JOHN SEYLLER A MUGHAL CODE OF CONNOISSEURSHIP The exercise of connoisseurship on Mughal paint- on occasion the Mughals evaluated paintings in a ings is practically irresistible. The paintings are var- surprisingly systematic fashion. ied in subject and have a level of formal detail which Inspection notes written on manuscripts in the rewards sustained scrutiny. Because so many illustrated imperial Mughal library reveal that Mughal librari- Mughal manuscripts are securely dated, most indi- ans and their patrons regularly categorized the books vidual Mughal paintings can be dated to within a few they collected. 3 They did so not by faculty of knowl- years, and many are signed by or ascribed to individ- edge, which must have been obvious to the librari- ual artists. The availability of this kind of documen- ans, but by quality, rated on a scale from first to fifth tation has encouraged scholars to make extraordi- class. These rankings were made for the book as a narily subtle distinctions among the careers and whole. They give greatest weight to calligraphy, as is personal styles of various imperial painters. Most schol- clear from the low ranking of some profusely illus- ars assume that the Mughal emperors had a similar trated books and the high ones of other unillustrat- focus on the artist, and point to Jahangir's singular ed books written by certain esteemed calligraphers. claim to this brand of connoisseurship: While this hierarchy of manuscripts impresses upon us the lesser importance accorded painting at the As regards myself, my liking for painting and my prac- Mughal court, it sheds little light on how individual tice in judging it have arrived at such a point when any work is brought before me, either of deceased artists manuscript illustrations or independent paintings or of those of the present day, without the names be- might have been assessed aesthetically. ing told me, I say on the spur of the moment that it is There are some tantalizing hints of this kind of the work of such and such a man. And if there be a evaluation. In addition to a customary accession-day picture containing many portraits, and each face is the inscription by Shah Jahan, a detached shamsa of an work of a different master, I can discover which face is illustrated Diwdn of Anwari (fig. 1) bears a remark- the work of each of them. If any other person has put able note byJahangir: in the eye and eyebrow of a face, I can perceive whose [This] Dtwan of Anwari, who is among the established work the original face is, and who has painted the eye poets of the qasida, was completed in my workshop [at and eyebrow.1 the order of this] supplicant at the Divine Court. Writ- We will never know the extent to which this often- ten by Nar al-Din Jahangir, son of Akbar Padshah, in cited statement was colored by hyperbole, but the the year 1025 Hijri [1616], corresponding to year 11 of consistency with which the artist's name was record- the reign, in the city of Ajmer on Thursday. The writ- ed on or below Mughal paintings does suggest that ing is first-class (awwal), and there are three first-class Jahangir was not unique in his interest in the au- paintings, with the rest second- and third-class by Riza thorship of a painting. Accuracy of visual description 'Abbasi. Value ten thousand rupees. was also an issue in some periods, as is evident from The manuscript and its paintings are now lost, but one anecdote of Jahangir directing an artist to make Jahangir's terse characterization of the writing and subtle changes to a portrait of a deceased figure paintings signals a careful distinction in quality unknown to him personally, but of whom one of his among the paintings, which, with the exception of 2 courtiers had a vivid recollection. Yet Mughal con- those by the Persian artist Riza 'Abbasi, are not noisseurship involved aesthetic judgments about paint- attributed. In this case at least, a painting's quality ings as well. Here I can present new evidence that was apparently assessed without much concern for IIICI I_ Illmpl__ 178 JOHN SEYLLER Fig. 1. Flyleaf of a lost DZvan of Anwari inscribed byJahangir and Shah Jahan. 30.5 x 17.8 cm. Private collection. 1_1_11 _ I _ ___I_ A MUGHAL CODE OF CONNOISSEURSHIP 179 the identity of the particular artist who made it. ing a touch of originality only in the unusual open- We draw closer to the Mughal system of qualita- ing in the foreground wall. His figures, too, are small tive evaluation with a handful of paintings with rank- and unremarkable. Indeed, it is all but impossible to ings written directly on them. The rankings take the point to any feature which would elevate this paint- form of ordinal numbers written at the bottom of ing above comparable works in the same manuscript, the painting field or in the lower margin. The first such as a painting by Madhava (fol. 263b), which in example is a lightly colored painting which depicts my opinion is more interesting visually by reason of an idealized royal figure receiving a dervish (fig. 2). the more animated faces, ambitious architecture, and An inscription in the upper right names the king as assorted dogs. Shah Akbar and the artist as 'Abd al-Samad Shirzn The third painting in the Nafahdt al-Uns to be ac- Qalam. The painting, which dates to ca. 1585, is ex- corded the status of first-class work is a painting whose ceedingly fine in draftsmanship, a quality seen most ascription is entirely lost but for the letter kaf (fig. obviously in the faces of the prince and dervish, and 4). With this crucial bit of information, we can nar- the sinuous contours and furry texture of the goat. row the range of possible artists significantly, and can Although the figures are inspired by Persian types, soon conclude that this is the work of Govardhana, they are characterized by a distinctly Mughal sense who by this date was emerging as one of the premier of volume and facial expression; indeed, several of imperial painters. 7 Yet the painting does not depend these figures and the somewhat reworked dog in the upon this attribution to stand out from the other il- foreground seem more advanced in this direction than lustrations in the manuscript. The scene's imagery, what we expect from 'Abd al-Samad, a Persian-trained which conveys the state of married bliss envisioned master, and point to some sort of collaboration with for Abu Bakr Duqqi by Abu al-Husayn Qarafi, is ut- Basavana, whose talents lay in this direction.4 But it terly original in every respect. Govardhana sets the is the word awwal, written discreetly in black on a visionary domestic scene in a humble hut, which he rock along the lower edge, that concerns us here, ambitiously situates obliquely in the composition and for it is evidence that this particular painting was whose plain mud walls and simple wooden structure regarded as a first-class work. The placement of this he carefully describes. All the figures are character- word on the painting argues for its contemporaneity ized in a compelling manner, from the gently mod- with the painting itself. eled, white-robed wife drawing water at the house- Of the twenty-four known illustrations from the hold well, to the dog dozing at her feet, and the babe British Library Nafahit al-Uns dated 1604-5, three are in its cradle happily sucking a toe. Most exceptional singled out for similar qualitative acclaim, as is indi- of all is the dignified Abu Bakr, engrossed in a book cated by the presence of the word awwal, written in even as he keeps a mindful eye on his offspring and the lower margin in the same formal hand as the turns a blind one to the fowl prowling before him. ascriptions. 5 The first painting is by Padaratha, a rel- Govardhana draws superbly, but he does not hesi- atively minor artist (fig. 3). Once more the nim qalam tate to enhance his central figure with a deep blue style accentuates the drawing, which is accomplished robe, its color enlivened by plays of white at the hem but by no means extraordinary. The composition is and a yellowish glint along the sleeve. Govardhana absolutely formulaic for scenes with landscape set- has surely learned the means of rendering such so- tings, and the two figures themselves are no more phisticated modeling from European prints, but apart than the standard types of holy men and youths, with from the overly explicit folds in the cloth tucked no greater characterization of expression or volume beneath the baby and the golden-haired face of the than is found in scores of contemporary Mughal paint- child himself, he shows no obvious debt to any given ings. Thus it is hardly clear which qualities prompt- model. ed this exalted assessment. The same can be said of Thus we have the paradox of three very different a painting by Balacanda, a young artist who in 1605 paintings being extolled as first-class work. Their as- had not yet reached the level of proficiency that lat- sessment is clearly not driven by authorship alone, er made him one of the leading artists of Shah Jah- since all three are by different artists.8 One might an's court.6 Color is applied sparingly, so that the even say that although all three personal styles are effect once more is that of a tinted drawing.