Studies Presented to
Doris
Behrens-Abouseif
Edited
by
Alison
Ohta, J.M. Rogers and
Rosalind
Wade Haddon
 |
| Figure 1. Portrait of Aurangzeb, Anup Chattar, 1658–1659, Christie’s, Islamic and Indian Manuscripts and Works on Paper, 23 April 2012, lot 302 © Christie’s Images Limited. |
Historical Portraits of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir I (r.1658–1707)
By: m a l i n i r o y
The Mughals, who ruled over much of South Asia from 1526 to 1858, are recognised for their continuous patronage of the arts, including the establishment of an imperial atelier during the reign of Emperor Akbar (r.1556–1605) and the illustrated manuscript and painting traditions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Akbar’s patronage and that of his successors Jahangir (r.1605–1627) and Shah Jahan (r.1627– 1658) have received great attention from scholars. However, the fate of the imperial atelier after the failure of Shah Jahan’s health in 1657, and his imprisonment by his son Aurangzeb in 1658, remains unclear. While it is generally accepted that the subsequent wars of succession that broke out amongst the princes, Aurangzeb’s accession to the throne, and his religious orthodoxy precipitated the decline in this painting tradition, it is worth examining Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir I’s life as revealed through historical portraits in order to obtain a wider perspective of the subject.
While
the intention of this paper is to provide a survey of key historic portraits of the Emperor
Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir I (hereinafter
Aurangzeb, r.1658–1707), the discussion starts
with documenting his iconography and presence in paintings during his early years. As early as 1627,
when Shah Jahan ascended the throne,
Prince Aurangzeb and his brothers
started to appear in family portraits that were assembled into albums and more prominently in the historical
illustrated manuscript, the Windsor
Castle Padshahnama (History of the
emperor Shah Jahan).1 Balchand, one of the most empathetic portrait painters of the atelier, painted one
of the earliest studies of Aurangzeb,
which is now in the collection of the
Chester Beatty Library.2 In his study of Shah Jahan en famille, painted circa 1627–1630, the new
emperor is shown surrounded by his four
sons, selecting a jewel from a tray held
out by his eldest son Dara Shikoh (1615–1659). Here, Aurangzeb is approximately nine years old and
stands with his elder brother Shah Shuja
(1616–1659) on the left. The artist has
not painted any distinguishing features to help us diferentiate between these two middle sons.
Several years later, an anonymous artist
produced a portrait of Aurangzeb holding
a spear with his younger brother Murad Bakhsh
(1624–1661) holding a bow and arrow.3 This has been dated by art historians to circa 1635 and suggests
that Aurangzeb was approximately 17
years old and his younger sibling about 11 years. At this stage, Aurangzeb’s
physiognomy is distinct, with a slender
igure and a delicate moustache sprouting on
his upper lip. Each portrait was sourced from a separate charba (gazelle
skin pounce used for tracing igures) and fused together for this composition, although the placement
and scale of the igures gives a
disjointed overall appearance.4 Moreover, the
scene is most unusual as the artist featured Murad Bakhsh with a nimbus (halo), a privilege that was
only extended to the eldest son, Dara
Shikoh, while Shah Jahan was emperor.5
Documenting
the prince’s childhood and maturity into
adulthood, we turn to La‘l Chand’s nim-qalam (tinted brush and ink) drawing of Aurangzeb in the Chester
Beatty Library. He pictured the prince in
proile wearing a simple white jama (gown)
with a jewelled belt and pearl necklaces with a large ruby spinel.6 Aurangzeb’s physiognomy has
matured and he has grown a dark, trim
beard; for this reason, it is possible to
suggest that he is approximately 20 years old. An inscription within the composition reads: shabih-i
Aurangzeb Bahadur raqm-i La‘lchand
(likeness of Aurangzeb Bahadur, the work of La‘l Chand) and Robert Skelton has suggested that
the distinctive style of writing belongs
to Emperor Shah Jahan.7
 |
In
addition to the portrait studies mentioned above, paintings documenting the prince’s adolescence feature
in the imperial manuscript of the
Padshahnama. Although the surviving
parts of this illustrated manuscript record only the irst ten years of Shah Jahan’s reign, these include 12
paintings that document Aurangzeb’s life
to the age of 22 years, including four
illustrations focusing on milestones in the prince’s life.8 As the manuscript
has been fully published and art historians
have analysed the illustrations in great detail, these are simply listed below to provide the historical
context. The irst of the four paintings
documents an elephant ight that took place
on 7 June 1633 in front of the palace at Agra.9 During the event, the elephant Sudhakar moved away from
the spectators’ line of sight and
charged at Aurangzeb, who used his lance to
wound the animal while his siblings watched from the sidelines. Given that the function of this great
imperial manuscript was to promote the
gloriication of the emperor, it is unexpected
to ind an illustration focusing on the bravery of Aurangzeb, as opposed to one of Shah Jahan’s
achievements. The other three scenes
include a depiction of the wedding ceremony
for his marriage to Dilras Banu Begum that took place in Agra in May 1637 and two illustrations
featuring Shah Jahan holding oicial
durbars (ceremonial gatherings) to celebrate
the prince’s political success as Viceroy of the Deccan during his brief visits to the court in 1637 and
again in 1640.10 These durbar scenes
utilise a compositional framework identiied
by Ebba Koch as the ‘hierarchical principle’, whereby artists depicted the emperor in a superior position
with the nobility and visitors to the
court lower down on the picture plane.11 The
placement of Aurangzeb and his siblings within this context requires additional research and is a topic
for future study. The prevalent use of
the ‘hierarchical principle’ throughout
the manuscript is likely to have stiled artistic creativity at the expense of individuality. It is for this
reason that Milo Beach suggests that the
‘initial failure of the later Mughal tradition
should be traced to Shah Jahan’s patronage rather than that of Aurangzeb’.12
Regardless
of the instructions that were sent to artists in the mid-seventeenth century, the state of
political afairs would undoubtedly have
had a direct impact on artistic practices.
The emperor’s health deteriorated rapidly in September 1657, forcing him to move from Shahjahanabad
to Agra. As his condition worsened, he
nominated his eldest son Dara Shikoh as
heir-apparent. Dara Shikoh’s irst action was to
restrict access to the emperor and block the roads to Agra. On hearing the news of their father’s illness,
both Shah Shuja and Murad Bakhsh crowned
themselves emperor. Shah Shuja, the
governor of Bengal, went as far as holding a public coronation in December 1657, while Murad Bakhsh,
governor of Gujarat, started minting
coins and had the khutba (Friday sermon)
recited in his name, a privilege reserved for the emperor.
As
primogeniture did not guarantee automatic succession in the Mughal household, tensions amongst the
sons prompted a series of fratricidal
wars. Dara Shikoh made every efort to
thwart Aurangzeb’s attempts to visit Shah Jahan and enter Agra. At the epic battle of Samugarh on 25
May 1658, Aurangzeb’s previous
experience as a military commander gave
him the advantage and his troops succeeded in encircling Dara Shikoh’s elephant. The older prince’s
reckless decision to dismount from the
elephant and head towards a waiting
horse erroneously signalled to his supporters that he had conceded, and in the confusion Aurangzeb and
Murad Bakhsh outmanoeuvred the
opposition and defeated their eldest brother.
A magniicent drawing of the battle of Samugarh,
which has been attributed to the artist Payag, depicts the ill-fated moment of Dara Shikoh’s dismounting
from his elephant, observed by Aurangzeb
and his forces.13 In this portrayal of
the historic battle, Payag clearly delineated the opposing forces with a row of cannons
directed against Dara Shikoh’s troops.
The two brothers’ elephants are depicted
equally, yet Dara Shikoh’s figure is distinctly visible and proportionally larger than that of Aurangzeb,
who is obscured by the elephant’s
howdah. Although the scene depicts Dara
Shikoh’s defeat, the artist appears unwilling to admit the older prince’s failure and places them on an equal
footing.
In
a rather underhand move, Aurangzeb rewarded Murad Bakhsh’s support at Samugarh by having him
captured and imprisoned in Gwalior.
While Dara Shikoh fled to Shahjahanabad,
Aurangzeb presented himself to his father at
Agra and received valuable gifts including the sword known as ‘Alamgir (World Conqueror). Although there
was the pretence of a ceremony,
Aurangzeb did not trust his father and
placed him under house arrest in the Agra fort in June 1658. Following Shah Jahan’s imprisonment,
Aurangzeb openly declared himself
Emperor ‘Alamgir and subsequently held
two coronation celebrations: the irst in July 1658; and a second, more lavish event in May 1659, at which
he distributed gold and silver coins to
his supporters and extended family
members. As emperor, he sent military commanders in pursuit of Dara Shikoh, who was captured in
Baluchistan and thereafter executed on
the grounds of apostasy from Islam. Aurangzeb
also orchestrated the demise of Shah Shuja in 1660 and Murad Bakhsh in 1661. His father would
ultimately die in captivity in the Agra
fort in January 1666. It is highly unlikely
that depictions of these later events were commissioned.
In
1995, art historian Linda Leach, without citing a speciic source, wrote that Aurangzeb banned
historical painting in 1668; subsequent
scholars have never questioned this
assertion.14 Perhaps as a direct consequence, the artistic tradition during Aurangzeb’s reign has
received little attention and is not
fully understood. As he left no personal memoir
in the style of his ancestor Babur (1483–1530),15 or his grandfather Jahangir, the primary historical
resource ofering insight into
Aurangzeb’s political and personal matters is
the ‘Alamgirnama, the oicial history of the irst decade of his reign written at his request by Mirza
Muhammad Kazim. For several years
following Aurangzeb’s death, the historian
Muhammad Saqi Musta’idd Khan compiled the Maasir-i ‘Alamgiri, which provides a year-by-year
chronicle of his rule. From these
historical sources, we know that after the tenth year of his reign, Aurangzeb curtailed state
expenditure which included closing ‘the
costly department of prolix oicial
annals’ and gradually forbade music and dancing for pleasure at the court, and in his 11th regnal year
(1668–1669) abolished the daily practice
of darshan, the public viewing of the emperor
at the jharoka (the window or balcony for oicial imperial appearances).16 Neither source ofers any
precise explanation why historical
paintings ceased (or mentions that they were
speciically banned), or explains why there was a sharp decline in artistic production. Undoubtedly, his
increasing piety and interest in Islamic
law prevented him from supporting artists,
as he did not wish to be pictured in an idealised manner that would contravene his religious beliefs. His
move in 1681 from northern India to the
Deccan to concentrate on territorial
expansion was also a contributing factor; the emperor did not return from the Deccan and died in
Ahmadnagar in February 1707.
Although no imperial-quality literary or historical manuscripts are known to have been commissioned,17 there are numerous loose portrait studies of Aurangzeb that assist in developing a framework of the painting tradition during the second half of the seventeenth century. During the course of this period portraiture tended to dominate as a genre. Artists concentrated on simple individual portrait studies that could be assembled into albums. A high percentage were left unsigned and without inscriptions, making it almost impossible to identify either the artist or the subject. These pared-down portrait studies, painted in the nim-qalam technique with hints of colour and gold, are reminiscent of the Akbari period, when individuals were painted against a solid background; artists seemed to steer away from the type of developed background that had become fashionable during Jahangir and Shah Jahan’s time, a landscape which placed the sitter in a naturalistic setting. One of the earliest securely datable portraits of Aurangzeb followed this minimalist style. [Figure 1] This portrait of Aurangzeb, together with a portrait of one of his military commanders, both painted by Anup Chattar (circa 1640–1680), appeared on the art market in 2000.18 Using nim-qalam heightened with gold, the artist pictured the emperor as a mature man of slender build with a full black beard and drooping moustache, standing in proile facing right. A rather faint nimbus encircling his head is discernible. The ruler is dressed in a simple white garment trimmed with a gold border. His turban, fashioned out of gold fabric, is adorned with jewels that have been coloured in. His left hand rests on the hilt of a sword and in the other he holds a small lywhisk. A bold inscription in crisp calligraphy states: amal-i Anup Chattar sana ahad (painted by Anup Chattar in the irst year). This rather obscure painting is therefore the irst concrete piece of evidence that artistic practices continued into Aurangzeb’s reign. Furthermore, we have indisputable evidence of the emperor’s iconography from the time of his succession.
 |
The
second painting appearing in the same auction is another full-length portrait drawn in nim-qalam
heightened with gold by Anup Chattar and
depicts a bearded military oicer, Safshikan
Khan.19 The oicer is shown with a shield and sword hanging from his waist sash on the left and a dagger
tucked into the sash on the right. While
the identity of the sitter is relevant, the
inscriptions are even more important to our understanding of Aurangzeb’s patronage. The painting is
inscribed in distinctive calligraphy:
shabih-i Safshikan Khan amal-i Anup Chattar (likeness of Safshikan Khan, work of Anup Chattar) and
in smaller writing below khas ʿAlamgir
padshah (personal handwriting of King
ʿAlamgir).20 Directly above the sitter, a third set of inscriptions in gold ink conirm that this
is a portrait of ‘Safshikan Khan’. The
smaller inscription is indicative that the
emperor had personally viewed and approved of the portrait, thus establishing a direct link between
Aurangzeb’s patronage and the artistic
studio.21
In
addition to such individual portrait studies of the emperor standing against a solid background, scenes
of Aurangzeb enthroned also exist. A
noteworthy composition in the Chester
Beatty Library features Aurangzeb seated on a throne complete with a parasol and receiving a
teenage prince who holds a small tray of
jewels; a bearer holding the obligatory
horsehair lywhisk stands behind the emperor on the right.22 With Aurangzeb inely dressed, but not in
ceremonial attire, it is not possible to
interpret this work as an accession portrait.
Aurangzeb’s appearance with a dark beard and touches of grey along his hairline, and the presence of
a teenage prince, most likely his third
son ‘Azam Shah, suggest that the painting
dates to the late 1660s. Without close examination the composition could be mistaken for a late
eighteenth-century work from Lucknow or
Faizabad, as an artist repainted the
terrace and background landscape with miniature trees and created spatial recession that was
characteristic of the regional painting
style and the school of Mihr Chand.23 It is unclear if the emperor was originally portrayed with a
nimbus due to the over-painting and
retouching of this scene. The lack of
nimbus led to the portrait being published with a date of circa 1668, to it with a theory that portraits of
Aurangzeb painted from 1668 onwards
would not feature him with a nimbus as
it would be perceived as idolatrous and conlict with his increased religious orthodoxy.24
While
no accession portrait of Aurangzeb has been identiied, there is one durbar scene of Aurangzeb that
indicates that historical studies were
occasionally painted.25 In the collection
of the Museum of Islamic Art, Doha, we find a rather resplendent Aurangzeb dressed in a
fur-trimmed khilat (dress of honour
presented in durbar) kneeling on a golden throne under a gold and velvet shamiana (awning).26
He is pictured nimbate with a regal
falcon resting on his gloved right hand.
Gathered underneath the awning stand his closest ministers, including Shaiasta Khan and his young son
‘Azam Shah, who appears to be about
seven years old. There are no inscriptions
or visual evidence that can help to establish the context of this painting. Compared with the highly
formal and distinctive arrangement of
the durbar scenes in the Padshahnama, here
we are presented with a more intimate view and a simpliied arrangement of court life. While Laura Parodi
comments that the simpliied yet crowded
arrangement of the composition draws
attention away from the emperor and that he ‘no longer occupies an exalted position’, it is worth
considering that the artist might have
been referring back to an earlier practice
of group portraiture in which the emperor was pictured with members of his inner circle in a less formal
setting.27 While portraiture of the Shah
Jahan period often conveyed the ruler’s
self-importance, there is no suggestion that this had become the norm.
Portraiture
was the most common genre of late seventeenth century Mughal painting, but
hunting scenes continued to be
fashionable. In the 1630s and 1640s, some of the great hunting scenes featured accomplished
hunters such as Shah Jahan or Dara
Shikoh stalking their prey amidst
luscious green landscapes. Drawing from established artistic practices, Aurangzeb’s exceptional hunting
skills were likewise documented in some
of the inest representations of naturalistic
landscape of the time. The Maasir-i ʿAlamgiri
reports for the year 1662:
How
can I describe fully the hunting in which His Majesty often delighted? There was also a hunt in
which 355 deer were driven into the net;
eight of these were brought down by the
emperor [...] the rest were ordered to be released.28
An
accomplished night-time hunting scene featuring
Aurangzeb shooting nilgai (blue bucks) accompanied by his attendants is extraordinary. [Figure 2] The
artist’s ine detailing pictures a far-of
cityscape along the horizon and at some distance from the emperor, his retinue have set up
camp and await his return. From accounts
of Aurangzeb’s reign in the Maasir-i
ʿAlamgiri, the imperial household often interrupted long-distance journeys with stops for hunting. No details
in the depiction indicate the precise
site of this hunt and nor do any accounts
by the historian Muhammad Saqi Musta’idd Khan match the occasion allowing a possible dating. The
delicate greying of Aurangzeb’s beard, however,
suggests an approximate age in his
mid-50s, giving a likely date in the mid-1670s.
A
second hunting scene features an imperial lion-hunting party with Aurangzeb accompanied by his sons
and members of the nobility riding on
elephants.29 Aurangzeb sits on the irst
elephant with his teenage son, Kambakhsh (1667–1709), and several courtiers. Seated on the middle
elephant is likely to be ‘Azam Shah
(1653–1707), recognisable from his distinctive
square face and neatly trimmed beard. The third elephant is ridden by a figure who appears to be his
second son, Mu’azzam (1643–1712, the
future emperor Bahadur Shah), who has a
much stockier build and bushier beard. A row of
attendants lead the lion hunt riding on water bufaloes; more attendants in the far distance have erected a
net to contain the animals within its
perimeter for the ease of the hunting party.
Aurangzeb has a grey-tinged beard and his face has aged since the last hunting scene and it is very likely
that this painting was made in the years
before his departure for the Deccan in 1681.
Aurangzeb’s
political ambitions in the Deccan, compounded
with his change in attitude towards Mughal court practices, would without doubt have had a detrimental
impact on the surviving artists and
their protégés in Agra, Shahjahanabad,
and Lahore after 1681. Aurangzeb was 63 years old when he departed for the Deccan, never to return.
While there is no documented evidence of
imperial artists accompanying the
emperor on his military excursions in the region, artists in northern India continued to churn out generic
portraits of the ruler. Although he was
a skilled military commander, during the
inal two decades of his reign, artists often portrayed Aurangzeb as a frail man, frequently hunched
and reading from a religious text
airming his religious orthodoxy.30 There
are few signed and dated works which can help to establish the inal years of Aurangzeb’s reign.
In
2005 another portrait of Aurangzeb by Anup Chattar appeared on the art market. This plain
portrait study pictures an elderly ruler
dressed in simple clothing kneeling on a
golden throne placed on a white marble terrace. The lack of a nimbus encircling his head is likely to be
the artistic response to the emperor’s
increasing orthodoxy as a Sunni Muslim and
relected in his simple dress. In sharp contrast to Anup Chattar’s portrait of the emperor from 1658–1659, his
beard has turned fully white. Although
there is no architectural backdrop or
landscape to help establish the location or setting, the inclusion of inscriptions is most informative. This
work is inscribed: padshah Muhammad
Aurangzeb khuld makani (King Muhammad
Aurangzeb whose place is in heaven) and kar-i Anup Chattar musavvir padshah (work of Anup Chattar,
imperial painter). While the second
inscription conirms that Anup Chattar’s
career as a court artist continued during these turbulent times, the epithet khuld makani ‘whose place is in
heaven’ is likely to have been added
posthumously. It seems improbable that the
artist’s career could have spanned the whole of Aurangzeb’s reign and
continued well into the eighteenth century. A
number of factors such as the imposition of the jizya (poll tax) on non-Muslims in 1679, increased religious
orthodoxy at the court, and Aurangzeb’s
move to the Deccan in 1681 would have
brought the artist’s career to an end long before Aurangzeb’s death in 1707. Based on these historical
facts, it seems likely that this
portrait was painted just before Aurangzeb’s departure for the Deccan in 1681, rather than circa
1660, as it was originally published.31
It
is with great difficulty that we can piece together the historical portraits dating to Aurangzeb’s
later years, after his permanent move to
the Deccan. A portrait dated to the inal
decade of his reign pictures a frail Aurangzeb bent forward reading a text, whilst being carried on a
palanquin.32 The signiicance of the
portrait is in the inscription which states
that it is ‘a likeness of his excellency Aurangzeb ‘Alamgir I warrior of the faith in the year 1110
[1698–1699] work of Ghulaman’. It is
highly improbable that the artist was drawing
from life; artists who were far removed from the action in the
Deccan commonly replicated this compositional format featuring a weakened emperor carried on a palanquin.
Two
other paintings feature Aurangzeb during this period not as a frail elderly man but rather as a
healthy, robust igure of power. Painted
in northern India, either at Lahore or Delhi,
these two works are likely to have been commissioned by a high-ranking military commander rather than
the emperor himself.33 The irst depicts
the emperor carried on a palanquin
joining a royal hunting party. [Figure 3] This complex scene, attributed to the artist Bhavanidas (circa
1700–1748), is divided into three
sections: at the top, in the far distance, we can see an imperial procession of elephants behind the
hills. Aurangzeb is in the centre with
several noblemen standing around,
perhaps waiting for him to descend from the palanquin onto the waiting horse. At the bottom left,
servants wait patiently holding onto the
leads of antelopes and nilgai to be used as bait during the hunt and on the right, bearers
holding riles stand in formation. Aside
from the emperor, none of the igures has
been identiied. However, the middle-aged nobleman standing
 |
| Figure 2. Aurangzeb hunting nilgai, circa 1670–1680. Chester Beatty Library, inv. no. 11A.27 © The Trustees of the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. |
directly
to the left of the palanquin and gazing at the ruler appears in at least two other works. The
portrait is inscribed: shabih-i hazrat
ʿAlamgir badshah (likeness of emperor ‘Alamgir). The work is painted in the Mughal style by
Bhavanidas (uninluenced by the Deccani
school of painting), and there is no
documented evidence that the artist either travelled to or worked in the Deccan, making it highly
unlikely that he ever had the
opportunity to have an audience with the ruler.
Instead, the painting appears to be drawn from existing iconographies of the ruler and dates to the
irst decade of the eighteenth century.
The
final composition features Aurangzeb in durbar
surrounded by members of his court and receiving an elderly oicial. Also attributed to Bhavanidas, this
work demonstrates a renewed interest in
Mughal genealogy and historical
painting. Leach suggested that the painting represents the emperor pardoning Mu’azzam following his
imprisonment for suspected embezzlement
between 1687 and 1695. She based her
theory on the physical characteristics of the elderly oicial, with a rather slim igure and white pointed
beard, who might be Mu’azzam based on
the family resemblance. Her theory has
continued to be accepted without question.34 However, portraits of Mu’azzam from the time of his
accession in 1707 picture him as an
elderly man with a grey spade-like beard
and expanded waistline. A drawing in the British Library of the courtiers Asad Khan and Fathallah Khan
Bahadur allows us to establish that the
Dublin painting illustrates Aurangzeb
receiving Asad Khan, his amir al-umara (commander-in-chief).35 The
subject matter of the painting suggests that these studies were likely to have been commissioned by Asad
Khan to commemorate his military prowess
and appointment to the oice of amir
al-umara in 1701.
The
paucity of dated paintings from Aurangzeb’s reign makes it particularly diicult to establish the
state of the imperial workshop as well
as the careers of individual artists in the
post-Shah Jahani period. Nonetheless, artists were aware of the events unfolding at the court and
continued to depict Aurangzeb through
the traditional genre of portraiture and
this survey has sought to establish a framework from which to expand and learn more about this period of
artistic activity.
 |
| Figure 3. The Emperor Aurangzeb Carried on a Palanquin, Bhavanidas, circa 1795–1720, Metropolitan Museum of Art, Louis V. Bell Fund, 2003, inv. no. 2003.430 © Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. |
Although in the past Aurangzeb has been marginalised for his lack of artistic patronage, we can state with certainty that at least one artist, Anup Chattar, was welcomed at his court.
Notes
1.
Beach, M.C., Koch, E., and Thackston, W., King of the World, the Padshahnama, London, 1997.
2.
Wright, E., (ed.), Muraqqa͗: Imperial Mughal Albums from the Chester Beatty Library, Alexandria, Virginia, 2008,
pl.43A.
3.
Rogers, J. M., Mughal Miniatures, London, 1993, p.114. 4. Rogers, J. M., Mughal
Miniatures, p.114.
5.
Losty, J.P., A Prince’s Eye, London 2013, p.58. During the reign of Jahangir, Mughal artists appropriated the
halo or nimbus from Christian art to
designate kingship or royalty. As a result,
it was standard practice for artists to include the halo for portraits of the emperor and his heir
apparent. See Stronge, S., ‘Portraiture
at the Mughal Court’, in Crill, R. and Jariwala, K., The Indian Portrait: 1560–1860, London, 2010,
p.29.
6.
Wright, E., Muraqqa͗, pl.86.
7.
Leach, L.Y., Mughal and Other Indian Paintings in the Chester Beatty Library, London, 1995, vol. 1, p.471.
8.
Beach, M.C., Koch, E., and Thackston, W., King of the World, pls.10–14, 17, 19, 25–29, 43–46.
9.
Beach, M.C, Koch, E., and Thackston, W., King of the World, pl.29.
10.
Beach, M.C., Koch, E., and Thackston, W., King of the World, pls.43–45.
11.
Beach, M.C., Koch, E., and Thackston, W., King of the World, pls.130–43.
12.
Beach, M.C., Koch, E., and Thackston, W., King of the World, pl.212.
13.
Beach, M. C., The Grand Moghul: Imperial Painting in India 1600–1660, Williamstown, 1978, ig.168.
14.
Leach, L.Y., Mughal and Other Indian Paintings, p.487. See also Parodi, L., ‘Durbars in translation: the many
facets of the Mughal Imperial image
after Shah Jahan as seen in the ex Binney collection in the San Diego Museum of
Art’, in Patel, A., and Leonard, K.
(eds.), Indo-Muslim Cultures in Transition,
Leiden, 2011, pp.87–108.
15.
Babur, Emperor of Hindustan, The Baburnama: Memoirs of Babur, Prince and Emperor, Thackston, W. M.
(trans. and ed.), Washington, 1996.
16.
Maasir-i ‘Alamgiri: A History of the Emperor Aurangzib ‘Alamgir (reign 1658–1707 AD), Sarkar, J. (trans.), Calcutta,
1947, p.v.
17.
For an example of non imperial illustrated manuscripts from the second half of the seventeenth century
see Losty, J.P., ‘A new manuscript of
‘Inayatallah’s Bahar-i Danish’, Asian and African Studies Blog, British Library, 20 March 2015,
http://blogs.bl.uk/ asian-and-african/2015/03/a-new-manuscript-of-inayatallahs
bahar-i-danish.html
18.
Christie’s South Kensington, Islamic and Oriental Works of Art, 13 April 2000, lots 300 and 301. Lot 300 was
subsequently resold at Christie’s South
Kensington, Islamic and Indian Manuscripts and
Works on Paper, 23 April 2012, lot 302.
19.
Christie’s South Kensington, Islamic and Oriental Works of Art, 13 April 2000, lot 301.
20.
I am grateful to colleagues Ursula Sims-Williams and Dr Saqib Baburi for verifying the inscriptions.
21.
Anup Chattar’s career continued during Aurangzeb’s reign. For a portrait of Aurangzeb’s son Prince
‘Azam Shah aged 19 years by Anup
Chattar, see Losty, J.P., and Roy, M., Mughal
India: Art, Culture and Empire, London, 2012, p.155.
22.
Chester Beatty Library, Dublin, inv. no. 34.6, Leach, L.Y., Mughal and Other Indian Paintings, p.488.
23.
Leach, L.Y., Mughal and Other Indian Paintings, p.489 and Roy, M., ‘Some Unexpected Sources for Paintings by
the Artist Mihr Chand (circa 1759–86),
son of Ganga Ram’, South Asian Studies,
26, no. 1, 2010, pp.21-30.
24.
Leach, L.Y., Mughal and Other Indian Paintings, p.487.
25.
Welch suggests that this portrait may be in fact ‘Alamgir’s accession portrait, see Welch, S.C., The Art
of Mughal India: Painting and Precious
Objects, New York, 1963, p.127.
26.
Museum of Islamic Art, Doha, http://www.pbase.com/ bmcmorrow/image/125946649
27.
Beach, M.C., Goswamy, B.N., and Fischer, E., Masters of Indian Painting 1100-1900, Zurich, 2011, pp.141–42.
28.
Maasir-i ‘Alamgiri: A History of the Emperor Aurangzib ‘Alamgir, p.23. 29.
Leach, L.Y., Mughal and Other Indian Paintings, p.499.
30.
Losty, J.P., and Roy, M., Mughal India: Art, Culture and Empire, igs.95 and 101.
31.
Bonhams, Islamic and Indian Art Including Contemporary Indian and Pakistan, 25 April 2005, lot 119.
32.
Victoria and Albert Museum, London, inv. no. IM.234-1921,
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O113934/aurangzeb painting-ghulaman/.
33.
Losty, J.P., and Roy, M., Mughal India: Art, Culture and Empire, pp.159–60.
34.
Leach, L.Y., Mughal and Other Indian Paintings, p.489. See also Haidar, N., ‘Bhavanidas’, in Beach, M.C.,
Goswamy, B.N., Fischer, E., Masters of
Indian Painting 1100-1900, pp.536–38.
35.
Losty, J.P., and Roy, M., Mughal India: Art, Culture and Empire, pp.159–60, Johnson Album 24, 4.