Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:16:53.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development of Traditions of Book Illustration in Pre-Safavid Iran

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Marie Swietochowski
Marie Swietochowski*
Affiliation:
Metropolitan Museum of Art
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the Safavid period the concepts of miniature painting, already fully established in the Timurid period, still prevailed with certain modifications and changes in emphasis. Timurid painting in its turn had expanded and refined an art which had developed in the course of the fourteenth century into the “kind of painting,” as Dūst Muḥammad wrote in the mid-sixteenth century, “which is current at the present time.” Although Persian miniature painting achieved its first stage of maturity under the Jalā'irid sultans in the second half of the fourteenth century, the development was uneven. During the Jalā'irid and subsequent Timurid periods illustrations were produced which were markedly different from each other not only in concept and purpose but also in their stage of artistic development and degree of sophistication.

The study of the various factors that influenced the development of the art of the book in Iran is a vast subject.

Type
Research Article
Information
Iranian Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 1-2: Studies on Isfahan: Proceedings of the Isfahan Colloquium, Part I , Spring Winter 1974 , pp. 49 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Association For Iranian Studies, Inc 1974

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. See Schroeder, Eric, “Ahmed Musa and ams al-Dīn, A Review of Fourteenth Century Painting,” Ars Islamica VI (1939), pp. 113–43.Google Scholar

2. Jonah and the Whale. M.M.A. 13.113 18-15/16 x 12-9/16 in. While I do not have the exact size of the Istanbul miniature, or its library number, a similar series in the Metropolitan Museum, 35.64.3, 50.23.1, 2, vary from 22-3/8 to 23 in. in their largest dimension and from 16-7/8 to 17-3/4 in. in their smallest.

3. Jāmīᶜ al-Tavārīkh, Topkapi Saray Library, Istanbul, Hazine 1654; Inal, Güner, “Some Miniatures of the Jāmīᶜ al-Tavārīkh in Istanbul, Topkapi Museum, Hazine Library No. 1654,” Ars Orientalis V (1963), pp. 163–76.Google Scholar Majmaᶜ al-Tavārīkh, Topkapi Saray Library, Hazine 1653; Ettinghausen, Richard, “An illuminated manuscript of Ḥafiẓ-i Abru in Istanbul, Part I,” Kunst des Orients II (1955), pp. 30–44.Google Scholar Jāmiᶜ al-Tavārīkh, Bibliothèque Nationale, Suppl. Pers. 1113; Stchoukine, Ivan, Les Peintures des Manuscrits Tīmûrides (Paris: 1954)Google Scholar, ms. XXIX for bibliography. Mi'raj-nāmah, Bibliothèque Nationale, Suppl. Turc 190; Stchoukine, pp. 54-55 for bibliography. Khavaran-nāmah; Grube, Ernst, Muslim Miniature Painting (Venice: 1962)Google Scholar, nos. 46-49 and pp. 64-65 for bibliography.

4. See Stchoukine, pp. 51, the Gulistān of Saᶜdī (0,250 x 0,150 cm.) and p. 52, Humāy and Humāyun (no measurements given).

5. Topkapi Saray Library, Hazine 1653 f. 121r. The Metropolitan Museum 13.228.13 f. lor.

6. Klima, Otaka, “Literature of the Last Century of the Persian Era,” History of Iranian Literature, Rypka, Jan, ed. (Dordrecht: 1968), p. 58.Google Scholar

7. See note 3. in 828/1424-25 Hāfiẓ-i Abrū, at the order of Shāh Rukh, wrote a new edition of the Jāmiᶜ al-Tavārīkh of Rashīd al-Dīn, replacing the first portion of the book, pre-Islamic history, at that time considered lost, with the first part of the Zubdat al-Tavārīkh (also called the Majmaᶜ al-Tavārīkh, with the fourth section called the Zubdat al-Tavārīkh-i Bāysunghurī, but here called the Zubdat al-Tavārīkh to distinguish it from the Majmaᶜ al-Tavārīkh written for Shāh Rukh in 1417). The Zubdat al-Tavārīkh was begun in 826/1423 and was written for Bāysunghur, Shāh Rukh's son, in four sections, and was a general history from the time of Adam until 830/1426-27. See C.A. Storey, Persian Literature, a Bio-bibliographical Survey, vol. 1, part I, section II, fasc. I, pp. 87 & 88 and Tauer, Felix, “Les Manuscrits persans historiques des Bibliothèques de Stamboul, no. VIII; ᶜAbdullāh b. Luṭfullah b. ᶜAbdurrashid (Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū) Magmu 'a-i Hafiz-i Abru,” Archiv Orientalni, vol. III (1931) p. 99.Google Scholar Since the colophon of the first part of the first part of the history in the Topkapi Saray Library, Hazine 1653 contains the date 829/1425 (see Ettinghausen, op. cit., p. 32). it would appear to be the Jāmiᶜ al-Tavārīkh completed by the Zubdat al-Tavārīkh (Majma’ al-Tavārīkh) of Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū, as ordered by Shāh Rukh. This would explain the miniatures from both the Mongol and Timurid periods. Since I have not studied the text of Hazine 6154, I do not know the reason for miniatures of different periods in that volume.

8. Gray, Basil, “An Unknown Framgent of the Jāmiᶜ al-Tavārīkh in the Asiatic Society of Bengal,” Ars Orientalis I (1954), pp. 65–76.Google Scholar

9. Stchoukine, p. 40, Gulbenkian Anthology and p. 41, British Museum Anthology, Add. 27261.

10. For illustrations of the Gulbenkian Anthology of 1410, see Gray, Basil, Persian Painting (Geneva: 1961), pp. 76–79.Google Scholar Ibrāhīm and the Flames is on p. 79. The illustration of Aquarius from the Kitāb al-Bulhan is on p. 50. For more information on this manuscript, see Rice, D.S., “The Seasons and Labors of the Months in Islamic Art,” Ars Orientalis I (1954), pp. 1–40.Google Scholar

11. Ettinghausen, Richard, Arab Painting (Geneva: 1962)Google Scholar, see illustrations pages 75, 84, 85, 87, 88, 93 & 97.

12. Topkapi Saray Library, Baghdad 282. Aga-Oglu, Mehmet, “Preliminary Notes on some Persian Illustrated Manuscripts in the Topkapu Serayi Müzesi--Part I,” Ars Islamica II (1934), pp. 183–199Google Scholar, figs. 6 & 9. Mentions also Hazine 2163. The Majmaᶜ al-Tavārīkh was written by Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū at the order of Shāh Rukh in 820/1417 and was to combine in one work the most important histories of the world, which included Balāmī's, translation of Ṭabarī's Annals, Rashīd al-Dīn's Jāmiᶜ al-Tavārīkh and Niẓāmī Shāmī's Zafarnāmah, with supplements by Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū. See Tauer, op. cit., pp. 97-98 and Storey, op. cit., p. 87. Baghdad Kiosk 282 is this work. Only the section containing Balāmī's Ṭabarī is illustrated.

13. Topkapi Saray Library, Hazine 6153, see notes 3 & 12.

14. Sakisian, Arménag Bey, La Miniature Persane (Paris and Brussels: 1929)Google Scholar, fig. 46, Adam and Eve. Moses and the Giant ᶜŪj, from the Majmaᶜ al-Tavārīkh of Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū, Topkapi Saray Library, Istanbul, Baghdad 282.

15. Felix Tauer, “Perisan Learned Literature…; Geography,” History of Iranian Literature, op. cit., pp. 460-61.

16. Stchoukine, p. 32. See Gray, Persian Painting, p. 45 for illustrations of the 1388 ms, Bibliothèque Nationale, Supp. Pers. 332. See Barrett, Douglas, Persian Painting in the 14th Century (London: n.d.)Google Scholar, pl. 8 for Humāy and Humāyun, British Museum, Or. 18113.

17. Brian, Doris, “A Reconstruction of the Miniature Cycle in the Demotte Shah Nameh,” Ars Islamica VI (1939), pp. 97–112.Google Scholar

18. See M.S. Ipsiroglu, Painting and Culture of the Mongols (n.v.: n.d.), illustration p. 90 of Isfandiyar and the Wolves, no 50 from Hazine 2153, f. 73b. Atasöy, Nurhan, “Four Istanbul Albums and some Fragments from Fourteenth Century Shah-Namehs,” Ars Orientalis VIII (1970), pp. 19–48.Google Scholar Illustration shows general range of development of epic illustration in the fourteenth century.

19. See Gray, op. cit., p. 81 for illustrations from the Paris ms. supp. pers. 1113. The album page in Istanbul is from Hazine 2153, f. 113V.

20. See Barrett, pl. 10 for illustration from 1397 epic, British Museum Or. 278000. For Gulbenkian Anthology illustration of Majnūn on Laylah's tomb, see Survey of Persian Art, pl. 859.

21. The album leaf is from Hazine 2153, f. 119r; the other leaf in Istanbul is from Baghdad 282. For an illustration of the former, see Ipsiroglu, p. 67, no. 25. Close to the Walters miniature in format and to the miniature in Baghdad Kiosk 282 in the spacing of the figures is the same scene in Hazine 1652, f. 35v, the Ḥafiẓ-i Abrū manuscript previously discussed. For an illustration of the latter, see Ettinghausen, fig.7.