticed the stylistic difference, they have explained it aware of and interested in conveying the illusion of a in terms of a change in fashion and taste dictated by three-dimensional environment, using some kind of Emperor Akbar himself and have portrayed the devel- perspective and foreshortening (fi gs. 8 and 9). opment of style in Akbar’s atelier as a linear progres- The layout of the Mughal-style illustrations points sion, moving from a Persianate style into a unifi ed to an important feature of their production process. Mughal idiom. A careful examination of folio 93v (fi g. 4) reveals the At fi rst glance, the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº paintings appear existence of two frames on a single page. The inner to embody and exemplify this assumed trajectory of frame includes most of the painted surface as well as development and evolution. However, this Darwin- a text panel at the lower section of the page. Even ian approach has prevented scholars from examin- though parts of the right side of this frame are cov- ing the manuscript and its illustrations in a historical ered, having been painted over, its upper right cor- and cultural context that might provide a more reli- ner is clearly visible below the fl ying bird carrying a able explanation for the existence of two different piece of skin. A second, larger, frame encompasses styles of paintings in one manuscript. Furthermore, the entire painted area but excludes the text box.10 the placement of the two odd paintings in the open- Other compositions also extend beyond the outlines ing section of the book suggests that changes occurred of their text panels and make use of them in artful in the process of the making of this manuscript. I will ways (e.g., fi gs. 6 and 8). This is an unusual layout fi rst deal with the unusual features of the “Mughal- for Mughal illustrations dated to the 1570s, and the looking” paintings and only then turn to an expla- SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº paintings stand apart from oth- nation of the two odd paintings at the beginning of ers produced in that early period. the manuscript. Scenes that depict architecture in the manuscript Striking in their peculiar layout, the twenty-fi ve are usually contained within the small frame of the Mughal-style paintings extend beyond the text or image text panel, although three have extensions that go frame and into the margins (see, for example, fi gs. beyond that frame (fi gs. 8–10). In these illustrations, 3 and 14). The manuscript contains no attributions, the text panels are manipulated so as to constitute either contemporary or later, to artists,9 giving pause integral parts of the building and are neither super- to art historians working in the so-called connoisseur- imposed on the page nor blocking parts of the pic- ship tradition, which bestows great importance to the ture (as they do elsewhere—e.g., in fi g. 7). When this practice of linking artists with specifi c paintings. feature is compared with illustrated pages from a con- The Mughal-style illustrations form a stylistically temporary D¸r¸bn¸ma of ca. 1577–80 (now in the Brit- coherent group, and they share several distinctive ish Library, Or. 4615), the text panels of the latter, features. Some of their common characteristics can like those of the B¸burn¸ma and other Mughal man- be seen in the treatment of pictorial space and the uscripts, do not interact with or form an organic part rendering of landscape. There is an attempt to con- of the illustration per se,11 but rather give the impres- vey volume, depth, and three-dimensionality in depic- sion of being superimposed on or even pasted over it tions of architecture as well as in landscape. Instead (which is literally true of some Akbarn¸ma pages). of layering the fl at elements of the composition one With this unusual layout, twenty-two of the twenty- above the other, as in folios 28a and 40a (fi gs. 1 and seven illustrations of the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº occupy 2), the artists of the Mughal-style paintings created a larger space than the one originally designated for spaces and recessions in which landscape frames the them. Unlike the large text panels of the D¸r¸bn¸ma, painting and defi nes the pictorial space and its bor- the outlines of the text blocks in the SOAS codex leave ders (fi gs. 3–5). Depth is suggested by rocks that are suffi cient space for illustration, so there was no actual usually arranged in an encircling composition, sepa- need to expand the paintings and make them fl ow rating foreground from middle ground and creating beyond these boundaries. Therefore it is likely that a a barrier in front of an opaque background. On a decision was made to change the format of the manu- the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 335

Fig. 3. The Camel’s Sacrifice, fol. 75a, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) 336 mika natif

Fig. 4. The Greedy Fox Watches the Kite Fly Off with a Piece of Skin, fol. 93b, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 337

Fig. 5. The Monkey Steals the Loot from the Bandits, fol. 333a, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) 338 mika natif

Fig. 6. The Concerted Action of the Pigeons Caught in the Net, fol. 123a, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 339

Fig. 7. The Sick Lion, the Fox, and the Donkey, fol. 211b, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) 340 mika natif

Fig. 8. The Thief, the Merchant, and His Wife, fol. 172a, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 341

Fig. 9. The Thief Who Saved the King from His Foolish Monkey, fol. 199b, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) 342 mika natif

Fig. 10. The Goldsmith Treacherously Accuses the Pilgrim of the Murder of the Princess, fol. 334a, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 343 script as originally planned and expand the paintings. uscript (folio 36a, not illustrated here), and after John Seyller argues that this elaboration of the com- that from the eighth painting onward.17 Seyller inter- positional fi eld was an experiment that progressed in prets this phenomenon to mean that “the illumina- linear fashion as the manuscript was being created.12 tion proceeded slowly enough to allow the artists to This argument is not supported by the physical appear- react quickly to each other’s work.”18 He further sug- ance of the manuscript as a whole, however; in con- gests that because of the increased painted area on trast to Seyller, Karl Khandalavala and Kalpana Desai folio 36a, the calligrapher decided to leave more free claim that the expansion of the paintings was under- space for the artists and incorporate less text on subse- taken after the originals were fi nished.13 quent pages that were to be illustrated.19 He explains In spite of the peculiarity of imbedded text blocks, this alteration as a response to the artists’ dissatisfac- buildings represented in the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº may tion with the paintings’ appearance, or a reaction to be linked to actual monuments that served as their demands made by a patron.20 models or sources of inspiration. Walls, domes, cha- Considering the type of work the artists were pro- tris (domed roof kiosks), crenellations, columns, and ducing, the cost, and the careful advance prepara- the use of red stone point to Akbar-style architecture, tions, all of which were factors in the production of and even more specifi cally to the monuments of Fateh- such a book, Seyller’s argument seems implausible. pur Sikri, reduced in scale and monumentality and Why would the artists experiment on a such a precious converted into more personal, intimate spaces. For manuscript when they could test their innovations example, the main iwan wall of the Jami{a Masjid in elsewhere? And why would the calligrapher not leave Fatehpur Sikri, topped by crenellations and chatris, enough space for all the paintings if he were work- as well as the arches and crenellations of the Abdar ing very closely with the artists? Seyller furthermore Khana (water house), resemble the architecture rep- ignores the oddness of the fi rst and third paintings resented on folio 172a (fi g. 8). It is clear that in these in the manuscript (folios 28a and 40a, fi gs. 1 and 2), paintings we are looking at representations of a spe- which have little in common with the rest of the illus- cifi cally Mughal world. trations stylistically. He argues that “the steady reduc- Distinctive features of the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº such as tion of text on illuminated pages leaves little doubt the treatment of the text panels and their incorpora- that the scribe, Muhibb Allah b. Hasan, was writing tion into the architecture can also be seen in a Khamsa out the text of the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº even as the paint- of Nizami now in the Keir Collection.14 Of all early- ings were being executed.”21 Akbar-period manuscripts, this is the most important for This hypothesis stands in contrast to what we actu- aiding our understanding of the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº ally see in the manuscript, including the strange place- from a historical and visual point of view. Several of ment in the text of such images as The Monkey and the its paintings, like those of the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº, expand Carpenter (folio 40a); The Thief, the Merchant, and His beyond the text frame (fi g. 11). Not only do the illus- Wife (folio 172a); or The Wolf, the Hunter, the Deer, and trations fl ow farther away from the text panels, but the the Boar (folio 137b) (fi gs. 2, 8, and 13). On folio 40a, text blocks are incorporated into the painted areas in for example, the illustration represents a later moment the same manner as in the SOAS manuscript—part in the story and does not correlate to the text: the of a fence in Bahram Gur in the Black Pavilion in the monkey (with a companion) is shown caught by the Khamsa (fi g. 12), or of iwan walls on folios 172a, 199b, carpenter and beaten, although the text around it and 334a of the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº (fi gs. 8–10).15 has not yet reached that point in the story. Seyller On stylistic grounds, Robert Skelton initially dated the explains this oddity as an “iconographic corruption Mughal-style paintings from the Keir Khamsa to ca. of a familiar motif” that occurs only once in the illus- 1590–95, but after noticing an inscription on one of trations of this manuscript, but he fails to remark on the paintings, he redated them to 1584–86.16 the visual peculiarity of this painting with respect to The size of the text blocks on the illustrated pages the others.22 of the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº and their proportion with The Keir Khamsa and the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº respect to the paintings are signifi cant features, accord- illustrations share a similar defi nition and organiza- ing to Seyller. He perceives that the new method of tion of space. Both employ layering and recession to expanding the painted surface beyond the text-block convey depth; in both, trees, rocks, and architecture frame was used in the second painting in the man- in the remote background are rendered smaller than 344 mika natif

Fig. 11. Bahram Gur Slays the Dragon, fol. 177b, Khamsa of Nizami, Keir Collection. (After B. W. Robinson, ed., Islamic Painting and the Arts of the Book [London: Faber and Faber, 1979], V.22, pl. 114) the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 345

Fig. 12. Bahram Gur in the Black Pavilion, fol. 195b, Khamsa of Nizami, Keir Collection. (After Robinson, Islamic Painting and the Arts of the Book, V.26, pl. 115) 346 mika natif

Fig. 13. The Wolf, the Hunter, the Deer, and the Boar, fol. 137b, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 347 those meant to appear closer to the viewer. Architec- Mughals acquired numerous books from Iran and Cen- tural settings are also very much alike, featuring open tral Asia and added to them paintings or illumina- rooms with doors in the middle and crenellations and tions, as was the case with the Keir Khamsa.29 Another small domes at the top; the framing of these rooms example of extended production is a B¢st¸n of Sa{di and their inner decoration and furniture, as well as dated to 1531–32, copied in Bukhara: its three illus- tiled courts, walls, and gates, are all similar and com- trations, painted by Shaykh-Zada around 1540, were parably organized spatially.23 retouched and repainted by Bishandas ca. 1620.30 Some paintings in the Khamsa and the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº A manuscript of Jami’s Tu¥fat al-Ahr¸r initially cop- are so similar in composition that they appear to mirror ied in Bukhara by Sultan Muhammad Nur al-Katib each other. For example, the composition of Anv¸r-i and dated 921 (1515–16) also has three miniatures, Suhaylº folio 172a (fi g. 8), in which the thief crawls which were probably painted in Bukhara ca. 1560.31 into the couple’s bedroom, is a near mirror-image of These manuscripts were in the possession of Akbar’s the Khamsa’s Khusraw and Shirin in bed.24 In setting, son Sultan Murad, after whose death in 1599 they the Khamsa illustration of Bahram Gur Slays the Dragon were brought to the royal library.32 Other examples of (fi g. 11) corresponds to the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº illustra- “reincarnated” works include a Khamsa of Nizami now tions of The King Who Killed His Hawk, The Farmer’s in the India Offi ce Library (no. 384), copied by Mir Unfaithful Wife, and The Horseman Shoots the Hunter Muhammad in 1557–58, probably in Bukhara; its illus- (fi gs. 14–16).25 The pair of bears in the background trations were added in India about fi fteen years later.33 of Layla Meets Majnun in the Wilderness, attributed in A B¢st¸n of Sa{di now in the Bodleian Library (Ms. the margin of the painting to Muhammad Sharif, a Eliot 29) contains four double-page miniatures that son of {Abd al-Samad,26 fi nd their counterparts in May- were painted in Shiraz around 1560–70 and repainted mun the Monkey Approaches the Bears in Order to Trick in India.34 A Haft Paykar of Nizami now in the Metro- Them (fi g. 17): they have identical dense, dark coats politan Museum of Art (no. 13.228.13) contains fi ve and long forelegs and snouts.27 paintings ascribed to Bihzad and twelve folios written According to its three colophons, the text of the and signed by the Timurid calligrapher Sultan {Ali; Keir Khamsa was copied in Yazd between 1502 and Mawlana Azhar fi nished copying it in 1580–81. The 1506. Robert Skelton asserts that the calligrapher left inscription in its shamsa (sunburst ornament) informs empty spaces for the illustrations, which were added us that the manuscript was offered by Mun{im Khan ca. 1585 to 1590 at the Mughal atelier.28 This history (Khankhanan) to Emperor Akbar.35 explains the tension between the text panels and the Priscilla Soucek describes the migration of artists illustrations and suggests the reason for the expansion and calligraphers from Central Asia and Iran to the of the pictorial surface far beyond the initial frame, in Mughal courts and the importance of these move- a manner identical to the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº minia- ments to the development of Mughal court paint- tures. Given the similarities between the manuscripts, ing. While a few masters were invited to the court by it seems that the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº may share an aspect Mughal rulers—for instance, {Abd al-Samad Shirazi, of manuscripts that witnessed their debut at one time who was asked by Humayun to join his atelier—the and locale and were completed in another: a phenom- majority came on their own initiative, searching for enon that I call “manuscript reincarnation.” This phe- new employment opportunities, their migrations likely nomenon refl ects the complex intricacies regarding spurred by the restless political situation in Iran and the role of books in the Perso-Islamic world, where, Central Asia.36 In their movements from one place to in the course of the fi fteenth, sixteenth, and seven- another, calligraphers and artists brought with them teenth centuries, illustrated manuscripts negotiated albums, paintings, and illustrated manuscripts, prob- the long and challenging roads from Central Asia to ably not all in fi nished condition.37 Iran or India and back. As desired as they were by Mughal collectors, Timurid Throughout the course of my work, I have iden- manuscripts were nevertheless subjected to modifi ca- tifi ed a substantial number of “reincarnated” illus- tions and additions by Mughal artists, probably follow- trated manuscripts that, like the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº, ing their patrons’ instructions. For example, a Khamsa underwent several stages of production, a process of Mir {Ali Shir Nava}i (now in the Royal Library, Wind- that extended over time and multiple places. We sor) was completed by Sultan {Ali Mashhadi in Herat in know from historical sources and documents that the 1492 and subsequently taken to the Uzbek royal library 348 mika natif

Fig. 14. The King Who Killed His Hawk, fol. 222a, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 349

Fig.15. The Farmer’s Unfaithful Wife, fol. 232a, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) 350 mika natif

Fig. 16. The Horse Rider Shoots the Hunter, fol. 280a, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 351

Fig. 17. Maymun the Monkey Approaches the Bears in Order to Trick Them, fol. 181b, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) 352 mika natif in Bukhara, where six paintings were added, one of identifi ed by an inscription on the canopied throne: “It them dated 947 (1540–41); all six were repainted in was ordered in the days of the prosperity of the great the Mughal atelier, probably around 1605, with special king Jalal al-Din Muhammad Akbar, may God perpetu- attention given to faces and landscape features. Only ate his kingship and sovereignty.”45 A similar phenom- one entirely Mughal painting exists in the codex, and enon of modifying or repainting faces can be seen it is a copy of a European Christian image.38 in the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº on folios 28a (fi g. 1) and 119a The fi rst and third paintings in the SOAS Anv¸r-i (fi g. 18), where the fi gure in the lower right corner is Suhaylº (folios 28a and 40a, fi gs. 1 and 2) show strong an Indian man whose face seems to be retouched. stylistic links to Central Asian illustrations of what Losty, as well as Michael Brand and Glenn Lowry, scholars call the “Bukharan style.” Among the distinc- further observe that the pictures in the British Library tive features of folio 28a are the horses—tall, slim, Gulist¸n extend beyond the text blocks, and except for long-legged, and patterned with lighter dots. Such one do not include text within the painted areas. Thus horses can be seen in numerous paintings from six- they conclude that the Bukharan-style miniatures were teenth-century Central Asia—for instance, in a dou- added when the manuscript was already in India.46 In ble-page illustration depicting Sultan Sanjar and the his analysis of the Gulist¸n manuscript, Basil Gray argues old woman, from a Nizami Makhzan al-Asr¸r copied that the paintings are in a “provincial Bukharan style” in Bukhara in 1538.39 Another Bukharan example of that might have been practiced in the Akbari court.47 exactly the same type of horse, ridden by King Dara, A similar case could be made for the codex of a Khus- appears in a 1556–57 B¢st¸n of Sa{di.40 Furthermore, raw va Shºrºn dated to 1568, made for Ibrahim Qutb the layering of the landscape in these compositions, Shah of Golconda. The manuscript has seven Bukha- their tilted, teardrop-shaped trees, their fl at golden ran-style illustrations which, according to Seyller, dif- backgrounds, and the meandering stream bordered fer from other illustrations and paintings produced with colorful stones in the B¢st¸n painting are all fea- in the Deccan.48 Souren Melikian-Chirvani, however, tures that appear in the fi rst and third Anv¸r-i Suhaylº has convincingly pointed out the presence of Central miniatures but not elsewhere. The boots, robe, and Asian and Shirazi artists in that region.49 turban worn by the carpenter in the latter illustration Another possible explanation for the distinctive are typical of Bukharan costume and can be seen in features that the Gulist¸n manuscript shares with the paintings produced in Bukhara in the 1560s.41 How Anv¸r-i Suhaylº is that the illustrations were painted in can we explain the visual similitude between these Bukhara when the text was copied, and that changes two illustrations, which are supposedly Mughal, and were made to them subsequently, after the manuscript paintings produced in Central Asia, and more specif- arrived in India.50 ically in Bukhara? The artist Shahm Mudhahhib may also have been The Mughal library possessed numerous manuscripts involved with the painting of the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº: that came from Mawarannahr, the motherland of the Losty, Milo Beach, and Barbara Schmitz separately attri- Timurids, who were the Mughals’ ancestors. One such bute to him the fi rst painting in the manuscript.51 How- example of a Bukharan illustrated manuscript that ever, his identity is yet another enigma. Schmitz argues entered Akbar’s library is a Gulist¸n of Sa{di (Brit- that the name “³ahm,” as she renders it, is actually ish Library, Or. 5302), its colophon bearing the date Shaykhem ibn Mulla Yusuf Haravi, who was a painter 975 (1567–68). The manuscript has thirteen paint- in the atelier of {Abd al-Aziz Khan in Bukhara during ings, produced in two different phases: six painted the 1550s.52 Robert McChesney argues that the name in a Bukharan style that seems to be contemporary should be read as “Shahom,” a short form for Shah with the colophon and the other seven produced in Muhammad.53 Based on this information, Brand and the early seventeenth century by various Mughal art- Lowry argue that the Gulist¸n manuscript was brought ists.42 Four out of the six Bukharan-style paintings are to India by Shahm Mudhahhib unfi nished or ready to ascribed to Shahm Mudhahhib.43 In some of these, be illustrated, and that all the paintings in both codices heads were retouched in order to update them and were made in India around 1570.54 Despite Shahm’s make them accord with the new Mughal environment presumed involvement with the Anv¸r-i Suhayli, how- and fashion.44 In one such painting (folio 25b), accord- ever, it is diffi cult to accept the idea that all twenty- ing to Jeremiah Losty, the face of the prince watch- seven of its paintings were made in India, since unity ing a wrestling match is a portrait of Akbar, who is of style in the SOAS manuscript is apparent only in the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 353

Fig. 18. The Lying Falconer is Punished for His False Accusation, fol. 119a, SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº. (Reproduced with the permission of the SOAS Library) 354 mika natif the “Mughal-looking” paintings and not in the fi rst have been eager to assign the entire manuscript to and third illustrations. We have already encountered the date of the colophon, 1570, without attempting to numerous examples of unfi nished manuscripts that explain its peculiarities and its two styles of painting. were brought from Central Asia, Iran, or even the ear- A new dating of the “Mughal-looking” illustrations to lier Sultanates only to be partially retouched, painted the 1580s may infl uence the chronology of the devel- over, or completed in the Mughal ateliers. opment of early-Akbar-period painting and emphasize In the course of this article we have enumerated the fact that many books were moving across Central the main features that differentiate the SOAS Anv¸r-i Asia and India in those years. It further underscores Suhaylº from contemporary Mughal works: Folios 28a our lack of evidence and knowledge of book produc- and 40a differ from the other paintings, containing tion in India between 1556 and 1580. elements that do not occur in the Mughalized illus- Because of the two miniatures in a different, Bukha- trations but that are prominent in those produced in ran, style, as well as the strange L-shaped composi- Bukhara. The illustrations that follow folio 40a extend tions of the Mughal-style paintings, we may suggest beyond the text panels and occupy most of the page two stages of production for this manuscript. It is surface; some integrate the text blocks into their com- possible that the book was copied in Central Asia in position. 1570 for a lesser patron and was later transformed in The overall appearance of the SOAS manuscript is order to meet new demands. It is reasonable to imag- similar to that of illustrated codices that were begun in ine that it was imported into Mughal India with only Central Asia and completed in Mughal India between two paintings completed, and that the rest were not 1565 and the 1580s. Ultimately, we may conclude that fi nished until the 1580s. the manuscript had several stages of production. The It is also clear that the artists who produced the text was copied in 1570 Central Asia, where two or fi rst and third paintings employed distinct aesthetic perhaps more paintings were executed. It then arrived principles with respect to pictorial space, the guide- in Mughal India, either through trade or with one lines of which were different from those used by the of the artists who migrated there from Central Asia, artists who painted the remaining illustrations, result- and the rest of the illustrations were completed by ing in two distinct styles of painting within a single other artists working in the Mughal idiom of the time. manuscript. Ultimately the Central Asian motifs were Because of their similarity to the illustrations in the limited to the compositional concepts and details of Keir Khamsa, the Mughalized paintings of the SOAS folios 28a and 40a, while the rest of the illustrations Anv¸r-i Suhaylº could, in my opinion, have been made very clearly indicate a Mughal idiom and identity. ca. 1585–90 by artists from the same atelier as those How can we explain this lack of stylistic unity in of the Khamsa. one book, especially when we tend to think of illus- Why is the redating of the “Mughal-looking” minia- trated manuscripts as entities planned in advance and tures in the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº so signifi cant to the over- meticulously executed as uniform, complete objects? all narrative of early Mughal painting, especially when How can we reconcile the fact that paintings in illus- the difference is a mere fi fteen or twenty years? Our trated manuscripts from the Ilkhanid and Timurid knowledge of illustrated manuscripts and paintings periods show marked stylistic conformity, while those from Akbar’s years as a young ruler is still minimal;55 associated with the Mughals, who viewed themselves as we have very little evidence of illustrated manuscripts descendants of both the Mongols and the Timurids,57 from his early reign, and it remains unclear how the do not always evince similar conformity, even within a Mughals became involved in collecting and commis- single book? Whence this aesthetic change? sioning illustrated manuscripts.56 Only from a point Perhaps the concept of “style” as we think of it now- commencing in the 1580s is there an abundance of adays was not part of the aesthetic judgment of Mughal material. The SOAS paintings, dated by scholars to connoisseurs and consumers of art. “Style,” accord- 1570, are therefore said to be among the earliest man- ing to James Elkins, is a “term used for a coherence uscript illustrations associated with Akbar’s patronage of qualities in periods or people.”58 Hubert Locher and his court. Hence the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº has been con- argues that in medieval European art, the notion of sidered to be one of the “missing links” in manuscript style was not used for the description, systematization, production during the arid years of book patronage or historical representation of works of art.59 The sit- in Mughal India. For this reason perhaps, scholars uation may have been more complex in India, since the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 355 the idea of style had existed in the past, in notions of esteemed as a center of religious learning, supported regional or patronage-level differences. Sanskrit trea- by powerful Naqshbandi shaykhs.69 Hence, the Bukha- tises about Indian painting, such as the Citras¢tras, clas- ran-style illustrations in the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº should sifi ed paintings into four styles or types.60 This notion be seen as both the expression and the continuation of style is even visible in the development in India of of the Bukharan intellectual legacy in Mughal India. a naskhº script called bih¸rº (of Bihar),61 or of regional The corpus of “reincarnated” manuscripts may serve styles in architecture.62 Moreover, manuscripts painted as one of the principal keys to understanding the com- during the Pala period (ca. eighth–twelfth century) in plexity of intellectual life that characterized Persianate Bengal or Bihar differ stylistically from contemporary societies. These books-in-progress constituted what the Jain paintings from Gujarat. These stylistic differences literati in Safavid Iran, Mughal India, and Uzbek Cen- were used to create identities. Therefore, we may con- tral Asia esteemed not only as their written tradition ceive of the preservation of a Central Asian style and but also as their shared heritage: the Timurid legacy its inclusion in a Mughal context as means of present- of book culture, which bridged time and space and ing Mughal identity and cultural heritage. connected Mughals, Persians, and Uzbeks with their The founder of the Mughal dynasty in India, Babur, illustrious Timurid ancestors and predecessors, and, originated from Central Asia, and the dynasty and its more importantly, with one another. subordinates adopted these Central Asian cultural roots and links.63 As a result the Mughals used Persian Department of Visual Arts and Art History as their language of administration, adopted Timurid College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, MA architectural style for their dynastic mausoleums, and built chah¸r-b¸ghs (quadripartite-plan gardens), all of which derived from Timurid/Central Asian tradi- tions.64 Numerous paintings in various historical man- NOTES uscripts and album pages depict the Mughals’ Timurid ancestors. Stephen Dale states that Babur “initiated a 1. Ms. 10102, the Library of the School of Oriental and Afri- conscious Timurid renaissance in South Asia where can Studies at the University of London (SOAS). I would like to thank Ron Sela of Indiana University for commenting on Timurid culture was not merely replicated but was earlier drafts of this paper. also transmuted in a new cultural setting quite dis- 2. According to the colophon, the copying of the text was com- tinct from its original steppe environment.”65 Akbar’s pleted by Muhibb Allah ibn Hasan Sirri on 22 Rabi{ II 978 court historian, Abu ’l Fazl, traces the emperor’s lin- (Sept. 23, 1570). The colophon reads: “This book was com- eage to Timur and to Alan-qo}a, the mythical Mongol pleted with the help of the All-Bestowing King on 22 Rabi{ al-Akhir. Written by the poor one, the sinner, Muhibb {Ali, mother, thus repeating Timur’s fi ctitious genealogy son of Hasan Sirri, may God forgive the sins of both of them, 66 linking him to Chinggis Khan. in the year 978.” An erroneous date of Apr. 29, 1571, is cited The deliberate appropriation of Central Asian idi- in Wheeler M. Thackston’s translation of the colophon in oms into Mughal artistic culture did not yield elabo- the appendix of Milo Cleveland Beach, Mughal and Rajput rate discussions regarding specifi c styles in painting.67 Painting (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 232. The manuscript consists of 349 folios mea- The decision made by artists or patrons in India not suring 33.5 x 21.5 cm. The text block contains nineteen lines to impose stylistic unity within manuscripts must have of nasta{lºq, and the text area measures 21 x 11.5 cm. been a conscious one, however.68 Preserving two differ- 3. The fruits of this project were presented in our fi rst article, ent styles in a single book may have played an impor- “Two Safavid Paintings: An Essay in Interpretation,” Muqar- tant role in maintaining a prestigious Central Asian nas 18 (2001): 173–202. 4. Kashifi died in 1504–5. See Ghiy¸s al-Dºn Khw¸ndamºr, T¸rºkh-i connection or provenance, thus overriding the objec- ¥abºb al-siyar fº akhb¸r afr¸d bashar, 4 vols. (Tehran: Kit¸bkh¸na-i tive of aesthetic unity. Furthermore, from the large Khayy¸m, 1954), 4:346. number of “reincarnated manuscripts” still in exis- 5. Kam¸l al-Dºn Ýusayn ibn {Alº al-V¸{i¬ al-K¸shifº, Anv¸r-i tence, we may conclude that there may have been Suhaylº (Bombay, 1828), 11. On Kashifi ’s Anv¸r-i Suhaylº see discussion of stylistic and aesthetics principles in the Christine van Ruymbeke, “Kashifi ’s Forgotten Masterpiece: Why Rediscover the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº?” Iranian Studies 36, Mughal atelier. 4 (2003): 571–88. Kashifi ’s fables were translated into Eng- In the eyes of Muslims in India during the sixteenth lish by E. B. Eastwick, The Anv¸r-i Suhaylº (Hertford: S. Aus- and seventeenth centuries, Bukhara was particularly tin, 1854). The main works dedicated to the study of Kalila 356 mika natif

wa Dimna illustrations are Ernst Grube, “Prolegomena for a 12. Seyller, “SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº,” 126–27. Corpus Publication of Illustrated Kalºlah wa Dimnah Manu- 13. Karl Khandalavala and Kalpana Desai, “Indian Illustrated Man- scripts,” Islamic Art 4 (1991): 301–481; Bernard O’Kane, Early uscripts of the Kalilah wa Dimnah, Anvar-i Suhayli, and Iyar- Persian Painting: Kalila and Dimna Manuscripts of the Late 14th i Danish,” in A Mirror for Princes from India, ed. Ernst Grube Century (London: Tauris, 2002); Julian Raby, “Between Sog- (Mumbai: Marg Publications, 1991), 133. dia and the Mamluks: A Note on the Earliest Illustrations 14. Catalogued as V.7–41 in R. W. Skelton, “Indian Painting to Kalila wa Dimna,” Oriental Art 33, 4 (Winter 1987–88): of the Mughal Period,” in Islamic Painting and the Arts of the 381–98; Ernst Grube, ed., A Mirror for Princes from India (Bom- Book, ed. B. W. Robinson (London: Faber and Faber, 1976), bay: Marg Publications, 1991); John Seyller, “The School of 238–48, where many of its paintings are illustrated. Oriental and African Studies Anv¸r-i Suhaylº: The Illustration 15. The same feature is also used by the artists of an Amir Khus- of a de luxe Mughal Manuscript,” Ars Orientalis 16 (1986): raw Dihlavi Khamsa dated to 1581, also in the Keir Collec- 119–51; Jill Sanchia Cowen, Kalila wa-Dimna: An Animal Allegory tion: on folios 84b, Shirin’s Suicide, and 102b, Layla Rejects of the Mongol Court (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989); Ibn Salam, the text is part of an iwan wall and is topped by J. V. S. Wilkinson, The Lights of Canopus (New York: Wil- crenellations. In this codex there are two sets of paintings, liam Edwin Rudge; London: The Studio, 1929); Mika Natif, which appear to be of different origin and two distinctive “Explaining Early Mughal Painting: The Anvar-i Suhayli Man- styles. These paintings depict Persian buildings, however, uscripts” (PhD diss., New York University, 2006). unlike the Keir Nizami Khamsa and the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº, 6. The core stories in the Anv¸r-i Suhaylº were based on the which both show Mughal architecture. See B. W. Robinson, Panchatantra (Five Tantra), a Sanskrit text written probably ca. “An Amir Khusraw Khamsa of 1581,” Iran 35 (1997): 37–40. AD 300 in Kashmir by a Brahman. The basic work regarding 16. A note on fol. 73b, which Skelton recognizes as a later addi- the history of the text, its transformation, and various trans- tion from the period of Akbar, indicates that the artist Muham- lations is Johannes Hertel’s, Das Pañcatantra, seine Geschichte mad Sharif, son of {Abd al-Samad, participated in this proj- und seine Verbreitung (Leipzig and Berlin: Teubner, 1914). ect when he was a young artist at the start of his career. A more recent study is François de Blois’s important book This inscription leads Skelton to redate the illustrations to Burzoy’s Voyage to India and the Origin of the Book of Kalilah 1584–86 (Skelton, “Indian Painting of the Mughal Period,” wa Dimnah (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1990). A con- 240, 246–47). Milo Beach dates the paintings by their style densed and clear overview on the various translations and to ca. 1585–90: see Mughal and Rajput Painting, 50. renditions of the text can be found in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 17. Seyller, “SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº,” 127. 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1960–2004), s.v. “Kalila wa Dimna” 18. Ibid. (C. Brockelmann). 19. Ibid. 7. The relationship of text and image refl ected in the man- 20. Ibid., 120, 126–27. uscript was the subject of the article by John Seyller cited 21. Ibid., 127. above (n. 5, hereafter “SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº”). 22. Ibid., 122. 8. I use the term “style” here as defi ned by James Elkins in the 23. Architecture in the Khamsa tends to be more detailed and Dictionary of Art, ed. Jane Turner (New York: Grove’s Diction- lavishly decorated, as can be seen in the domes, the richly aries, 1996), s.v. ornamented throne in the black pavilion, and the tent where 9. In the Khamsa of Nizami now in the Keir Collection (dated Layla and Majnun meet (see Layla Meets Majnun in the Wil- to ca. 1585), inscriptions with artists’ names were added derness, in Skelton, “Indian Painting of the Mughal Period,” in the painting margins on several later occasions. See V.21, pl. 113). Even the landscape is lusher and more detailed R. W. Skelton, “Indian Painting of the Mughal Period,” in than in the SOAS manuscript: rocks appear to rise higher, Islamic Painting and the Arts of the Book, ed. B. W. Robinson and there are more fi gures and vignettes in the scenes. (London: Faber and Faber, 1976), 248. It seems that the 24. Khusraw and Shirin in Bed, ibid., V.15, pl. 111. system of writing artists’ names in the margins began with 25. Compare with Bahram Gur Gains the Persian Crown, ibid., V.23, the D¸r¸bn¸ma (according to John Seyller, The Adventures of pl. 114. Hamza [Washington, DC: Freer Gallery of Art, Arthur M. 26. Ibid., 242, and see illustration V.21, pl. 113. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution, in assoc. with Lon- 27. These round, soft bears are quite different from the slim, don: Azimuth, 2002], 51). rough-looking bear who lifts a rock above the gardener’s 10. The large outer frame measures approximately 23.8 x 19.3 head in another folio of the SOAS manuscript, 88a (not illus- cm, while the measurement of the small inner frame, inclu- trated here). ding the text box, is about 16.5 x 11.5 cm. 28. Skelton, “Indian Painting of the Mughal Period,” 238. 11. See, for example, Abkarhud Being Acclaimed King, fol. 74a in the 29. Ibid., 234. D¸r¸bn¸ma, ca. 1577–80 (London, British Library, Or. 4615). 30. Michael Brand and Glenn D. Lowry, Akbar’s India: Art from The manuscript is now fragmentary and includes 157 illustra- the Mughal City of Victory (New York: Asia Society Galleries, tions. On the paintings from the B¸burn¸ma see E. S. Smart, 1985), 94 and n. 25; John Seyller, “The Inspection and Val- “Paintings from the Baburnama: A Study of Sixteenth-Cen- uation of Manuscripts in the Imperial Mughal Library,” Arti- tury Mughal Historical Manuscript Illustration” (PhD diss., bus Asiae 57, 3–4 (1997): 281. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of Lon- 31. Seyller, “Inspection and Valuation,” 286. don, 1977); Susan Stronge, Painting for the Mughal Emperor: 32. Jahangir inherited these manuscripts from his father when he The Art of the Book 1560–1660 (London: V and A Publications, took the throne in 1605; he himself wrote this information 2002). in his newly inherited manuscripts. See Seyller, “Inspection the soas anv§r-i suhaylÊ 357

and Valuation,” 281; Brand and Lowry, Akbar’s India, 94. 45. Losty, Art of the Book in India, 86 no. 55; Brand and Lowry, 33. Priscilla Soucek, “Persian Artists in Mughal India: Infl uences Akbar’s India, 94; Norah M. Titley, Miniatures from Persian Man- and Transformations,” Muqarnas 4 (1987): 169, argues that uscripts (London: British Museum Publications, Ltd., 1977), the style of the paintings is similar to that of Mushfi q, who 147. worked for the Khan-i Khanan. For a short discussion on 46. Losty, Art of the Book in India, 86 no. 55; Brand and Lowry, Mushfi q see Milo Cleveland Beach, The Imperial Image: Paint- Akbar’s India, 94. ings for the Mughal Court (Washington, DC: Freer Gallery of 47. Douglas Barrett and Basil Gray, Painting of India (Geneva: Art, Smithsonian Institution, 1981), 142–45. Skira, 1963), 81. 34. B. W. Robinson, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Persian Paint- 48. Seyller, “Painter’s Directions in Early Indian Painting,” Arti- ings in the Bodleian Library (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1958), bus Asiae 59, 3–4 (2000): 304 and n. 5. The manuscript is 104. in Khudabaksh Library, Patna: see Mark Zebrowski, Deccani 35. Seyller, “Inspection and Valuation,” 281. Brand and Lowry, Painting (London: Sotheby Publications and Berkeley: Uni- Akbar’s India, 94, conclude that “by around 1580 there were versity of California Press, 1983), 157 and n. 18. enough high-quality manuscripts on the market to ensure 49. A. S. Melikian-Chirvani, “L’école de Shiraz et les origines de that serious book-collecting was no longer the prerogative la miniature moghole,” in Paintings from Islamic Lands, ed. of emperors alone.” R. Pinder-Wilson (Oxford: Cassirer and London: Faber, 1969), 36. Soucek, “Persian Artists in Mughal India,” 166–67. 138–40. The author argues (124–25, 131, 137 and nn. 14–15) 37. Ibid., 169, gives several examples of calligraphic samples that the Shirazi impact in India had already started by the and paintings brought from Bukhara to India—works by middle of the fi fteenth century, and possibly earlier. Mir {Ali al-Haravi and Mir Muhammad Baqir. Foltz quotes 50. Some scholars propose that the Gulist¸n was a gift to Akbar A. A. Semenov, who argues that Abdallah Khan of Bukhara from the Shaybanid khan {Abd al-Aziz. Losty refutes this (r. 1583–98) sent artists, one of whom was Muhammad hypothesis as presenting “historical diffi culties,” since at the Murad Samarqandi, from Samarqand and Bukhara to work time the manuscript was copied (1564–67) rebellions in the at Akbar’s atelier: Richard C. Foltz, Mughal India and Cen- Uzbek domains created tense relations with the Mughals that tral Asia (Karachi and New York: Oxford University Press, would have made such a gift to Akbar by {Abd al-Aziz Khan 1998): 79 and n. 47. unlikely: see Losty, Art of the Book in India, 86 no. 55. 38. Jeremiah P. Losty, The Art of the Book in India (London: Brit- 51. Ibid.; Beach, Early Mughal Painting, 71; B. Schmitz, “Persian ish Library, 1982), 96 no. 77; Seyller, “Inspection and Valu- Infl uences on Indian Painting,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica (Lon- ation,” 295. don and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982–) 13:73. 39. Sultan Sanjar and the Old Woman, fols. 40b–41a, from a Makh- 52. Schmitz, “Persian Infl uences on Indian Painting,” 13:72– zan al-Asr¸r, 1545, in the Bibliothèque nationale de France, 73. suppl. pers. 985. Published in Francis Richard, Splendeurs Per- 53. Personal communication. sanes: Manuscrits du XIIe au XVIIe siècle (Paris: Bibliothèque 54. After the Gulist¸n and the SOAS Anv¸r-i Suhaylº Shahm Mud- nationale de France, 1997), 145 no. 95. hahhib is not known to have worked on any other project: 40. King Dara and the Herdsman, fol. 19b, Bibliothèque nationale Brand and Lowry, Akbar’s India, 94–96. de France, suppl. pers.1187. Published in Richard, Splendeurs 55. Akbar succeeded his father, Humayun, in 1556, when he was Persane, 147 no. 98. only thirteen years old. 41. Compare with The Flight of the Tortoise, fol. 46a of a Tu¥fat 56. There is very little evidence that Babur was involved in col- al-a¥r¸r, Bukhara, ca. 1560, National Library of Russia (for- lecting or commissioning illustrated manuscripts. For Hum- merly State Public Library [SPL]), Dorn 425. Reproduced ayun there is slightly more information, but physical proof in M. M. Ashrafi and A. N. Boldyrev, Miniatiury XVI veka v of his interest in illustrated manuscripts is similarly scarce. spiskakh proizvedenii Dzhami iz sobranii SSSR = XVI Century Min- For paintings made during Humayun’s reign see H. Elgood, iatures Illustrating Manuscript Copies of the Works of Jami from the “Who Painted Princes of the House of Timur?” in Humayun’s Gar- USSR Collection (Moskow: Sovetskii Khudozhnik, 1966), 89. den Party: Princes of the House of Timur and Early Mughal Paint- 42. Losty, Art of the Book in India, 86 no. 55; Brand and Lowry, ing, ed. Sheila R. Canby (Bombay: Marg Publications, 1994), Akbar’s India, 94. 10–32. 43. Losty, Art of the Book in India, 86 no. 55. The reading of this 57. For a discussion about the genealogy and ideology of Babur, the name is still debatable. founder of the Mughal dynasty, see Maria Subtelny, “Babur’s 44. The painting The Wrestlers, ascribed to the artist Shahm Mu- Rival Relations: A Study of Kinship and Confl ict in 15th–16th dhahhib, carefully follows the composition of an illustration Century Central Asia,” Der Islam 66 (1989):102–18; Eiji Mano, of the same subject in a 1554 Gulist¸n of Sa{di, attributed by “The Baburnama and the Tarikh-i Rashidi: Their Mutual Rela- Richard to {Abdallah, one of the leading artists of the Bukha- tionship,” in Timurid Art and Culture, ed. Lisa Golombek and ran atelier (Bibliotèque national de France, suppl. pers. 1958, Maria Subtelny (Leiden, New York, and Cologne: E. J. Brill, fol. 20b: see Richard, Splendeurs Persanes, 146 no. 96). The lat- 1992), 44–47. ter in its turn follows a painting from a copy of a Sa{di Gulist¸n 58. Elkins, ”Style,” 876. possibly made for the Timurid vizier Mir {Ali Shir Nava}i that 59. H. Locher, “Stil,” in Metzler Lexikon Kunstwissenschaft, ed. is now in the Freer and Sackler Galleries,Washington, DC. Ulrich Pfi sterer (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2003), 336. It is illustrated in Abolala Soudavar, Art of the Persian Courts: 60. I. Nardi, The Theory of Citras¢tras in Indian Painting: A Criti- Selections from the Art and History Trust Collection (New York: cal Re-Evaluation of Their Uses and Interpretations (London and Rizzoli, 1992) 104, cat. no. 36a. New York: Routledge, 2006), 30–35. 358 mika natif

61. Losty, Art of the Book in India, 38. Gallop, “The Genealogical Seal of the Mughal Emperors of 62. For texts dealing with the notion of style in architecture see India,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 9, 1 (1999): 77–140. C. Sivaramamurti, Citras¢tra of the Vishnudharmottara (New Furthermore, the code of etiquette and customs of the Mon- Delhi: Kanak Publications, 1978), 68. gol court (t¢ra) was also used in Mughal circles, an ideology 63. Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur (1483–1530) was a Timu- that fi ts well with Babur’s dual identity as a Timurid and a rid Mirza on his father’s side, from the line of Miranshah Chaghatay: see Foltz, Mughal India and Central Asia, 24–27. (Timur’s third son), while Babur’s father, {Umar Shaykh 67. In contrast with, for example, European art, certain styles of Mirza, was the fourth son of Sultan Abu Sa{id Mirza, a great- which were already distinguished in the second half of the great-grandson of Timur. On his mother’s side, Babur was fi fteenth century: see Locher, “Stil,” 337. In the Renaissance a Moghul (Chaghatay). His mother, Qutluq Nigar Khanim, there were notions of both historical and individual styles, dis- was the second daughter of Yunus Khan, a direct descendant cussed by Alberti and Vasari: see Ulrich Pfi sterer, Donatello und of Chinggis Khan’s second son, Chaghatay. die Entdeckung der Stile, 1430–1445 (Munich: Hirmer, 2002), 64. Lisa Golombek, “From Tamerlane to the Taj Mahal,” in Essays 55–91. I would like to thank Nino Zchomelidse for bringing in Islamic Art and Architecture: In Honor of Katharina Otto-Dorn, these books to my attention. In Persian literature we have ed. Abbas Daneshvari (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1981), treatises by {Abdi Beg Shirazi, Qadi Ahmad, Dust Muham- 43–56. mad, and others, but their discussion of “style,” “mode,” or 65. Stephen F. Dale, “The Legacy of the Timurids,” Journal of the “painting principle” is vague. The most important works on Royal Asiatic Society 8, 1 (1998): 44. As late as the eighteenth this topic are: Yves Porter, Peinture et arts du livre: Essai sur century, the Mughals regularly provided fi nancial support la littérature technique indo-persane (Paris: Institute français de (in the form of waqf) to the Gur-i Amir, the Timurid dynas- recherche en Iran, 1992); idem, “From the ‘Theory of the Two tic mausoleum in Samarqand: ibid, 46. Qalams’ to the ‘Seven Principles of Painting’: Theory, Ter- 66. The inscription on his tombstone in the Gur-i Amir is ana- minology, and Practice in Persian Classical Painting,” Muqar- lyzed in John E. Woods, “Timur’s Genealogy,” in Intellec- nas 17 (2000): 109–18; Gülru Necipoqlu, The Topkapæ Scroll: tual Studies on Islam: Essays Written in Honor of Martin B. Dick- Geometry and Ornament in Islamic Architecture: Topkapæ Palace son, ed. Michel M. Mazzaoui and Vera B. Moreen (Salt Lake Museum Library MS H. 1956 (Santa Monica: Getty Center for City: University of Utah Press, 1990), 85–126; Ab¢ ’l Fa¾l ibn the History of Art and the Humanities, 1995), 111–24; David Mub¸rak, The Akbar-n¸ma of Abu Fazl: History of the Reign of Roxburgh, Prefacing the Image, Supplements to Muqarnas, vol. Akbar Including an Account of His Predecessors, trans. H. Bever- 9 (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2001); Amy Landau, “Farangº- idge, 3 vols. (Lahore: Book Traders, Al-Abbass International, S¸zº at Isfahan: The Court Painter Mu¥ammad Zam¸n, the 1977), 1:1780; Dale, “Legacy of the Timurids,” 46. Moreover, Armenians of New Julfa and Sh¸h Sulaym¸n (1666–1694)” Abu ’l Fazl borrows Timur’s title gurg¸n (son-in-law) and (PhD diss., University of Oxford, 2006), 44–51. uses it to describe Akbar as fur¢gh-i kh¸nd¸n-i gurg¸n (the 68. Titian used two different styles in a single painting in his glory of the son-in-law): see Abu ’l Fa¾l ibn Mub¸rak, The Judith with the Head of Holofernes, ca. 1570, now in the Detroit @}ºn-i Akbarº, vol. 1, trans. H. Blochmann (Calcutta: Asiatic Institute of Art (35.10). For a discussion of this phenome- Society of Bengal, 1927), 17. Later Shah Jahan titled himself non see Valeska von Rosen, Mimesis und Selbstbezüglichkeit in ª¸¥ib qir¸n-i s¸nº (Second Lord of the Auspicious Conjunc- Werken Tizians: Studien zum venezianischen Malereidiskurs (Ems- tion), Timur having been the fi rst. The seal of the Mughal detten: Edition Imorde, 2001), 339. emperors was inscribed with the Timurid genealogy: see A. T. 69. Foltz, Mughal India and Central Asia, 32.