A Mughal Icon Re-Examined

Author(s): Catherine Glynn and Ellen Smart

Source: Artibus Asiae , 1997, Vol. 57, No. 1/2 (1997), pp. 5-15
Published by: Artibus Asiae Publishers

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3249948

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Artibus Asiae Publishers is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Artibus Asiae

This content downloaded from

122.162.147.8 on Mon, 08 May 2023 15:41:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CATHERINE GLYNN AND ELLEN SMART

A MUGHAL ICON RE-EXAMINED

A stunning painting in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art has been the subject of many art
historical discussions and publications (fig. I).' Chosen to grace the color jacket of a 1963 cata-
logue of Mughal art, the painting possesses spectacular qualities that include royal subject matter,
brilliant color, sumptuous use of gold, and exquisite technical and painterly mastery.z We present
evidence for a new identification of one of the figures in the composition and for a new identification
of the painting itself.
The main image is of two bejeweled men seated before large bolsters on an elaborate gold throne
which has two corner posts and a back made of gold sheets worked in high relief. Above their heads a
pair ofputti, naked except for gold crowns and wispy drapery, holds aloft a ruffled gold cloth canopy
with a design of seated Safavid figures. At left and right margins between the putti and the main fig-
ures are inscriptions in Devanagari. The platform of the throne is covered with a white cloth, with an
open gold pdnddn, or box for betel nut, and four flat, oblong cushions. The men wear falwdrs
(trousers) under diaphanous white jdamds (robes) finely patterned in gold, two long sashes at their
waists, necklaces, tie-dye turbans and turban jewelry. Beneath the throne a fringed footstool stands
on a blue-ground arabesque carpet bordered in orange and gold.
The painting is mounted on an album page with two margins and an outer border. Meandering
gold flowers on a vine decorate the inner gold margin; similar adornments grace the second, blue-
green margin. The wide, outer buff border is gilded with clouds, tiny plants and larger, imaginary
plants with tulip blossoms. At the top of the page is a pencil note in Devanagari, which may be an
abbreviation that can be translated "price four [rupees]" or may be a later addition. The reverse (fig.
2) has a similar decorative program with blank paper intended to receive calligraphy, as was common
in this type of album.3 The floral outer border is similar to that on the obverse, but the large flower-
ing plants are irises.
In the 1963 publication, the two seated men are identified as the Mughal prince Shah Shuja and
Raja Gaj Singh of Marwar. The painting is attributed to the Mughal artist Bichitr, with a proposed
date ofcirca I633.4The catalogue entry states that "an incorrect inscription in Hindi was added later,
with the note that "Shah Shuja was made nominal governor of the Deccan by his father [Shah Jahan]
in 1633. Raja Gaj served there as a general from 163o to 1633, when he returned to the imperial court.
This picture perhaps commemorates the leave-taking."'5 The rest of the album page is not mentioned.

Nasli and Alice Heeramaneck Collection, Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Museum Associates Purchase, M. 80.6.6. Overall
measurements: 45.1 x 34.3 cm (17 3/4 x 13 I/2 in).
2 Stuart Cary Welch, The Art of Mughal India: Paintings and Precious Objects (New York: H.N. Abrams, 1963), cover and entry 44.
3 Annemarie Schimmel, in Stuart Cary Welch, The Emperor's Album: Images of Mughal India (New York: Metropolitan Museum of
Art, 1987), 31.
4 Welch, 1963, 169.
Ibid.

This content downloaded from

122.162.147.8 on Mon, 08 May 2023 15:41:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Over the following thirty years the painting was published many times, and in each instance the
sitters were identified as Gaj Singh and Shah Shuja.6 The attribution to Bichitr continued to be ac-
cepted but the proposed date shifted to circa 1638.7 The inscriptions were accepted as being "later",
and while that identifying Gaj Singh was acknowledged to be correct, the other was consistently
declared to be wrong.
The information that has been distilled from the double portrait by many different scholars, in
numerous publications, has thus far been primarily based on supposition, supported by educated his-
torical surmise. The time has come to examine this Mughal icon with an art historically conservative
approach. We begin with concrete evidence heretofore dismissed unconditionally: the inscriptions.
The Devanagari inscriptions can be transliterated sdrati mdhdrajda sri gaja singh (fig. 3) and sfrati
mahdaradjda Sr jai singh (fig. 4) , and translated "likeness of Maharaja [honorific] Gaj Singh" and
"likeness of Maharaja [honorific] Jai Singh." If the inscriptions are accepted as authentic they identify
the rulers of two of the three most important Hindu principalities of the empire: Raja Gaj Singh of
Marwar and Raja Jai Singh of Amber, later Jaipur, and known more correctly as Amer. The third
Hindu court of paramount importance was that of Mewar, later Udaipur.
The scholars who have published this painting all agree that the figure on the left is Maharaja Gaj
Singh of Marwar. His identity is confirmed by the inscription above him. His distinct features are
easily recognized in many Mughal darbdr (audience) scenes.8 The Marwar ruler appears in a painting
by Bichitr in the Windsor Pddshdhndma, showing Shah Jahan's post-accession reunion with his sons
on March 7, 1628 (fig. 5).9 Gaj Singh stands beneath the servant who holds a fly whisk and wears a
black-and-white striped jdmd (robe). It is the figure on the right in the Los Angeles County Museum
of Art (hereafter LACMA) double portrait which has been identified against the written evidence.
Jai Singh of Amber and Gaj Singh of Marwar were equal in status and occupied equally exalted
positions in the Mughal hierarchy." Jai Singh, like Gaj Singh, is to be found in prominent positions
at darbdars. Although Jai Singh's features change as he develops from teenager to adult, contemporary
inscriptions and the roles he played in court affairs allow us to identify his physical characteristics. Jai
Singh can be easily recognized in the crowded darbdrs; indeed, he appears in most of them.

6 Six of the most important publications are: Milo C. Beach et al., The Arts of India and Nepal: The Nasli and Alice Heeramaneck
Collection, Exhibition Catalogue (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1966), 155, 157, no. 216; A Decade of Collecting (Los Angeles: Los

Angeles County Museum, 1975), 29, I1o, no. 15; Milo C. Beach, The Grand Mogul: Imperial Painting in India, I6oo-I66o
(Williamstown, MA: Clark Art Institute, 1978), 97-98, Ioz-o3, loy, no. 34; Alice N. Heeramaneck, Masterpieces of Indian Painting
(Verona, Italy: P.p., 1984), 165, pl. zzo; Pratapaditya Pal, Janice Leoshko, Joseph M. Dye III and Stephen Markel, Romance of the Taj
Mahal (Los Angeles and London: Thames and Hudson, 1989), 33, 35, no. 26; Pratapaditya Pal, Indian Painting: A Catalogue of the Los
Angeles County Museum of Art Collections, vol. I (Los Angeles: Los Angeles County Museum, 1993), 270-72, no. 75.
7 Beach, 1978, loz.
8 Bamber Gasgoigne, The Great Moghuls (London: Jonathan Cape, 1971), 144-45; Glenn Lowry, A Jeweler's Eye: Islamic Arts of the Book
from the Vever Collection (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1988), 172-73, pl. 54, where he stands on the left,
behind Mahabat Khan, wearing a purple jdmd.
9 The painting, signed by Bichitr, is folio 5ov in the manuscript.
'o In May 1623, Jaha-ngir had given Gaj Singh a mansab (recognition) of 5ooo zat and rank of 4000 horse, the highest at the time.
Alexander Rogers and Henry Beveridge, Tuzuk-i-jahdngtri (Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal, 1968), vol. 2, 261. Gaj Singh was the
first member of his family to receive the title of Maharaja.

This content downloaded from

122.162.147.8 on Mon, 08 May 2023 15:41:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 A Persian inscription on his left shoulder identifies Jai Singh amongst the nobility at Shah Jahan's
1628 darbdir (fig. 5). He is in the second row from the bottom, second from the left. Seventeen years
old at the time, Jai Singh has no facial hair except for a slight mustache."

A painting by 'Abid shows a darbdr which took place three weeks earlier, on February 14, 1628.12
Jai Singh is recognizable as the man wearing an orange jdmd and gold turban, standing to the left of
Gaj Singh. Jai Singh's appearance is somewhat harder than in the Bichitr painting.13
In a painting that illustrates the darbdr of March 16, 1630 (fig. 6), Jai Singh stands in the second
row from the top left, to the left of Gaj Singh, watching the fourteen-year-old Shah Shuja stretch out
his hands to exchange gifts with his father, Shah Jaha-n.4Jai Singh wears a whitejdmd and green tur-
ban. Gaj Singh, similarly dressed, wears a red turban. Jai Singh, at age nineteen, is beginning to have
a fuller mustache and his unique, mature characteristics can be discerned. These characteristics in-
clude a bulge of hair at the nape of his neck, down-turned mustache, full lips set in a slight pout with
protruding lower lip, long sideburns, a somewhat oversized ear and a square chin.
These memorable features of Jai Singh appear in a fourth Pddshdhndma painting depicting an
event which took place on June 7, 1633.5 During the sport of elephant combat, one elephant attacked
Prince Aurangzeb. Jai Singh "spurred his horse against it and flung his spear from the right side."'6
Although the Begley/Desai edition of the ShdhJahdan Ndma omits the fact that Jai Singh was the hero
of the day, the incident is clearly shown in the painting and described in the Madthir-ul-umard. The
painting depicts the moment when twenty-two-year-old Jai Singh took aim with the spear (fig. 7).
Two drawings of the event are inscribed, identifying this figure as Jai Singh.17
Jai Singh and Shah Shuja appear together again in a painting of The Presentation of the Wedding
Gifts (fig. 8), an event that took place on March 4, 1633, providing another opportunity to study their
physical differences.'8 Shah Shuja, his hands on his sword, stands on the right side of the upper
balcony between the pillar and his brother Aurangzeb. Jai Singh is at the lower edge of the detail,
just above the railing and to the left of the pillar. In addition to the differences that result from Shah
Shuja-'s being five years younger than Jai Singh, his features are softer than those ofJai Singh. Jai
Singh's distinctive bulge of hair, square chin and long, prominent sideburns are evident. Shah Shuja,
in contrast to the figure in the LACMA painting, has very faint sideburns, rounded features and a
slightly protruding upper lip.
" Gasgoigne, 145, reproduces the complete composition, where Jai Singh appears near the middle of the painting, on the left,
wearing a mauve jdmad and an orange and green turban. Shah Shuja also appears in this painting, at the top left, wearing mauve and
standing to the right of his brother Aurangzeb, who wears green. Shah Shuja is twelve years old.
12 Lowry, 173.
3 It is interesting to note that in Shah Jahani darbdr paintings of events that occurred before 1638, when Gaj Singh died, Jai Singh
and Gaj Singh stand near each other (figs. 5-6). In such events between 1638 and 1658, when Aurangzeb deposed Shah Jahan, Jai
Singh stands near Jaswant Singh, Gaj Singh's son and successor.
14 A.A. Ivanov, T.W. Grek and O.F. Akhimushkina, Albom Inditskikh i Persidskikh Miniatiur XVI-XVIII vv. (Moscow: I962), pl. 33.
The St. Petersburg Album, fol. 34v; Y. Petrosyan, O. Akimushkin, A. Khalidov and E. Rezvan, Pages of Perfection: Islamic Paintings
and Calligraphy from the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg (Milan: Arch Foundation Electa, 1995), 279.
5 Wayne E. Begley and Z.A. Desai, The ShihJahdn Ndma of 'Indyat Khan (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1990), 95-96, pl. 2zo. Shah
Shuja is on the dark horse in the lower left.
16 Henry Beveridge and Baini Prasad, Madthir-ul-umarad (New Delhi: Mehra Offset Press, 1979), vol I, 732.
17 Sotheby's, London, Oriental Manuscripts and Miniatures, II. April 1988, lot 16; Sotheby's, New York, Indian, Himalayan and South-
east Asian Art, March 21-22, 1990, lot 5o. For a later painting of this event, see Sotheby's New York, The Estate ofJacqueline Kennedy
Onassis, April 23-26, 1996, lot 619 and O.G. Gangoly, Critical Catalogue of Miniature Paintings in the Baroda Museum (Baroda, I96I),
P.G.5c 89, p. 16, plate III.
Is Welch, 1987, 289, fig. 17; Ellen S. Smart, "Balchand," in Pratapaditya Pal, ed., Master Artists of the Imperial Court (Bombay: Marg
Publications, 1991I), 142, no. Io.

This content downloaded from

122.162.147.8 on Mon, 08 May 2023 15:41:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 In the 1978 catalogue the identification of Shah Shuja in the LACMA painting was based on
comparison with a prince in Royal Lovers on a Terrace, a circa 1633 painting by Balchand. Although the
prince is not identified by inscription, he probably is Shah Shuja.-9 By comparing a detail of the man
on the right of the LACMA painting with a detail of the "royal lover," the author concluded that the
former also depicted Shah Shuja.z? The differences in the resemblance between the two faces and
heads were attributed to "technique and expressive effect" of the two different artists, Balchand and
Bichitr. Since the LACMA painting is not ascribed to Bichitr, comparison of BalIchand's style to that of
Bichitr is misleading.
To summarize: An exquisite painting in the high Mughal style of circa 1630, now in the Los
Angeles County Museum of Art, shows two men seated facing each other. They are identified by
Hindi inscriptions as Ma-hara-ja- Gaj Singh and Maharaja Jai Singh. The identify of Gaj Singh, on the
left, has never been questioned. Born in 1595,2` Gaj Singh appears to be about thirty-five years old in
this painting. The figure on the right has only been published as Shah Shuja, never before as Jai
Singh, even though that figure is not the person recognized as Shah Shuja in imperial Mughal paint-
ings dating from this time (figs. 6, 8 and footnotes II, 15). The contemporary portraits ofJai Singh
(figs. 5-8) are of the man in the LACMA double portrait who is identified by inscription as Maharaja
Jai Singh. From Jai Singh's countenance in the LACMA page, he appears to be older than he was in
1628 (fig. 5, where he is seventeen years old) and slightly younger than in 1633 (figs. 8 and 7, where he
is twenty-two and almost twenty-three).

Both Marwar and Amber have long been associated with the Mughals, beginning in the early
years of Akbar's rule.22 Not only did members of both families serve in high military and adminis-
trative capacities at court, but both houses provided brides for Mughal princes, which firmly tied the
Rajputs into the Mughal inner circle. Jahangir's mother, Hira- Kuma-ri,23 was a daughter of Raja
Biha-r Mal of Amber. Three of Jahangir's eleven principal wives were from Amber or Marwar.
Jaha-ngir's first son, Khusrau, and daughter, Sultana-un-nisa, were born to Mankanwar, a daughter of
Raja Bhagwant Das of Amber.24Jahangir also married Koka Kumari, a great-granddaughter of
Bhagwant Das; she was the only surviving daughter ofJagat Singh of Amber and thus an aunt of Jai
Singh.5 Jaha-ngir's third son, Shah Jahan, was born to Jagat Gosaini,_6 daughter of Uday Singh of

'9 The prince in Royal Lovers on a Terrace closely resembles the figure of Shah Shuja in another painting by Balchand that records the
presentation of Shah Shuja's wedding gifts in March I633. See Figure 8 of this article; Welch, I987, and Smart.
20 Beach, 1978.
21 Gaurishankar H. Ojha, Rdjputdnd kd itihds, vol. IV, pt. I:Jodhpur rdjya kad itihds (Ajmer, I938), 388. Gaj Singh was born VS 1652
kartik sudi 8, i.e., October 30, 1595. We are grateful to Rosemary Crill for this reference.
22 Catherine Glynn, "Evidence of Royal Painting for the Amber Court," Artibus Asiae 56, nos. 1/2 (1996), 67.
23 Hird Kumari was also known to her birth family as Hir- Kanwar and as Haraka. At the Mughal court she was known by her title,
Maryam-I-Zamani. Hir- Kum-rl lived until 1622.
24 Rawal Harnath Singh of Dunlod, Genealogical Table of the Kachhawdhas (Jaipur, n.d.), sheet 3; Henry Beveridge, trans., The
Akbarndmda of Abu-1-Fazl (Delhi: Rare Books, 1973), III, 678.
25 R.H. Singh.
26 Jagat Gosaini was also known as Jod Bhai and Manmati. Beveridge and Prasad, 1979, vol. II, 915, and Beveridge, 1973, III, 921.

This content downloaded from

122.162.147.8 on Mon, 08 May 2023 15:41:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 , ?~?j G /
i? ?pie e~L c cce n *10

B~. W c~SrtdM-

kA -, ~ p

-4!

- I . X .

1 o;

IL'.
~96"~iii~ ~ ~ l* z C~~r~!U?~ e 3 , 4U

Jn r ?

%AAA-~ ~s7~j"
I 2."' ;4
L?~~'A li~ t- F~4~t ~ r7L

0,c ?L?3rC~~;r L

Aei ? ~'~n ??--??.

vb 5 --r/ ? ~ ~ L

1Q. 4

Je

4 -- - , - , r-,
ILA5
WW w ?
~PI ~I~~?~~~e Au~~i'' ~ i 'YI -?)? ' ~l I JCib3N

Fig. i. Maharaja Gaj Singh of Mar

Maharaja jai Singh of Amber.

A page from the "Amber Album."

Folio: 45.1 x 34-3 cm (17 3/4 x 13 1/

Los Angeles County Museum of Ar
the Nasli and Alice Heeramaneck

Collection. Museum Associates Purchase,

M. 80.6.6.

This content downloaded from

122.162.147.8 on Mon, 08 May 2023 15:41:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 c;; C' * ?- ''
~;-c~ 4; c,
?- ?:
r ~?-,~

Cr C.;
'? rru? ,??
V
ZLb ~ e ~!: ' *

t.l; I a ?f b r!
..'i ~7
~1~3; i~ ay
s :-J s, ,,
-~
v
J/~Pm
t,'lT"' -n,

, '$?
~
cPs d
~?
a~L~. '?l;f 3:
~ ~?~j~~ s-3~L~
\ ~"~ " PI~CCI
P? ci.
??e o
it*Ij)?;P ~~' Irr
lo~ It I

Lr~-jfi
i u..~ 2' 7?:.

U '_-t-~1Z:c?r:?
~~L? ?'J
~P14 ~( I;
h ?\. ~.~ ~ .:--~~ y ?i?I
i'
J! ? ,...
i? 2':
F~
:
; "
1-
r ~~r//?"
4 '-'- --
?? i

r
?t i~
t, 4:
?? .P.~m ~
?.C??(. ";
P
.. i~ i .. r
t S;;i
~L. 2; ?~i I~ir 18: O??
? s*
.''~. .
?: r ?uz
I
-1:
?)( ?? .j c3r3
?r~~?!?
i J_:;-iLi
3.; , ~3 .?,r.
r- , ~c~
/I~--

~? ,tr
i;? 'i ?\(
.,1 Ir
,?flj
-? b ~ ,j
.I

Q ?1-
~
ip: `;4?iJ
y,:
Y if CI?;
'''4?i
c? .C it
rS
".f c?~:
J-
,??:" L rC:

?- - ~I .-4
,?

~F~:, ~~ ?? "4 '~-klT

?~~
\?~=i3t~ i,
.e
'P
;r t19 ?Ir--,L
?r i ?;?i f ?~-~I ,

3? ?.
Iff~ ..? '1 Z
t !ir5 '?C~s ~
,: ?? ' -?ai~-? i?-
$ P
"I,~fc,, ,Y
~7'?
/i/ ~I
>tC
~SY ?fk i.
Ir `LI-?
I,?? i I

--.;I. P'
;;; ;tI "' ?\;t
i\`` s;~?
cL~~ ~i ?
~h~g~~s~ t r- r ~rgb`
~w~ 2L ?-`
Q 1
r if~
3! F~ Y
?(
Ih' ~ri`
42r

r rs?,~
'ii= " ''' 1 t~??~

- ;I-? c i' ~5 I-,

ikt
ri~: _r~ c:
Pi~
I i ?~1.-
?'
.i ~ia
?~c~
CI
t ;1 r
Clli'
_-;I I ??
.??I /~?r
?-r ?~5~ ?C1)` i t
ai:tc

?- z~ ~\ ,,I, ~
J .~-ati`rc ,,,~
-I ~d~~ si' ,?

~d
n.J ~-~ ,4~ci?, _~?~~ sP .~i.J
~IL~L Q~
~2F;3;52 3-
-1?-
J~) I;?
i,
?~?
,C :i -?
:1 C?~ rl a

?s; itr
r~~
~~4, .3 ~L~d~ i? '?-~ CI J ;: 3
L'
?rt'~i.~]a r, ~e~~ ~7~a gQ, ?i
~P/~Fr
" 'JY-~~
L; ~h9~~t?I. -ii ~i iiI cr?
i/ a. II 1 -E?:
?a ??r /
'~ ~c,
.?u~
3: -\? i;f h ?i ~

I .1
.? ..-~?
--?;
'; ;~ .?~~?\C
??-i: 9t~:
f ;ti?.r?- ??!! '
?(,.?.i? \.? \:l;f?~? ?-~?:Y
?.(
i r~J~,ZI 1
r' 'I ` '*

C? ?-'~T~. -

JI~Z~hillQOa~airfRil ra~lXur~~ ' r, I : ~jrP T?

;r

This content downloaded from

122.162.147.8 on Mon, 08 May 2023 15:41:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fig. 2. Reverse of Figure ir. A page from the
,!. -: . . . i : "Amber Album."

Folio: 45.1 x 34.3 cm (17 3/4 x 13 I/2 in). Los

."i Angeles County Museum of Art, from
the Nasli and Alice Heeramaneck Collection.

Museum Associated Purchase, M. 80.6.6.

~-;--,~--.- /-- A." ~c

Fig. 3. Enlargement ofDevanagari in-
scription, "likeness of Maharaja [honorific]

Gaj Singh," on Figure I.

I ,
Fig. 4. Enlargement of DevanSigari in-

2?\f(il I? I? scription, "likeness of Maharaja [honorific]

Jai Singh," on Figure I.

I tI

(+li ." ++'

Fig. 5. ShdhJahdn's reunion with his sons
after his accession on March 7, z628.

i ' --?: ..=

- . .I+
Pddshdhnama, detail of folio 50v.
.. . .- . . . . .. :..-+ I. " Royal Collection @ 1997 Her Majesty Queen
Elizabeth II.

Fig. 6. ShdhJahdn receives Shdh Shujd in

'" ?
darbdr on March 16, 63o.
Pddshdhnama, detail of folio 34.
.- ;. -.
L?
+
".L: ? +
. 7,,J .I

- ,.-

This content downloaded from

122.162.147.8 on Mon, 08 May 2023 15:41:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Fig. 7. jai Singh helping to quell an elephant LIT.C:~
r.: ; It r;
;.!~;-'''''
'.". . :Lf ?~ ?'
ii
which has attacked Aurangzeb on June 7, 1633. ~e~?4~?~. zf:.i~. :..C' ~. 1
rr-~?
?;.? -i :r
I.J
Pddshdhndma, detail of folio 134r.
' '

I
j J I
" r.
~4~ .~??'
,?

Fig. 8. Presentation of Wedding Gifts for Shah ?, ,.?,

~ .?"~

Shujda on March 4, 1633. Pddshdhndma, detail ~Z 4''~~' ?

of folio 72. :II I r

4? )
Royal Collection @ 1997 Her Majesty Queen 111) r-

?~:` ?i.A ? r
r ?~ :t?j
Elizabeth II. ?- b:

,? e:

.r
r I ..I,
?; ?r

/u

rr-

Ci

?.e

ii: k

.I

r .-... -
=
.?
c,~ ..

t~ ?~

?:
u~ ~ 9-?
,, ~:?? '?::$
:?. :?
i';c ?: I isl
2:t
rl--- ,I ;r
?~ 3
i: ?~( ~I (:? ii' .?f z
:? r
i'3i?~" ---~
?j l~i~f~
?`
.~ *' """...
r ?1
i! il I:-I'
: 2?? st!
-tt c- :j
rlp4;i 7 N 1(.
cr: 1
r.
:: ~:?
ri r.
7C~ f. f
?: :i:
~-S i : I
i 1
ii : .:
zac?~ ~ ~c
?. ? 1'1
.??H?~ -C
?Ell;
:?1
._.;.

1. ~rI~-
il?? - - "'~ i? --rvjM; i Y-~llr'i~Jm~.-r~

.t ?i

d
i. ,

c ici
~t = 'c?~~ ~J
'C
..
C\ I
~hIri 4!( 1;
;'1 i:
;~ 4'
?I ~~?-, i h :?I

!1 d
ti ,?.
-? , ?
I
1
.. i:' ?.iT:

i: ~ r
??i~-~t (?
~I
i - ra~l? ?ir
:1 -;i
r:
!ir
?!
\It ?hc~;"
r:
r

~?r k L
Y O C t

r~s~ta ~

U-

" ?: ~ ' LI~LI ICII~Y-- -- y ~

?s?rk

~%S~i~'~'~SV?75~S~i~S~~,~.~-~~~T~.? ~~.?; . I?;?-~i` '-?I~ ?

:??
-- ::
?r
.. ?,
..
;i I :=?:
?,
:
~;? . *. i?
?~ ~ i e i
~P>lt. ~ U .. o I .c,
1: \. r
?e, \~p-
L 4
?? ??

r
?5

I ;
-I

This content downloaded from

122.162.147.8 on Mon, 08 May 2023 15:41:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Marwar and therefore an aunt of Gaj Singh.27 Parviz, Jahangir's second son, married one of Raja Gaj
Singh's sisters.z8
In approximately 1612, Jai Singh's sister, Dip Kanwar, married Gaj Singh, further solidifying the
ties between Amber and Marwar. Amar Singh, the first male child of that union, was born in I6I3. In
1622, Gaj Singh was engaged to marry four-year-old Indar Kanwar, a second cousin to Jai Singh.29
Two ofJai Singh's six wives were princesses of Rathor lineage but not of Gaj Singh's immediate fam-
ily.30 In addition to accomplishing these matrimonial alliances, Gaj Singh and Jai Singh campaigned
together in the service of the Emperor. They accompanied the Mughal general Khan Jahan in Malwa
in December 1627,31 and both were in Qandahar during the campaign of I638.31
Thus, the two Hindu rajas, Gaj Singh of Marwar and Jai Singh of Amber, were intimately related
not just to the imperial family, but also to each other. Both occupied the upper echelons of rank and
both controlled tremendous wealth. It is well within normal expectation that the two would be
depicted in a sumptuous Mughal setting in an exquisitely painted double portrait.
But what of the Mughal setting? The clothing and furnishings, such as the carpet and the canopy,
may immediately be recognized as textiles seen in known Mughal paintings. Gaj Singh's jamd is tied
beneath his left arm in the putative Hindu style. A characteristic ofJai Singh's jdamd is that he has
tied it under his right arm in the fashion favored more by Muslims than Hindus. That Jai Singh's
jdamd is tied as it is may have contributed to his being misidentified for so long. But in Figure 5,
where Jai Singh is identified by a Persian inscription, his jdamd is tied on the right (as it is in fig. 8), in
the so-called Muslim style.
As for the "Mughal" carpet, approximately half the carpets understood to be "Mughal" have come
from the Amber store rooms.33 The current understanding of what characterizes a Mughal carpet is
influenced by carpets from Amber. The canopy held by putti is made of a gold-ground textile em-
bellished with Safavid figures, which is an early seventeenth-century Persian fabric of a type found in
Mughal paintings.34 The Safavid pieces seen in paintings are usually small, as gold-ground figured
cloth was extremely expensive: gold-ground figured velvets from Yazd were regarded as the ultimate
luxury fabric.35

The question arises as to whether either of the two rajas in the LACMA painting would have had
the resources to own and use such goods. The answer comes in the form of two sumptuous Safavid
velvets of the most expensive type, which, like the "Mughal" carpets, were the property of the
Amber/Jaipur palace.36 Another indication of their exceptional wealth is the significant jewels worn
by the men in the painting, including Jai Singh's turban band of large emeralds.37

27 Beveridge, 1973, III, 921.

z8 Rogers and Beveridge, II, 295.
29 Ojha, 16o. Indar Kanwar was also known as Indar De and Suraj De. See R.H. Singh.
30 R.H. Singh.
3' Banarsi Prasad Saksena, History of ShahJahan ofDihli (Allahabad: Central Book Depot, 1932), 69.
32 Ibid., 218.
33 Personal communication from Daniel S. Walker, Islamic Department, Metropolitan Museum of Art.
34 For instance, see the spear cover in Figure 9 of this article and the textile below Jahangir in Monique Cohen, Amina Okada and
Francis Richard, A la Cour du Grand Moghol (Paris: Bibliotheque Nationale, 1986), 34, no. 7.
35 Ellen S. Smart, "Of Cabbages and Kings, Prices of Mughal Furnishing Fabrics and the Meaning of Mughal Money," Textiles in
Trade: Proceedings of the Textile Society of America Biennial Symposium (Washington, D.C.: Textile Museum, 1990), 163.

36 Friedrich Spuhler, Islamic Carpets and Textiles in the Kier Collection (London: Faber and Faber, 1978), 189. Other pieces from the same
velvet are in the Cooper-Hewitt Museum, The Smithsonian National Museum of Design, New York, 1977-II9-I; the Royal
Ontario Museum, Toronto, 960-257; and at the National Museum, New Delhi, 65.84. For the second velvet, in the Art Institute of

13

This content downloaded from

122.162.147.8 on Mon, 08 May 2023 15:41:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Although they were Hindu and Rajput, both Gaj Singh and Jai Singh were active participants in
all aspects of Mughal court life: military, administrative, political and social. In previous
interpretations of the LACMA double portrait, the trappings of the Mughal court led some specialists
to assume that one of the figures was a Muslim nobleman. In reality, both figures in the painting are
Hindu noblemen whose lives were integrated into the mainly Muslim Mughal court.
Pal points out in his catalogue entry that the two men are equals in the painting but that the
figure on the right is the host at the event, because he is offering Gaj Singh pdn, or betel nut.38
Because the figure on the right is unquestionably Jai Singh of Amber, the painting appears to
represent an event which occurred in his territory, either in Amber or in a place under Jai Singh's
control, such as in his camp if they were on the road, or in his residence at Agra, rather than in
Marwar. It appears that the painting was made for Jai Singh to record and commemorate an
important occasion. Only the quality and the "style" of the painting connect it with the Mughal
court.

For some time scholars have recognized that fine quality, highly "Mughalized" paint
produced for Rajput patrons at the courts of Marwar and Bikaner during the seventeenth
The history of painting at Amber/Jaipur in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is a m
because the Jaipur collection remains, for the most part, intact and unavailable for examin
the wealth of Amber, its close ties with the Mughal court, the cultural sophistication of t
maharajas, as well as the recognition by the Amber rajas of their royal duties, would have
the milieu in which highly Mughalized paintings would have been produced und
patronage.4? The origin of the patronage of the LACMA portrait becomes clearer upon exa
the album page on which it is mounted.
A number of album leaves with margins and borders similar to those around the LACMA
portrait have appeared on the market.4I A few have been published as having been made fo
ber patron.4' The pages are decorated with the same double margins and borders filled
flowering plants as those that appear on the LACMA double portrait (fig. I). With one exce
have a vacant space on the reverse for calligraphy. The width of the published pages of th

Album" is 34.3 cm. (13 I/2 in), the same as the LACMA page. Their height, 48.3 cm (approx
in), is greater than that of the LACMA leaf, which, judging from the truncated design, app

Chicago, see Anthony Welch, Shah Abbas and the Arts of Isfahan (New York: The Asia Society, 1973), 44, 45, 67
fragments are in the Cleveland Museum of Art, CMA I932.42, and the Victoria and Albert Museum, T 226-1i923.
37 See Susan Strong, "Jewels for the Mughal Court," The V&A Album 5 (London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1988), fo
the significance of turban plumes at Akbar's court. Extending this research to how jewelry was worn and by whom
Mughal courts would be of great interest.
38 Pal, 1993, 270.
39 Marwar: Vishakha N. Desai, Life at Court: Artfor India's Rulers, i6th-Ipth Centuries (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts,
Stuart Cary Welch, Indian Drawings and Painted Sketches (New York: Asia Society, 1976), no. 64; Linda Y. Leach, Indi
Paintings and Drawings: The Cleveland Museum of Art Catalogue of Oriental Art (Cleveland: Cleveland Museum of Art
Bikaner: Desai, nos. 28, 29, 46 and 63.
40 For instance, Jai Singh was the patron of Bih-ri Lal, the greatest Hindi poet of the time. See Ronald S. McGregor, H
from its beginnings to the Nineteenth Century, in Jan Gonda ed., A History of Indian Literature 8, fasc. 6 (Weisbaden

1984), I73.
41 Sotheby's, London, Persian and Indian Manuscripts and Miniatures from the Collection of the British Rail, 23 April 1996, lots I and 2.
Lot 2 is from the same album as lot I, but some of the margin and all of the border have been removed; Paintings from Mughal India

(London: Colnaghi, 1979), no. i9; Two Thousand Years of Indian Art (London: Spink & Son Ltd., 1982), no. 89.
42 Andrew Topsfield, Indian Paintings from Oxford Collections, (Oxford: Ashmolean Museum, 1994), no. 18; Catherine Glynn, figs. I, 6,
7 and footnote 47.

14

This content downloaded from

122.162.147.8 on Mon, 08 May 2023 15:41:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
been trimmed at the lower edge. The paintings known to have come from the "Amber Album" are
largely devoted to portraiture, many depicting Ram Singh, the son and successor ofJai Singh.

There is no doubt that the artist who painted the double portrait of Gaj Singh and Jai Singh was
trained in the imperial Mughal atelier. The painting is, in terms of technique and materials, in the
high Mughal style of the first part of the seventeenth century. But the content of the painting belies a
Mughal origin. Aside from the inscriptions, which may be contemporary with the painting and do
identify the men correctly, the message from the content is perhaps subtle but is nevertheless com-
pelling. In the painting two of the most powerful Rajput noblemen of the Mughal court, each wear-
ing a full complement of jewelry and headgear, sit as equals on a golden throne, beneath an airborne
canopy, sharing pan. The furnishings, clothing, jewelry and turban ornaments exhibit the great
wealth of the two men. That they sit as equals indicates that the occasion commemorated was
significant to both and that the two were of like status. The throne is a symbol of kingship, as is the
canopy.

The problem of identifying the occasion honored in the LACMA double portrait has not been solv-
ed, but a possible event may be the marriage of Indar Kanwar, an Amber princess, to Gaj Singh.
Indar Kanwar was the daughter of the deceased Amber Raja, Bhao Singh (Jai Singh's grand uncle).
The betrothal took place in 1622 when she was four years old.43 A wedding ceremony would have
occurred when she reached menarche eight or ten years later, in approximately I630. Jai Singh and
Gaj Singh both would have been present.

CONCLUSION

We propose that this Mughal icon is not an imperial Mughal production, bu

Mughal-trained artist for Jai Singh of Amber, to commemorate an important mee
Singh and Gaj Singh of Marwar in about 1630. The Hindi inscriptions correctly ide
the painting.
Evidence gathered from this painting indicates that the Rajput patrons had acce
has heretofore only been associated with products from the Mughal studio pr
patrons. The re-identification of this important double portrait as a product o
patronage and as part of the "Amber Album" encourages new thinking about the c
ber painting, about the working of artists in high Mughal style for Rajput patron
meant by "Mughal style" and the influence that this had on subsequent Rajpu
format and content. In its accurate depiction of portraiture at such a realistic and
work is the earliest of its type that can now be associated with Rajput patronage.

43 Ojha, op. cit., I6o.

I5

This content downloaded from

122.162.147.8 on Mon, 08 May 2023 15:41:05 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms