.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Although the Shahnama is the national epic of Iran, its popular text with fascinating mythical rulers was also copied in India. While no illustrated Shahnama text produced for the Imperial Mughal court has survived, there are a small number of seventeenth century illustrated Mughal copies known, which were produced for Mughal noblemen. One of these is housed in the British library (Add.MS 5600) which was prepared in the studio of the great noble ‘Abd al-Rahim the khan-i-khanan around 1616.
Although the latter contains signed illustrations by painters who were in some ways associated with the royal studio, other known copies of the Shahnama from the period were in a different style, distinguished by flat grounds of two or more colours and simplified figures in a ‘Popular’ Mughal style.
Our manuscript folios are illustrated in the same Popular Mughal style which is also seen in a complete Shahnama in the Metropolitan Museum, dated to 1601 (inv. no. 13.228.22) and another copy dated 1603, published in Francesca Galloway, Springar, An Exhibition Celebrating Divine and Erotic Love, London, 2007, pp.12-17. The illustrations in these manuscripts and ours share the same small scale miniatures and the lack of interest in spacial recession by the artist. This is seen with the use of bands of two or more colours forming the ground and a small horizon of distant hills shown on a few scenes. Due to the variety of different figures and techniques used throughout the manuscript, it is evident that the illustrations were completed by at least two different artists. The latter examples are slightly earlier than ours and bear illustrations which are executed with the use of a much finer brush and depict a Shiraz style landscape strewn with floral designs. The slightly more vivid and stronger colours used on our manuscript further indicate its provincial production and style of the work which is slightly removed from the imperial style and is reaching the epitome of the Popular Mughal style prevalent at the time.
Although the latter contains signed illustrations by painters who were in some ways associated with the royal studio, other known copies of the Shahnama from the period were in a different style, distinguished by flat grounds of two or more colours and simplified figures in a ‘Popular’ Mughal style.
Our manuscript folios are illustrated in the same Popular Mughal style which is also seen in a complete Shahnama in the Metropolitan Museum, dated to 1601 (inv. no. 13.228.22) and another copy dated 1603, published in Francesca Galloway, Springar, An Exhibition Celebrating Divine and Erotic Love, London, 2007, pp.12-17. The illustrations in these manuscripts and ours share the same small scale miniatures and the lack of interest in spacial recession by the artist. This is seen with the use of bands of two or more colours forming the ground and a small horizon of distant hills shown on a few scenes. Due to the variety of different figures and techniques used throughout the manuscript, it is evident that the illustrations were completed by at least two different artists. The latter examples are slightly earlier than ours and bear illustrations which are executed with the use of a much finer brush and depict a Shiraz style landscape strewn with floral designs. The slightly more vivid and stronger colours used on our manuscript further indicate its provincial production and style of the work which is slightly removed from the imperial style and is reaching the epitome of the Popular Mughal style prevalent at the time.