Louise
Sellers
Dr.
Heston
Senior
Thesis
December
9, 2014
Allegory
or Visionary?
Rethinking the Allegorical Portraits of the
Mughal Emperor Jahangir
A prolific body of work created in the atelier, (kitabkhana), of the Mughal emperor, Jahangir, (1605-1627), illustrates his vast and intimate knowledge of painting. Jahangir’s father, Akbar the Great, (1556-1605), was devoted to the illustration of historical epics, Persian and Islamic as well as Indian. Although the paintings or miniatures were created before and after Jahangir's ascension to the Mughal Throne, Jahangir’s main manuscript productions were executed at the court he established in Allahabad during his rebellion from his father, (1600-1604).[1] Later works reflect an increased interest in individual portraiture, and naturalistic plant and animal themes. By moving away from textually driven painting to the use of the album, (muraqqa), Jahangir’s artists became invested in the completion of individual works of art.[2] An album, (muraqqa), contained a collection of works bound together. These works could include anything from animal studies, to allegorical works and portraits. They also contained works from a wide variety of cultures and time periods.[3] This paper will focus on a select group of portraits often referenced as the allegorical portraits of Jahangir. Included in these are Jahangir Preferring a Sufi Shayk, Jahangir Embracing Shah Abbas, Jahangir Shooting his Enemy Malik Ambar, and Jahangir Triumphing Over Poverty (fig. 1, 2, 3 & 4). I have chosen to focus on the last three works all done by the same artist Abu’l Hasan. These works depart from the main body of Jahangir’s paintings by their individual representation of the Emperor, the wide range of allegorical sources upon which the imagery draws and, what I will call here, visionary representation of Jahangir’s desired depiction of his rule. This was not necessarily a reflection of the historical reality presented in the writings of his time. The common description of these works as allegorical portraits, I will argue, is an oversimplification of a complex syncretic image of imperial rule which is unique in its visionary elements.
Jahangir saw
himself as a connoisseur of painting. There was not an artist from Jahangir or
his father’s, atelier that he did not claim to recognize by the artist's brush
stroke.
I derive such enjoyment from painting and have
such expertise in judging it that, even without the artist’s name being
mentioned, no work of past or present masters can be shown to me that I do not
instantly recognize who did it. Even if it is a scene of several figures and
each face is by a different master. I can tell who did which face. If in a
single painting different persons have done the eyes and eyebrows, I can
determine who drew the face and who made the eyes and eyebrows [4]
Before his ascension to the Mughal
Throne, Prince Salim, (Jahangir), rebelled against his father and established a
court with a separate atelier, (kitabkhana),
at Allahabad. Stronge noted there was
not a significant difference between the works produced by Akbar and Jahangir
at this time.[5] However, his creation of a separate court did
allow for the establishment of artists who would later become prolific painters
for Jahangir. One of these artists,
Abu’l Hasan, the son of Aqa Riza, would take a special place in the eyes of the
Jahangir.
Abu’l Hasan the artist, who had been awarded
the title of Nadiruzzaman [rarity of the time] presented a painting he had made
for the opening page of the Jahangirnama since it was worthy of praise, he was
shown limitless favor. Without exaggeration, his work is perfect, and his
depiction is a masterpiece of the age. In this era he has no equal or peer.
Only if Master Abul-Hayy and Master Bihzad were alive today would they be able
to do him justice[6]
Abu’l Hasan came to the court in Allahabad
with his father at the age of twelve.[7] Earlier works show his interest in copying
European works that were brought to both Akbar and Jahangir’s courts by Jesuit
missionaries.[8] Additionally, in 1616, the introduction of
English miniature portraits by James I’s ambassador, Sir Thomas Roe, the nephew
of the famous miniaturist, Isaac Oliver demonstrated a movement toward
psychological and realist portraiture that was embraced by Abu’l Hasan in his
visionary works of Jahangir.[9]
Jahangir’s albums
included a wide variety of themes from Persian, to European Christian and
secular works. He also had an interest
in Christian-themed paintings of the Virgin Mary and of Jesus. A Jesuit missionary noted his fascination for
these works even before he became the Emperor.
A letter written by Xavier, a Jesuit missionary, and sent to Akbar’s
court mentions that Prince Salim “was
very angry with those who had conducted the Father, because they had not
brought him any picture of Our Lady from Goa; and speaking to another, who was
about to set out to those parts, he charged him to buy certain pieces which he
desired to have, biding him above all things not to forget to bring a beautiful
picture of Our Lady.”[10] Writings by various authors note this
fascination with European imagery and the competition between Akbar and
Jahangir for power. They often include
descriptions of the procurement of a painting intended for Akbar.[11] It is unclear as to why Jahangir was so
enamored by European works. It has been
suggested that in an attempt to establish a divinely appointed lineage, Akbar
and his historian, Abu’l Fazl, viewed the images of the Virgin Mary and Christ
as a symbol of dynastic legitimacy. They
didnot view them as a messianic image in the way the Jesuit priests hoped, but
as a representation of Queen Alanqua.
The legend states that Queen Alanqua was visited by a divine light,
resulting in the birth of triplet sons.[12] One of these sons, who also contained the
divine light, was the ancestor of Akbar.
This established Akbar's lineage as divinely sanctioned.
Jahangir’s desire
for European imagery then is not related to conversion to Christianity but as a
source of imagery that described his own lineage through the Timurids.
Furthermore, these images had familiar allegorical and symbolic meaning to
Jahangir’s Persian and Indian artists.
Jahangir continued
the portraiture ideals established by Akbar in the narrative portraits entitled
Abu’l Hasan’s Celebration of Jahangir’s
Ascension, ca 1605, and The Weighing
of Prince Khurram ,ca 1625 artist unknown. (fig. 5 &6). However, these miniatures began to show a
subtle change in the representation of the Emperor as a more thoughtful ruler instead
of the dynamic, and vigorous image
contained in the representations of Akbar.
Jahangir refined the imperial image.
Jahangir's images focused on courtly life instead of the dynamic action-oriented portraits of Akbar.
The warm tones and busy nature of Abu’l Hasan’s Celebration of Jahangir’s Ascension contrast sharply with the
surrealistic scenes of Jahangir.
Janangir is depicted as a single figure triumphing over his enemies. In the Ascension, Jahangir rides a top a
large elephant. The two figures fill the
arched palace gateway. Jahangir dressed
in mustard yellow raises his arms in greeting to his people as trumpeters
announce his entrance. The dramatic
shifts in scale of the painting draw us to the individuals attending the celebration.[13] This work reflects the works done in Akbar’s
court in the late 16th Century.
In addition, it shows the
beginning of intense emotional
representation that can be seen in three paintings of Jahangir: Embracing
Shah Abbas, Jahangir Shooting his Enemy Malik Ambar, and Jahangir Triumphing over Poverty. These
paintings provide glimpses into the ceremonial life of Jahangir and his court. They are valuable in understanding the
imperial rule of the Jahangir during the Mughal Period. They also exemplify the departure of Jahangir
from courtly narrative in creating his allegorical or visionary works.
Jahangir was the first of the Mughal line
to rule over “a fully functioning system of sacred kingship”.[14] Akbar
sought to establish harmony among the many religious and ethnic constituents in
his empire. Jahangir furthered the
concepts of imperial conquest with the help of his son, Prince Khurram, (Shah
Jahan). Prince Khurram won most of his
victories during Jahangir’s reign.
Lefevre contends that Jahangir was the first emperor to, “claim
religious leadership over both Shi’is and Sunnis. Jahangir was also the first to witness the
effective transformation of the Safavids from saint-kings into staunch
upholders of Imami Shi’ism.”[15] The Safavid ruler, Shah Abbas, is part of a
striking image of Jahangir, Jahangir
Embracing Shah Abbas. During this
time period Shah Abbas embraced Imami Shi’ism and left the sunni concepts of
the caliphate. In Jahangir's painting,
the Shah is seen as a small, fragile ruler standing on top of a sleeping
lamb. He appears as though he can barely
stand on his own two feet. He looks up
into the eyes of the robust and virile Jahangir. Jahangir embraces him as though he is holding
him up while standing nobly on the sleeping lion. The European globe centers
our view on India, but the lion covers most of the Shah’s empire as well as
Jahangir’s empire.[16]
The relationship between the Mughal and Safavid empires starts with Babur, the
first Mughal Emperor. Up until this
point, Safavid Persia was the parent empire who offered protection to its son,
the Mughal Empire. Humayun, Jahangir’s
grandfather, spent a great deal of time in exile at the court of Shah Tahmasp. In creating this portrait, Jahangir expressed
his desire to show that the Mughal Empire no longer needed the Safavid Empire
for protection. just as the parent grows old and the son matures to take care
of the aging parent.[17] At the time of the painting, neither Shah
Abbas, nor his kingdom were frail, or aging, but were currently taking the strategically
located fort at Qandahar, in present day Afghanistan, from Jahangir. This seems to be the relationship of these
visionary paintings. They represent
Jahangir's expressed desires for his empire, but do not necessarily reflect
historical reality.
Other authors theorize that Jahangir's
paintings were merely a reflection of his inner self. Moin puts forward an interesting
interpretation of Jahangir Embracing Shah
Abbas. His interpretation is based on Jahangir's displeasure with the
Shah’s decision to nullify his saintly-king status in favor or Imami Shi’ ism.
He proposes we should, “read the painting as a reversal of the balance of
spiritual power between the two dynasties; a century after Babur’s submission
to Shah Ismai’ il; the saint-king Jahangir had performed the ‘oneiric miracle’
of turning the Safavid [Shah Abbas] into his disciple.”[18] Welch, in his discussion on Mughal Albums,
puts forward the idea that, “several of Abu’l-Hasan’s pictures served to
blunt-even exorcize-Jahangir’s deeper anxieties by turning them into
allegorical paintings…Fearful of losing the strategic fortress of Qandahar to
the Safavids, Jahangir deemed that his Iranian rival Shah ‘Abbas appeared in a
well of light and made him happy”[19]
Koch believes that the imagery used by Abu’l
Hasan could have been based on the Flemish engravings contained in the Antwerp Polyglot Bible[20]. The Bible was presented to Emperor Akbar in
1580 by Jesuit Missionaries. Strong adds
that the fathers also presented Akbar with Abraham Ortelius’ atlas entitled Theatrum Orbis Terrarum. Koch also purposes, in a later article, an
alternate allegory based on the Persian story of Majnun and Layla written by
Nizami of Ghanja, as well as the image of King Solomon as the ideal ruler.[21](fig.7)
The link between the European engravings and the concept of King Solomon is
demonstrated in the use of the predatory animals lying down with the prey. These
allegorical representations would have established Jahangir as the ideal king
who brought peace and prosperity to his kingdom. The key to understanding these allegories
lies in the consistency of the visual reference in the three visionary
paintings of the animals. It could also be
were the reference to allegory ends, and symbolic representation replaces
allegory as a tool to reference Jahangir’s own private visions that accompany
each of Abu’l Hasan’s representations of the Emperor.
In the
engraving of Pietatis Concordiae drawn
by Pieter van der Borcht and engraved by Pieter van der Weyden, it
symbolically references the ability of Messianic rule to bring peace among
animals prophesied in Isaiah[22] (fig. 8).
The wolf lies with the lamb,
The panther lies down with the kid,
Calf and lion cub feed together
With a little boy to lead them,
The cow and the bear make friends,
Their young lie together.
The lion eats straw like the ox.
The infant plays over the cobra’s hole
Into the viper’s lair
The young child puts his hand.
They do no hurt, no harm,
On all my holy mountain,
For the country is filled with the
knowledge of Yahweh
As the waters swell the sea. (Isaiah 11:
6-9)
The
use of animals to enact events from stories would not have been a difficult
concept for the Mughals to understand.[23] For the Mughals, the assembly of peaceful
animals would have connected with similar representations in the Persian and
Mughal paintings of King Solomon as well as King Guyumar from the Shahanama.[24].(fig.9
) Jahangir would have seen this as advantageous to his imperial image. King
Solomon was considered to be the epitome of kingly graces. In the three
allegorical paintings by Abu’l Hasan, the Emperor Jahangir is seen standing
atop a globe on the back of a lion who lays down in harmony with the lamb.
On
the second title page of the Bible an engraving by Van der Borcht of the Pietas Regia can be seen in reference to
the Jahangir Shooting the Head of Malik Ambar
..(fig.10) This would not seem so on
first appearance. The Pietas Regia
contains a compositional allegory that could have easily been interpreted by
its intended European audience. However,
this same allegorical meaning would not necessarily have been recognized in the
Islamic world. In spite of these
dissimilarities, Koch maintains that “the place of the female personification
of regal virtue in the central Asia of the composition is taken by Jahangir,
thus himself personifying ideal ruler ship.”[25] The sword
and arrow represent the difficult decisions that a leader is required to
make. This is similar in representation
to the stash of weaponry along the left hand side of the Pietas Regia.[26]
The same compositional layout of the two vertical elements centered by a
central figure and topped by a putto, are represented in both the painting and
the engraving. As in Christian symbolism, with the right hand representing good
and the left hand representing bad, Islamic symbolism also used the
right-hand-side of figure to represent good.
In this image the right-hand-side of Jahangir represented his familial
lineage through the Timurid line.
Jahangir is removing not just his personal enemy, but the enemy of the
people.
In addition to the elements seen in the Pietas Regia, the artist added symbolism
that would have been part of the Mughal Court.
The gold chain placed at the foot of the Emperor is one such
example. The gold chain installed by
Jahangir in the royal court allowed anyone who felt that justice was not being
fairly met to pull the chain and speak directly with Jahangir.[27]
Here we see the carefully balanced scales of justice hanging from the
chain. This could possibly have
symbolized that "no one finds this act to be unjust." Furthermore, Robert Skelton interprets other
symbols from the painting. He suggests
that the large grey fish with a bull on its back is from an old Islamic
cosmological concept presented in the poetry of the mystic, Farid al-din Attar
found in the Mantiq al-Tayr (1187)[28]
At the beginning
of the centuries God used the mountains as nails to fix the earth; and washed
earth’s face with the waters of ocean. Then he placed the earth on the back of
a bull, the bull on a fish, and the fish on the air[29]
By
incorporating both European and Islamic cosmology, Jahangir synthesizes a
dynastic image that is purely Mughal in style. Koch interprets the likeness to
the Pietas Regia, (a complex
sixteenth century European allegory), to mean, “…the Mughal artist did not simply
copy but rather adapted the whole concept. The European model became, in fact,
subject to an interpretatio Mongolica.”[30]
Although this image contained noble
ideals, it did not necessarily represent the actual historical reality of the
time period. Jahangir was in fact losing
to the Ambar. Jahangir's Son, Prince
Khurram, (Shah Jahan), was fighting this war for his father. Shortly after the war with Ambar, Prince Khurram rebelled. Some scholars
believe that Jahangir chose to use European religious symbolism to create his
dynastic image because it was neutral. Using neutral symbols encouraged harmony
between Islam and Hindu because it allowed both to be respected. It created a
common ground that was neither one nor the other.[31] Skelton, in his analysis of the work, relates
the image of Ambar and the owl to Mughal superstitions. In addition, he points out that the owl
represents a play on words that referenced Ambar’s dark skin coloring.[32] By removing the threat of Ambar, Jahangir could
view himself as the protector of his family.
In truth, Ambar was not removed, he died of old age. Ambar also helps Shah Jahan in his struggle
to claim the Mughal Throne from his siblings and Jahangir’s wife, Nur Jahan.[33]
In the circa 1620 portrait of Jahangir
Shooting Poverty, the underlying threats perceived by Jahangir no longer
came from outside the empire but from within.
Welch, in his analysis, comments that the threats were “from embittered
courtiers, from members of the imperial family, and from the emperor’s
introspective mind…”[34] Abu’l Hasan's image of the warrior king
absolving his people from the threat of poverty has a similar composition to
that of Jahangir Shooting his Enemy Ambar
Malik. Jahangir is portrayed as a
warrior and not as a spiritual leader. He wears a richly brocaded robe of
costly silk while standing firmly on the head and back of the lion. His head
and upper torso are surrounded by a radiating, double-ringed halo. Putti hover over his head on the
right-hand-side of the image. The putti
hold aloft the crown of the Timurid kings. Under the crown is the phrase,
“Blessed portrait of His supreme Majesty who dispatches his eager shafts into
poverty and who, through his rectitude and firmness is laying new foundations
for the world.”[35] In the left upper corner of the painting, a
putti holds fast to the chain of justice.
This chain of justice was also depicted in Jahangir Shooting his Enemy Ambar Malik. The symbolism of the putti, eagerly helping
Jahangir to avenge the effects of poverty, could be a reference to the newly
established East India Company.[36] These images, located in various albums, and
possibly compiled by either Jahangir or Shah Jahan, represent a king that seeks
to be the hero of his people.
As a Sunni ruler, Jahangir is considered
the caliph of the Prophet Mohammad by the orthodox Muslim courtiers. Therefore
he was deemed the protector of the Islamic faith.[37] In the training received from his father,
Akbar, Jahangir understood the need to balance the ulema, (people of the book), with his Hindustani nobles. His choice of subject matter for Abul Hasan’s
allegorical or visionary paintings describes the choices made by patron and the
artist in establishing an allegorical persona. “In most cases, the allegorical
disguise serves to highlight some specific feature-recognized, wished for, even
regretted-of the person portrayed.”[38] Jahangir sought to establish a deeply probing
look at the world around him and to record this visually. However, this goal is inconsistent with the
focus of his allegorical painting. Generally,
these works endeavored to record the inner psychological pictures created by
the Emperor. Beech, in the Grand Mogul, explains, “The differences
between works by different Jahangir painters are often very subtle, for the
painters worked in response to their patron, and became virtual extensions of
his personality…”[39]
They recorded dreams, and visions maintaining a spiritual connection with the
bestowers of royal power--the Chisti Sufi and the visionary embodiment of
Jahangir as a” universal ruler”.[40] In spite of their power, Jahangir constantly
balanced them politically. Jahangir
embraced the Hindu concept of ruler ship as a protector, or father figure, to
his people. Jahangir's determination to
create a universal dynastic image, and his obsession with the working of the
world, visually distinguishes him in his allegorical or visionary representations. Developing in the allegorical paintings, a
layer of meaning that is not seen in the standard representations of the
allegorical genre.
The design of an
allegory was used in literary, as well as visual, context. It was the extending of a metaphor. Merriam
Webster defined this as “A story in which the characters and events are symbols
that stand for ideas about human life or for political or historical
situations”[41]
During the High Renaissance allegories became popular in painting. Works such
as Filippino Lippi’s The Allegory of Music was a genre that
was seen by the Mughal Emperors through Jesuit Missionaries.(fig. 11) Themes such as Orpheus and the representation
of virtues and vices through classical Greek and Roman imagery were associated
with the popularity of the allegory in the Sixteenth Century. In addition to these allegories, Jahangir was
familiar with traditional Persian stories such as Majnun and Layla, and the concept of King Solomon as the ideal
ruler allegorical. These represent the
moral lessons of the age . Jahangir’s
allegorical works used the imagery from these stories. However, they do not represent a
conceptualized visual allegory in the same respect as other allegories. One example of this is Jahangir Embracing Shah Abbas which is a visual interpretation by
Abu’l Hasan of a dream Jahangir had.[42]
Welch refers to Jahangir's works as “wish fulfilling fantasies.” Ettinghausen describes them as a “dream
picture.”[43] In light of the diversity of their religious
and cultural symbolism, they remain “at best an innovative iconography”.[44]
Although iconography and allegories both substitute well known images for
ideas, they do so differently. Icons behave as signs to represent ideas or
people through systematic imagery. Allegories, on the other hand, rely not only
on the identification of symbols, but also literary references. The allegory not only references symbols as
individuals but also implies a parallel with the painting’s subject and the
allegory. Allegories “depend on a kind of transparency of means in the simple sense
that, as the metaphorical language of usual interpretation implies, it is
possible to ‘see through’ the surfaces of the work to its meaning.”[45]
We do not have the ability to fully understand the allegorical theme of these
works, or even if they were intended as an allegorical representation of
Jahangir’s ideals because the albums containing the works have been
disband. We do not know what was
originally bound with them. This leaves
us with an image that has many possible layers of interpretation.
It
is clear that Jahangir developed an imperial image protocol that used European,
Persian, Islamic, and Indian Symbolism.
He also created a unique representation of himself and his boundaries
within a world of constantly changing boundaries. He sought to establish
himself as the divine ruler over his empire--an empire he saw as universal. His dynastic image was linked to a past
through his father’s divinity, and his Timurid lineage. Its purpose was to maintain Jahangir as
"Shah of Shahs." It was also to reinforce his "divinely ordained
role from birth” sanctioned by the Chisti Sufi Order. However, simply assigning
these images to the category of “allegory,” in a European centric context,
reduces the complex and nuanced importance of these images to Jahangir’s
leadership. Their dream-like or
visionary representations set them apart both from the main body of Jahangir’s
works as well as from the normally accepted concept of allegory.
[1]
Susan
Stronge, Painting for the Mughal Emperor: The Art of the Book, 1560-1660
(London: V&A Publications, 2002), 112.
[2]Terence McInerney,
"Three Paintings by Abu'l Hasan in a Manuscript of the Bustan of
Sa'di," inArts of Mughal
[3]
Milo
Cleveland. Beach, Mughal and Rajput Painting (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1992), 82.
[4] Jahangir and W.
M. Thackston, The Jahangirnama: Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor of
[5] Stronge, Painting
for the Mughal Emperor, 112.
[6] Jahangir and W. M. Thackston, The
Jahangirnama: Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor of
[7] Milo Cleveland
Beach, "The Mughal Painter Abu'l Hasan and Some English Sources for His
Style,"The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery38 (January 01, 1980):
18.
[8] Beach, “The
Mughal Painter Abu’l Hasan and Some English Sources for His Style”, 17.
[9] Strong, Painting
for a Mughal Emperor, 138.
[10] Beach, Mughal and
Rajput Painting, 70. Also quoted in Som
Prakash Verma, Interpreting Mughal Painting: Essays on Art, Society, and
Culture (
[11] Ibid,99.
[12] Gauvin Alexander
Bailey, "The Indian Conquest of Catholic Art: The Mughals, the Jesuits,
and Imperial Mural Painting," Art Journal 57, no. 1, The
Reception of Christian Devotional Art (April 01, 1998): 28.
[13] Beach, “The Mughal Painter Abu’l Hasan and
Some English Sources for Hist Style”, 24.
[14]Corinne Lefèvre,
"The Majālis-i Jahāngīrī (1608-11): Dialogue and Asiatic Otherness at the
Mughal Court," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient
55, no. 2/3, Cultural Dialogue in South Asia and Beyond: Narratives, Images and
Community (sixteenth-nineteenth Centuries) (January 01, 2012): 265.
[15] Lefèvre,
"The Majālis-i Jahāngīrī”:265.
[16] Ebba Koch,
"The Symbolic Possession of the World: European Cartography in Mughal
Allegory and History Painting," Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient 55, no. 2-3 (2012): 557.
[17]Lefèvre, “The
Majālis-i Jahāngīrī”, 269.
[18] Located in Moin, Islam and the Millenium.
Quoted in Lefèvre, "The Majālis-i Jahāngīrī”:269.
[19] Located in
footnote 1. Stuart Cary. Welch et al., The Emperors'
Album: Images of Mughal
[20]
Ebba
Koch, "The Mughal Emperor as Solomon, Majnun, and Orpheus, or the Album as
a Think Tank for Allegory," Muqarnas 27 (January 01, 2010),286.
[21] Koch, “The Mughal
Emperor as Solomon, Majnun, and Orpheus”, 278.
[22] Ebba Koch, Mughal
Art and Imperial Ideology: Collected Essays (
[23] These sources
would have been familiar to Jahangir and his court artist: “Anwar-I Suhayli,
and Iyar-I Danish, Abul Fazl’s version of the famous Kalilah wa Dimnah
(completed in 1588)…peace among the animals brought about by the justice of the
ruler in the earliest Mughal writing: Khwandamir in His Qanunpi Humayuni written
in 1533-34, Uses metaphors similar to the Biblical ones”
Koch,
Mughal Art and Imperial Ideology, 2.
[24] Koch, “The Mughal
Emperor as Solomon, Majnun, and Orpheus”, 283.
[25] Koch, Mughal Art
and Imperial Ideology, 5.
[26] Ibid., 5.
[27] Robert Skelton,
"Imperial Symbolism in Mughal Painting," Content and Context of
Visual Arts in the Islamic World: Papers from a Colloquium in Memory of Richard
Ettinghausen, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 2-4 April 1980,
by Priscilla Parsons. Soucek (University Park: Published for the College Art Association
of America by the Pennsylvania State University Press, 1988), 182.
[28] Further
discussion on this cosmology with visual representations from other works can
be found in this article. Ebba Koch, "The Symbolic Possession of the
World: European Cartography in Mughal Allegory and History Painting,"
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 55, no. 2-3 (2012):552.
[29] Fard a-din Attar,
Mantiq al-Tayr translanted by CS> Nott (London Rutledge and Kegean 1954:3 quoted
in Koch, “The Symbolic Possession of the World”, 552.
[30] Koch,Mughal Arts
and Imperial Ideology,8.
[31]Gauvin Alexander
Bailey, "The Indian Conquest of Catholic Art: The Mughals, the Jesuits,
and Imperial Mural Painting," Art Journal 57, no. 1, The Reception of
Christian Devotional Art (April 01, 1998)24-30: 29.
[32] Skelton,
“Imperial Symbolism in Mughal Painting”, 178.
[33]
Ibid.,
179.
[34] Welch et al, The
Emperors’ Album, 20.
[35] Sumathi Ramaswamy, "Conceit of the Globe
in Mughal Visual Practice," Comparative Studies in Society and History 49,
no. 4 (October 01, 2007):772.
[36] Beach, “The
Mughal Painter Abu’l Hasan”, 15.
[38]Maurice Brock,
Bronzino (
[39]
Milo
Cleveland. Beach, Stuart Cary Welch, and Glenn D. Lowry, The Grand Mogul:
Imperial Painting in
[40]
Koch,
“The Mughal Emperor as Majnun, Orpheus, and Solomon”, 277.
[41]Merriam-Webster,
section goes here, accessed November 8, 2014, http://www.merriam-webster.com/.
[42] Lefèvre,
"The Majālis-i Jahāngīrī”, 280.
[43] Robert Skelton,
"Imperial Symbolism in Mughal Painting", 178.
[44]
Mary E. Heston, e-mail
message to author, November 9, 2014.
[45]
Preziosi,
Donald (ed), The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology, Oxford University
Press), 1988,133.
Bibliography
Ahmad, Qadi. Calligraphers
and Painters: A Treatise. Translated by V. Minorskij. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Inst., 1959.
Alam, Muzaffar, and Sanjay Subrahmanyam. Writing the Mughal World: Studies on Culture
and Politics. New York: Columbia University Press, 2012.
Asher, Catherine B., and Cynthia Talbot. India before Europe. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2006.
Bailey, Gauvin Alexander. "The Indian Conquest of
Catholic Art: The Mughals, the Jesuits, and Imperial Mural Painting." Art Journal 57, no. 1, The Reception of
Christian Devotional Art (April 01, 1998): 24-30.
Beach, Milo Cleveland. "The Gulshan Album and Its
European Sources." Bulletin of the
Museum of Fine Arts 63, no. 332 (January 01, 1965): 63-91.
Beach, Milo Cleveland. The Imperial Image:Paintings for the Mughal Court. Washington,
D.C.: Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, 1981.
Beach, Milo Cleveland. Mughal and Rajput Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1992.
Beach, Milo Cleveland. "The Mughal Painter Abu'l
Hasan and Some English Sources for His Style." The Journal of the Walters Art Gallery 38 (January 01, 1980): 6-33.
Beach, Milo Cleveland., Stuart Cary Welch, and Glenn
D. Lowry. The Grand Mogul: Imperial
Painting in India, 1600-1660. Williamstown, MA: Sterling and Francine Clark
Art Institute, 1978.
Beckwith, Christopher I. Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze
Age to the Present. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.
Berlekamp, Persis. Wonder,
Image, and Cosmos in Medieval Islam. New Haven: Yale University Press,
2011.
Blair, Sheila, Jonathan Bloom, and Richard
Ettinghausen. The Art and Architecture of
Islam 1250-1800. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
Brock, Maurice. Bronzino.
Paris: Flammarion, 2002.
Faruqui, Munis Daniyal. Princes of the Mughal Empire, 1504-1719. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2012.
Fisher, Michael Herbert. Visions of Mughal India: An Anthology of European Ravel Writing.
London: I.B. Tauris, 2007.
Goetz, Hermann. "The Early Muraqq's of the Mughal
Emperor Jahangir." East and West
8, no. 2 (July 01, 1957): 157-85.
Hattstein, Markus, and Peter Delius. Islam: Art and Architecture. Cologne:
Könemann, 2000.
Heston,
Mary E. E-mail message to author. November 9, 2014.
Jahangir, and W. M. Thackston. The Jahangirnama: Memoirs of Jahangir, Emperor of India. New York:
Freer Gallery of Art, Arthur M. Sackler Gallery in Association with Oxford
University Press, 1999.
Koch, Ebba. Mughal
Art and Imperial Ideology: Collected Essays. New Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 2001.
Koch, Ebba. "The Mughal Emperor as Solomon,
Majnun, and Orpheus, or the Album as a Think Tank for Allegory." Muqarnas 27 (January 01, 2010): 277-311.
Koch, Ebba. "The Symbolic Possession of the
World: European Cartography in Mughal Allegory and History Painting." Journal of the Economic and Social History
of the Orient 55, no. 2/3, Cultural Dialogue in South Asia and Beyond:
Narratives, Images and Community (sixteenth-nineteenth Centuries) (January 01,
2012): 547-80.
Lefèvre, Corinne. "The Majālis-i Jahāngīrī
(1608-11): Dialogue and Asiatic Otherness at the Mughal Court." Journal of the Economic and Social History
of the Orient 55, no. 2/3, Cultural Dialogue in South Asia and Beyond:
Narratives, Images and Community (sixteenth-nineteenth Centuries) (January 01,
2012): 255-86.
Losty, Jeremiah P., and Malini Roy. Mughal India: Art, Culture and Empire:
Manuscripts and Paintings in the British Library. London: British Library,
2012.
Losty, Jeremiah P., and Malini Roy. Mughal India: Art, Culture and Empire:
Manuscripts and Paintings in the British Library. London: British Library,
2012.
McInerney, Terence. "Three Paintings by Abu'l
Hasan in a Manuscript of the Bustan of Sa'di." In Arts of Mughal India: Studies in Honour of Robert Skelton. London:
Victoria & Albert Museum, 2004.
Merriam-Webster.
Accessed November 8, 2014. http://www.merriam-webster.com/.
Moin, A. A. "Peering through the Cracks in the
Baburnama: The Textured Lives of Mughal Sovereigns." Indian Economic & Social History Review 49, no. 4 (2012):
493-526.
Preziosi,
Donald, ed. The Art of Art History a Critical Anthology. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1998.
Ramaswamy,
Sumathi. "Conceit of the Globe in Mughal Visual Practice." Comparative Studies in Society and History
49, no. 4 (October 01, 2007): 751-82.
Richards,
John F. The Mughal Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
Robinson, Francis. The
Mughal Emperors and the Islamic Dynasties of India, Iran, and Central Asia,
1206-1925. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2007.
Roe, Thomas, and William Foster. The Embassy of Sir Thomas Roe to the Court of the Great Mogul, 1615-19:
As Narrated in His Journal and Correspondence. London: Printed for the
Hakluyt Society, 1899.
Seyller, John. "Codicological Aspects of the
Victoria and Albert Museum Akbarnāma and Their Historical Implications." Art Journal 49, no. 4, New Approaches to
South Asian Art (December 01, 1990): 379-87.
Seyller, John. "The Inspection and Valuation of
Manuscripts in the Imperial Mughal Library." Artibus Asiae 57, no. 3/4 (January 01, 1997): 243-349.
Seyller, John William. Workshop and Patron in Mughal India: The Freer Rāmāyaṇa and Other
Illustrated Manuscripts of ʻAbd Al-Raḥīm. Zürich: Artibus Asiae
Publishers, 1999.
Skelton,
Robert. "Imperial Symbolism in Mughal Painting." In Content and
Context of Visual Arts in the Islamic World: Papers from a Colloquium in Memory
of Richard Ettinghausen, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 2-4 April
1980, by Priscilla Parsons. Soucek, 177-87. University Park: Published for
the College Art Association of America by the Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1988.
Smart, Ellen. "The Death of Ināyat Khān by the
Mughal Artist Bālchand." Artibus
Asiae 58, no. 3/4 (January 01, 1999): 273-79.
Soucek, Priscilla P. "Persian Artists in Mughal
India: Influences and Transformations." Muqarnas 4 (1987): 166-81.
Srivastava, Ashok Kumar. Mughal Painting: An Interplay OfIindigenous and Foreign Traditions.
New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 2000.
Stronge, Susan. Painting
for the Mughal Emperor: The Art of the Book, 1560-1660. London: V&A
Publications, 2002.
Turner, Howard R. Science
in Medieval Islam: An Illustrated Introduction. Austin: University of Texas
Press, 1997.
Verma, Som Prakash. Interpreting Mughal Painting: Essays on Art, Society, and Culture.
New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Welch, Anthony, and Stuart Cary. Welch. Arts of the Islamic Book: The Collection of
Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan. Ithaca: Published for the Asia Society by
Cornell University Press, 1982.
Welch, Stuart Cary., Annemarie Schimmel, Marie L. Swietochowski, and Wheeler M. Thackston. The Emperors' Album: Images of Mughal India. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1987.
 |
Fig 1. . Jahangir Preferring a Shaykh to Kings,by Bichitr. Mughal period,ca. 1615-18. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Instutuion. Prchase. F42.15. |
 |
Fig 2. Jahangir Embracing Shah Abbas. Painted by Abul Hasan, ca. 1618. Opaue watercolor, gold and ink on paper. Freer Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. |
 |
Fig. 3. Jahangir Shoots Malik Ambar. Painted by Abul Hasan ca. 1620. Guache on paper. Trustees of the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin. |
 |
Fig. 4. Jahangir Shooting Poverty. Attributed to Abul Hasan ca. 1620-25. Los Angeles County Museum of Art. |
 |
Fig. 5.Celebrations at Jahangir’s Accession, by Abu’l Hasan. From a Jahangirnama manuscript. Mughal period, ca. 1605. Saint Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Science. E. 14,folio 21. |
 |
Fig. 6. The Weighing of Prince Khurram. Jahangirnama Manuscript, Mughal period, ca. 1625, bequeathed by P.C. Manuk Esq. and Miss G. M. Coles through the N.A.C.P. 1948.10-9.069. British Museum. |
 |
Fig 7. Album page. Top, left: Manohar, Layla and Majnun, ca. 1595-1600; right: Manohar, Layla and Majnun, ca. 1595-166, Bottom, Left: Layla and Majnun, attributed to Basawan, ca. 1595; right: Orphesus playing to the beast, Mugahl, ca. 1600 from the Muraqqa-i Gulshan (Glushan Album), Mughal, early seventeenth century. Tehran, Gulistan Palace Library, no. 1663, p.248. (Photo: Ebba Koch, 2005) |
 |
Fig. 8. Pietatis Concordiae or The peace among the animals according to Isiah, designed by the editor of the Royal Polyglot Bible, Benito Arias Montano, drawn by Pieter van der Borcht, and engraved by Pieter an der Heyden, 1569. |
 |
Fig. 9..Solomon Enthroned Holding Court Among his Animal Subjects, the Angels, and the Demons, Mughal, ca. 1600’ Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, Ms. Dourc or. A. 1.fol. 51b. |
 |
Fig. 10. Pietas Regia or The Piety of Phillip II as protector of the Catholic faith designed by Benito Arias Montano, dran by Pieter van der Borcht, and engraved by Pieter van der Heyden, 1569. |
 |
Fig.11. The Allegory of Music Fillipino Lippi ca 1475 |