Indian Painting under the Mughals, A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1750 c18.14

c18.14

A short account of each group of pictured manuscripts will be now undertaken, in the sequence in which it is believed they were produced. The oldest group, as already stated, consists of the *Dārābnāma* and the *Bāburnāma* in the British Museum, both of which were probably finished about 1575. They are so classified because on the whole the illustrations in these two works are more immature and uneven in treatment than in any of the other volumes of the series. There is little of the Persian element discernible, and much of the painting is essentially Indian in its character and handling. As with the *Amir Hamzah*, so with these two books it is quite possible to realize the conditions under which they were produced. The illustrative part was handed out to a large staff of painters of mixed qualifications, and some with limited experience in this particular branch of pictorial art. They were left very much to their own devices, supervised in some respects, but in the main allowed a fairly free hand in their work. It is obvious that a few had received more training than others, and one or two were fairly expert in their craft, but the majority of them were in that stage where they had not yet mastered the complete technicalities of miniature painting. The defects of their work lie in the loose and careless drawing and the crudity of the colour-schemes. Many show every sign of being the production of a mural decorator accustomed to covering large surfaces with a full and free brush. In his first attempts to adapt his art to the confined space of a page in a book, he shows his inexperience, as his broad flat washes, slovenly applied, plainly testify. Moreover small brushes were not to his liking, and his pigments were not always well prepared. Nevertheless some of the illustrations rise to a fairly high level, especially those of the *Bāburnāma*. Among these the picture reproduced on Plate XXXII is a typical example, and shows Babur visiting the palace of Jalal Khan near Agra (fol. 478); it is inscribed with the name of Dhanraj. Two painters from Gujarāt—Bhim and Sur, the latter on fol. 295—have contributed good specimens of their work, while the pictures by Tiriyya, specially that on fol. 274, and those by Kesu, one of the artists mentioned in the *A’in*, may be likewise noticed. On the other hand the painting by Bhagwan is crude, and so is that of Chatesh, Gobind, and Banwari, while Mukhlis, afterwards to do good work in other books, was clearly at this stage only a tyro. From this reference to the illustrations in the *Bāburnāma*, we may turn to the companion volume of the group, the *Dārābnāma*, and review in a similar manner its pictorial contents. In it may be studied paintings by six of the artists in Abu’l Fazl’s list, of whom Sanwlah has produced some spirited drawings (folios 11, 39, 40, 67, 108), but the one which depicts a game of polo is by far the best (fol. 11 rev.).¹ There is an illustration by the same artist in the *Bāburnāma* (fol. 133), but no resemblance is discernible between it and any of the series inscribed with his name in the *Dārābnāma*. In general effect the former is strong, hard, and somewhat unsympathetic in its treatment, while most of the latter are light and atmospheric, especially in the representation of the background and accessories. It may be remarked, however, that, like most oriental artists, the Mughal painters were noted for the variability of their style, which they often changed, sometimes to suit their subject, and sometimes probably at the order of their patron. Among the other noticeable paintings in the *Dārābnāma* are those bearing the names of Nanha (fol. 24), Basawan (fol. 34), and Miskin (fol. 101), all of which show no little individuality.