The Zafarnama [Book of Conquest]

of Sultan Husayn Mirza

MIKA NATIF

HE ILLUSTRATED Zafarnama manuscript of Sultan Husayn, also known as the Garrett

T or Baltimore Zafarnama (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Library, no shelf mark), is one
of the most celebrated and important among Timurid manuscripts. Produced in the fifteenth
century, probably in Herat (present-day Afghanistan) for the famous Timurid ruler Sultan
Husayn Mirza, the manuscript has survived in its entirety with minor retouching of the paintings,
probably done in India. 1 All twelve of its miniatures have been attributed to the great painter Bih-
zad by a later Mughal hand.
Scholars have studied the manuscript for more than a century; Thomas Arnold published a
monograph on it in 1930,2 and Eleanor Sims was one of the most recent to deal with it, in 1973. 3
Arnold reproduced all the miniatures in color and provided descriptive information about the
manuscript and the paintings, while Sims examined it in the wider context of the production of
illustrated Zafarnama manuscripts in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Some of the paintings
have been reproduced in scholarly works primarily concerned with their dating and attribution.
This paper attempts to show the originality of these paintings among manuscript illustrations of
the fifteenth century and to analyze their iconography.
After a brief historical introduction, the discussion continues with a description of each pair
of miniatures and is followed by an examination of the decorative program of the manuscript.
The style of the miniatures is not treated. References in brackets are to Muhammad Abbasi's
1957-58 edition of the Zafarnama. 4

INTRODUCTION: HISTORY OF THE MANUSCRIPT

The Zafarnama [Book of Conquest/War/Victory] is a historical text, compiled in Persian by

Sharaf al-Din Ali Yazdi; it records the life of Timur and his sons. In 1419 Yazdi was summoned
to Shiraz by Ibrahim Sultan ibn Shahrukh, then governor of the province of Fars, to oversee the
collection and codification of traditions and records relating to the life of Timur and to produce
a revised and integral biography of the conqueror. 5 One part of this project, the so-called Zafar-
nama, was apparently completed in 1424-25. In many ways it should be considered as a rework-
ing and expansion of an earlier Zafarnama written in 1404 by Nizam al-Din Ali Shami. Accord-
ing to Yazdi, a team of scholars and writers began working under his supervision at the court of
 212 MIKA NATIF

1. Timur holds audience in Balkh on the occasion of his accession on 12 Ramadan 771/April 9, 1370. Baltimore, The
Johns Hopkins University, Garrett Zafarnaina, ff. 82v-83r

Ibrahim Sullan, scrutinizing and verifying all Persian and Chaghatay accounts of Timur's life and
deeds gathered from all over the empire. 6 The Zafarnama begins with Timur's birth on April 8,
1336 (25 Sha'ban 736) and ends with the enthronement of his grandson Khalil Sultan in Samar-
qand on March 18, 1405 (16 Ramadan 807).
The text ofYazdi's Zafarnama, according to John Woods, replaces Chinghisid legitimizing
principles described in previous biographies of Timur, written by Shami and Hafiz-i Abru, and
gives greater stress to Islamic elements, portraying the Timurids as pious Muslim rulers. Another
aspect emphasized by Yazdi is the birth of Shahrukh, the father of his patron, and his role as a
"Renewer of Faith" [mujaddid] .7 Yazdi's work was greatly admired ii~ its own time and was cited
as a model of elegant historiography. Woods regards this work as a source for the evolution of
Timurid ideology as well as for the life of the founder of the dynasty. 8
The manuscript was copied, as shown by its colophon, by Shir Ali in "some months of 872"
(August 2, 1467-July 21, 1468), but the place of writing is not mentioned. It has 539 folios (rnea-
 THE ZAFARNAMA OF SULTAN HUSAYN MIRZA 213

suring 23.5 X 15.2 cm), and each page has 17 lines written in small fine nasta'liq. The first folio
of the manuscript has an inscription which gives the name of Sultan Husayn Bahadur, for whose
treasury the manuscript was made: "Treasury of the mighty and exalted Sultan Abu'l-Ghazi Sul-
tan Husayn Bahadur, may God make his rule and dominion and his benevolence and his gen-
erosity eternal. "9 Chapter titles are written in gold, and verse headings are in gold, crimson, and
lapis ink. 10
The manuscript includes twelve miniatures, arranged as six pairs and consisting of four bat-
tle scenes, one court audience, and one construction of a mosque (Figs. 1-6). Provision for the
miniatures was made in advance even though the paintings may not have been done when the
text was completed.
The miniatures were identified by the Mughal emperor Jahangir as work of the early period
of the master Bihzad. 11 That most of the later owners were Mughal shows that the manuscript was
one of the treasures of the Mughal imperial library in the late sixteenth and seventeenth cen-
turies, when the emperors and their librarians commented on the beauty of the paintings. 12
The manuscript was brought from Central Asia to Akbar's court in India by the nobleman
Mir Jamal al-Din Husayn Inju (a native of Shiraz), who entered Akbar's service sometime before
1572. 13 It then passed to Akbar's successors, but how it came finally to leave the imperial library
is unclear. R. Martin says that it was taken to Persia by Nadir Shah, but he provides no evidence
for that statement. 14 An undated seal ofBahman ibn Na'ib al-SaltanatAbbas Mirza-i Qajar (on f.
408v) gives the name of the Persian nobleman, probably the one from whom the German col-
lector P. W. Schultz bought the manuscript. From his collection the manuscript passed into the
hands ofV. Goloubeff, and from him to the art dealer Sambon, who in turn sold it to Kalebd-
jian Freres; it was purchased by Robert Garrett, who gave it eventually to the library ofJohns Hop-
kins University in Baltimore. 15

DESCRIPTION OF THE MINIATURE PAINTINGS

Folios 82v-83r: Timur holds audience in Balkh on the occasion of his accession on 12 Ramadan
771/April 9, 1370 (Fig. 1) [vol. 1, 158]

The first pair of miniatures is placed right after the text that describes Timur's accession au-
dience at Balkh in 771/1370. The text mentions that the noyans (Mongol princes), amirs, and
shaykhs accorded Timur the rule of the Chaghatay Empire and he was then called Sahib Qiran. 16
The text says that the court was waiting for spring to arrive in Balkh in order to hold Timur's ac-
cession ceremony. The double-page miniature indeed shows spring with its blooming trees and
flowers. Timur sits on an elegant throne in a garden, wearing a crown and a gold belt, as de-
scribed in the text. He receives congratulations and gifts from his kneeling amirs and noyans. Be-
hind him is a magnificent tent and surrounding him are his people, servants, and sons. Arnold
believes that the design on the roof of Timur's tent is borrowed from a representation of the
"talking tree" (Wakwak tree) in the Romance of Alexander. 17 However, this pattern of animals in
vegetal scroll motifs exists on tents independently, without alluding to any connection to Alexan-
der the Great. Two figures at the bottom on the right side are shown from the back, which is not
214 MIKA NATIF

very common. Behind Timur, his royal attributes are displayed-bows and arrows, and a chee-
tah and a falcon for the royal hunt-and in front of his throne a small stream flows, separating
and isolating him from the attendees.
On the opposite page, the two men seated on low stools were identified by Arnold as the two
eldest sons of Timur, Jahangir and Umar Shaykh. 18 Further down on the page, five princes or
amirs are kneeling; each wears a different costume and distinctive headgear, perhaps indicating
different ethnic origins. Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo mentions that protocol required guests in the
presence of Timur to bend their right knee, advancing in a series of bows, and then to remain
kneeling with the right knee on the ground, as do the five amirs. 19 The amirs' attendants stand
behind them, carrying trays with small bowls filled with gold and jewels, a custom which Clavijo
describes on his first meeting with Timur. 20 Behind them a group of courtiers press in through a
door to pay homage, while a chamberlain with his staff restrains their impatience. Several other
images, especially the audience scene in the Bust an of Sa' di in Cairo, and the one from the 1436
Zafarnmna of Ibrahim Sultan, suggest that we are dealing with a composition-type adapted to a
specific purpose.
Musicians and dancers, and food and drink-the conventional elements of fifteenth- century
reception scenes in Persian paintings-are absent here. Sims argues correctly that the painting is
a literal transposition of word into image, conveying the precise textual meaning of the solemn
accession being illustrated. 2l
The composition is crowded with figures on the left side of the double spread, but around
'Iimur there are very few figures, and he seems to be removed and distanced from the action
around him. The isolation of the hero and the quieting down of the composition around the cen-
tral figure recur throughout the manuscript. It is also perhaps in this first double-page painting
that the artist introduces the two main characters who will be the heroes of these paintings,
Timur and Umar Shaykh, so that the viewer will learn how to recognize their portrayal elsewhere
in the manuscript. Timur, for example, is always depicted as a slender figure with a pointed beard
and wearing a green garment, while Umar Shaykh is fatter, has a mustache, and is also dressed
in green, with a turban.

Folios 115v-116r: Timur's army commanded by Umar Shaykh attacks Urgench/Khiva in the spring of
781/1379 (Fig. 2) [vol. 1, 218}

These paintings show a specific event at the beginning of the siege of Urgench, a town on
the lower A.mu-Darya, in 1379. At that time Urgench was held by Yusuf Sufi, ajala'ir chieftain.
The text describes a group of Khorezmian soldiers who ventured outside the gates and were
chased back into the city by Umar Shaykh ibn Timur and his men. The miniatures show soldiers
on horses attacking the citadel, pushing a body of horsemen back into the city over a wooden
drawbridge. Umar Shaykh, the hero of this episode, occupies the center of the right-hand page
and is mounted on his horse with the tiger-skin caparison. Behind the prince ride trumpeters on
horseback and a man on a camel beating kettledrums. Above the great gateway, the defenders
of the city are shooting arrows, and one man is hurling down a huge stone. Corpses, separated
body parts, and wounded men are scattered around, 22 perhaps to increase the feeling of the
difficulty of battle and greatness of the victory.
 THE ZAFARNAMA OF SULTAN HUSAYN MIRZA 215

2. Timur's army commanded by Umar Shaykh attacks Urgench/Khiva in the spring of 781/1379. Baltimore, The
Johns Hopkins University, Garrett Zafarnama, ff. 115v-116r

The two halves of the painting are very different in size and do not make a single whole, as
if a band or a strip of the composition is now missing. Moreover, the composition is awkwardly
arranged and the figures on the right page are larger than those on the left side; the figures in
the citadel are noticeably smaller. The artist attempted to represent the animated bodies of men
and horses in a variety of positions, maneuvers, and perspectives. One such interesting detail
shows a white horse in the middle-right of the left page, where the creature is in profile, turning
and twisting its head to the right toward another horse.
It has been claimed that the painting mixes fifteenth-century conventions and original fea-
tures, both in the conception of the scene and in specific details, but it may also be read as a lit-
eral illustration of the text. As in the previous painting, the central figure, this time Umar Shaykh,
is isolated against the background. 23

Folios 174v-175r: Umar Shaykh outmaneuvers Ankatura in a night attack on the Syr Darya in
790/1388 (Fig. 3) [vol. 1, 328}

Arnold identifies this scene as "The army of Umar Shaykh crossing the Oxus to attack the
forces of Ankatura." Ankatura was a nephew of Amir Haji Beg Arkanut of Moghulistan. The sol-
 216 MIKA NATIF

3. Umar Shaykh outmaneuvers Ankatura in a night attack on the Syr Darya in 790/1388. Baltimore, The Johns Hop-
kins University, Garrett Zafarnama, ff. l 74v-l 75r

diers ofUmar Shaykh are crossing the river on rafts, which they hold in front of them as shields
when they have reached the opposite bank. The attack was made at night since a crescent moon
shines in a sky covered with stars; two torches are put between the tents of the enemy camp. 24
There are several problems with Arnold's identification. The textual reference to this
episode is found six folios before the miniatures. But the text that appears immediately before
the illustrations is a passage similar to the one proposed by Arnold as the source of the image.
However, that passage is not accurately shown in the paintings either. In the passage Arnold as-
sociates with the painting, the hero of the episode is a person named Amir Jahanshah (one of the
local amirs) and not Amirzade Umar Shaykh. 25 In the passage identified by Arnold, the troops
had already crossed the river earlier in the day, while the painting shows the soldiers crossing at
night; the text says that one group significantly outnumbered the other, while no such difference
is represented in the miniature. The text does, however, describe the wooden screens that were
used by the army of Amir Jahanshah as they appear in the painting.
 THE ZAFARNAMA OF SULTAN HUSAYN MIRZA 217

Apart from the coincidence of the night battle on a river, the text located immediately next
to the painting does not tell the story in the same way as the illustration. The passage is about a
night attack led by Ankatura against Umar Shaykh in which it was actually the army of Ankatura
that crossed the Syr Darya River in order to surprise the army ofUmar Shaykh, who came to bat-
tle from an opposite direction. The text narrates that Ankatura attacked the Timurids, while the
painting shows the Timurid army crossing the river and charging. It is clear that a conflation of
these two episodes has occurred in the miniature since there is a visual emphasis on the
Timurids: their army occupies all of the right-hand page and even spreads to the left page as well.
The riderless horse with the tiger-skin caparison has been identified as the probable horse of
Umar Shaykh, which appeared in the previous miniature. It is believed that the artist chose to dis-
tort his picture instead of rendering a perfectly literal image of the episode. 26
The composition causes problems in identifying the enemy; it is as if half of the miniature
is from a different painting and does not belong to the set. It has been suggested that the origi-
nal second half of this miniature is in the Fogg Museum of Art (now Harvard University Art Mu-
seums) in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 27 This theory is problematic because it implies carelessness
in the organization of the work that does not befit the patronage of Sultan Husayn. Furthermore,
there are no visible physical signs of difference in colors that would support such an argument.

Folios 282v-283r: Timur's army attacks the survivors of the town of Nerges, in Georgia, in the spring
of 798/1396 (Fig. 4) (vol. 1, 556]

This miniature shows part of Timur's campaign in Dasht-i Qipchaq in 1395-96. In the text,
the survivors of a town called Nerges were pursued into the mountains where they hid in caves
and passageways high on the upper slopes. The Timurid army positioned itself above the caves,
lowered soldiers down in baskets until they were face to face with the Georgians, and annihilated
them. Timur's campaign against the Georgians is ''.justified" in the text as a jihad, a holy war
against the Christian infidels. A more practical reason for it was the richness of the country and
Timur's constant need for booty.
The figure of Timur appears on the upper part of the left page and, in accordance with the
depiction of the hero of the scene, he is isolated from the rest of the group. Wearing his green
robe, he is mounted on his horse; an attendant holds a parasol over his head; and he seems to
survey the operation from the top of the cliff. The Timurid army occupies most of the composi-
tion, which flows from right to left. There are many small details that are not related to the nar-
rative, such as the animals at the bottom of the left page and the defined facial expressions of
some of the soldiers, especially one on the top left page. In the background on the right page,
the ruins of the conquered city are visible from afar.
The subject of this miniature is unique in Persian painting up to this time, and the manner
of representing it is equally original. A fantastically colored landscape shows strangely shaped
rocks (about to assume faces, which will happen a few decades later), and a much freer and more
inventive composition emphasizes the landscape, which is crucial to understanding the scene.
The flow of the mounted soldiers and their horses from one page to the other, the horses'
movement, the winding passageway in the mountains, and the curves of the strange rocks create
 218 MIKA NATIF

4. Timur's army attacks the survivors of the town of Nerges in Georgia, in the spring of 798/1396. Baltimore, The
Johns Hopkins University, Garrett Zafarnaina, ff. 282v-283r

a rhythm, a pattern, a weavelike movement that leads to Timur's figure on the left-hand page.
Then the movement, directed first from top to bottom through the soldiers' gestures, the ropes,
and even the curves of the rocks, reaches a peaceful climax in the animals in the oasis below.

Folios 359v-360r: The construction of the Great Mosque (Friday Mosque) of Sarnarqand, began on 14
Rarnadan 801/May 20, 1399 (Fig. 5) [vol. 2, 145]

This is an unusual and significant choice of image in the Zafarnarna, as it applies to both
Timur and Sultan Husayn as patrons. The illustration occurs in the middle of a famous poetic
phrase which describes the mosque in its finished state, but the painting actually shows the con-
struction of the mosque, and most of the figural groups and their activities are taken directly
from the written description in the Zafarnarna. 28
The composition, subject, and figural elements of the painting are unique, and there is no
 THE ZAFARNAMA OF SULTAN HUSAYN MIRZA 219

prototype for them. The composition differs from that of the other miniatures in this manuscript
because the hero is not central; rather, the subject matter itself is heroic, one long associated with
the traditional duties of a Muslim ruler, whose life as a Muslim hero is, after all, the subject of the
text. For this reason, the symbolic value of the painting in context should parallel the depiction
of Timur's accession scene in the court of Balkh (ff. 82v-83r; see Fig. 1).
The mosque is shown surrounded by a wall, and one of the portals is under construction.
The composition shows the inside and outside of the building at the same time, and this creates
an awkward perspective. The stonework is emphasized in the painting as well as in the text, since
after the sack of Delhi, Timur took all the Indian stonecutters for himself and for the Friday
mosque he was planning to build in Samarqand. 29 The artist has paid particular attention here to
the marble-columns, capitals, revetments, engraved marble, as well as the large blocks carried
by an elephant and a horse. The painter has carefully differentiated ethnic groups of craftsmen
and slaves working in the construction site. Such painstaking distinctions do not occur in the bat-

5. The building of the Great Mosque of Samarqand, begun on 14 Ramadan 801/May 20, 1399. Baltimore, The Johns
Hopkins University, Garrett Zafarnama, ff. 359v-360r
 220 MIKA NATIF

6. Timur and his army storming the fortress of St.John in Izmir onJumada I 805/December 2, 1402. Baltimore, The
Johns Hopkins University, Garrett Zafarnmna, ff. 449v-450r

tle scenes, where all the figures, whether Turks, Mongols, Christians, or others, are shown in the
same way. The painting has small, delightful vignettes, some humorous, such as the elephant
wrapping its trunk around one of the workers (at the bottom of the page) or the supervisor get-
ting ready to strike a subordinate (on the top left). Such details become even more successful and
effective in the representation of the building of the palace in Khawarnaq in the Khamsa [Quin-
tet] of Nizami (see below).

Folios 449v-450r: Timur and his army storming the fortress of St. John in Izmir on 6 ]umada I
805/December 2, 1402 (Fig. 6) [vol. 2, 338]

The drawbridge has been pulled up to close the main entrance into the castle, but the sol-
diers of Timur have made a temporary bridge across the moat and have broken into a side en-
 n
II
'
,:1
THE ZAFARNAMA OF SULTAN HUSAYN MIRZA 221 I
trance, from which one of the defenders has fallen headlong. The castle of the Christian knights
is decorated with inscriptions in Arabic, and the knights themselves wear helmets and turbans ex-
actly like those worn by their Muslim enemies. Here, as elsewhere (ff. 282v-283r; Fig. 4), the
Christian soldiers are indistinguishable from the Timurids. Clothing and weapons are the same,
even turbans, and only position and size differentiate the two opposing forces. In the foreground
of the picture on the right, Timur, dressed in green and seated on a horse, supervises the oper-
ations.
Like the text describing the other attack on the Georgians in the Dasht-i Qipchaq (ff.
282v-283r), the narrative here may be characterized as an exercise in propaganda, an ideal de-
scription of a Timurid military campaign against a Christian enemy. The chapter is entitled "The
battle against the infidels of Izmir." The word jihad is mentioned several times in the text, the
messenger sent to call upon the Knights of St.John to become Muslims is identified as rasul [mes-
senger of God], the attacking army is lashkar Islam [army of Islam], and the knights of the
fortress are called kafir [infidels].
The painting precisely follows the text. Timur on horseback directed the attack, and the en-
gineers built a bridge to approach the castle. Almost every descriptive element in the text is uti-
lized in the illustration, even though it is still a classic battle scene. Many elements which ap-
peared in previous battle scenes in the manuscript are repeated here, which led Sims to believe
that we are dealing with the work of one arList, or at least one master designer. 30

THE DECORATIVE PROGRAM

These miniatures pose interesting problems with respect to iconography, date, attribution to Bih-
zad, and their unusual double-page format. The iconographic program takes its own unique
form. Four of the six pairs portray subjects from the life of Timur, while the other two were ded-
icated to the heroic exploits of his second son, Umar Shaykh. Timur's figure appears only in
three paintings, his accession scene and the two campaigns against the Christian infidels; his
image is only symbolically present in the Construction of the Friday Mosque in Samarqand. Umar
Shaykh, the ancestor of the patron of this manuscript, is, like Timur, represented in the minia-
tures as a military hero. Sims regarded the choice of subjects-the display of straightforward
heroism in successful military adventures, the official and ceremonial aspects of the sover-
eignty-as a conscious decision distinctly biased toward the founder of the lineage of Sultan
Husayn. Absent are depictions of hunting, marriage, reviewing the army, burning a city, mourn-
ing Timur's grandson, or even the death of Timur himself; all of these do, however, appear in the
1436 Zafarnama oflbrahim Sultan and in sixteenth-century illustrated Zafarnama manuscripts. 31
While Sultan Husayn's manuscript emphasizes the role of Umar Shaykh, Ibrahim Sultan's
manuscript stresses the role of Shahrukh, his father. It has been argued that the miniatures in
Sultan Husayn's Zajarnama were part of a "chain reaction" to Ibrahim Sultan's Shahnama from
1435, which was in itself a reaction to Baysunghur's Shahnama from 1430. 32 Each manuscript il-
lustrates a different way of glorifying Timur's rule. The paintings also presentpew and original
subject matter, very different from the 1436 model. Ebadollah Bahari stated, without elaborating,
that the illustrations do not represent passages from the text immediately next to them, but in-
222 MIKA NATIF

stead can be related to some of the major events of Timur's rule. 33 Sims, more convincingly,
demonstrated that all but one pair of miniatures in Sultan Husayn's manuscript (ff. 115v-116r)
have a specific subject that relates only to the interpretation provided by the text.
The selection of miniatures in Sultan Husayn's Zajarnama presents a highly individualized
illustrative program which was not continued in sixteenth-century manuscripts of the same text.
Why is this manuscript so different from the only textual model it knew? 34 The illustration pro-
gram has been explained in relation to contemporary events. Sims quotes Muhammad Haydar
Doughlat, who remarks on Sultan Husayn's descent from Umar Shaykh, his struggles and even-
tual great victory in winning Khorasan and establishing himself in Herat in 873/1469, a date
close to the copying of the manuscript (872). She tries to bring these two dates together, quoting
V. V. Bartold, who dates the conquest ofHerat to the fall and winter of 873/1468. 35 Sims then
argues that Sultan Husayn, expecting all through this period to achieve his goal of capturing the
city-for him, the ultimate victory-ordered the copying of a Zafarnama for himself, to he
adorned eventually with a series of illustrations that would prefigure the signal victory he hoped
would crown his long and hard efforts. 36
According to the physical evidence of the manuscript, the space for the miniatures was
planned and left blank in advance during the copying of the manuscript, before Sultan Husayn
captured Herat. Their location and subject matter were predetermined. If indeed this is the case,
why is there such a gap in time between the completion of the copying and the painting of the
miniatures, which have been dated as late as 1480?

The Garrett manuscript is an extremely personal document, linked on many levels with the life
and aspirations of Sultan Husayn: it might even be styled a kind of private Fath-nama, issued on
his accession in Herat. Certainly, it sums up his life's ambition to that point, and in its quality and
style it prefigured one more important aspect of the cultural life which would flourish in Herat
under his rule. 37 Thomas Lentz and Glenn Lowry also see the role of artistic patronage of the
Timurids as a strategy by which the dynasty transmitted its ideology and legitimacy. 38 It is difficult,
however, to imagine such a role for a single small-sized manuscript made for an individual's inti-
mate viewing and not easily accessible to everyone. Some other explanation must be provided.
The miniatures have been interpreted as a good omen (or wishful thinking) on behalf of Sul-
tan Husayn for the conquest of Khorasan and Herat, and for restoration of the line of Umar
Shaykh ibn Timur to the throne of Khorasan. It has then been argued that the paintings were
made close to the conquest ofHerat in 873; such reasoning makes the attribution to Bihzad prob-
lematic. The miniatures are said to be early works of a young Bihzad, made between 1470 and
1480. But it is very unlikely that such a young and still unknown artist, who would have been be-
tween thirteen and twenty-three years old, would have been entrusted with such an important
commission as this Zafarnama manuscript. Although the miniatures' characteristics indude
youthful exuberance, lack of anything studied or routine, and absence of the kind of finish and
surface polish found in signed manuscripts like the Cairo Bustan or even the Gulistan of 1486,
the images exude a unique quality, which bolsters the argument that, in the end, the illustrations
are the raison d'etre for this manuscript. 39 Furthermore, in contemporary sources, Bihzad was re-
garded as only one of several skilled painters active in the circle of Mir Ali Shir Nava'i and Sul-
tan Husayn. 40 Moreover, Richard Ettinghausen claims that Bihzad received great artistic oppor-
 THE ZAFARNAMA OF SULTAN HUSAYN MIRZA 223

tunities through his first patron, Mir Ali Shir Nava'i, and that he entered the service of Sultan
Husayn only around 893/1488. Thus, the miniatures, according to Ivan Stchoukine, Etting-
hausen, and others, date from 1490s, while the text is earlier. 41 Based on stylistic analysis, Marie
Lukens-Swietochowski argues that the Zafarnama miniatures fall within the last fifteen years of
the fifteenth century, together with all Bihzad's other works under Sultan Husayn. 42 Thus, until
new evidence appears, the date of the miniatures and their attribution to Bihzad or another con-
temporary painter will remain problematic. Whether Bihzad actually painted these miniatures or
not, it is certain that he was familiar with them, since he reacts and relates to them in several of
his works.
The audience in Balkh on the occasion of Timur's accession is the only scene that has a com-
parable painting in the Zafarnama oflbrahim Sultan. 43 The two miniatures have several elements
in common: they are painted on a double-page format; both depict the scene amidst a bloom-
ing garden with a stream; on the right-hand page sits Timur in a magnificent tent; his hunting
animals are represented; the guests either sit or stand; a horse appears in both miniatures; and
the amirs are shown in a long line either kneeling or standing, wearing various types of headgear.
Even though these two paintings display similar components, they are stylistically very different
from each other. The one from the manuscript of Sultan Husayn has much more in common
with a double-page frontispiece from the Khamsa of Nizami, which was not a royal commission,
attributed to Bihzad's teacher, Mirak Khurasani, and dated 1494-95. 44 In a Zafarnama manu-
script from 1486 (Istanbul, Turk ve Islam Erserleri Miizesi, no. T.1964), Abolala Soudavar mis-
takenly identifies the subject matter of folio 97r as "Timur enthroned" while elsewhere it has
been identified as "The marriage of Timur to Delshad-Agha in Samarqand." In folio 49r Sou-
davar identifies the scene as "Timur battling in the Khoram Gorge," 45 while the text relates to a
conflict between Timur and Amir Husayn. The frontispiece of the Khamsa appears to be a sim-
pler variation of Timur's audience scene. The composition is very similar for the two paintings,
and the differences lie in the details: the splendor and variety of the costumes; the richness of
textiles, rugs, and fabrics; the display of wealth; and the diversity of ethnic groups. All of these
are present at the audience scene of Timur in Sultan Husayn's Zafarnama and absent from the
Khamsa frontispiece for Amir Ali Farsi Barlas. Such are the elements that differentiate a macro
perspective of a royal event from a micro affair.
Another interesting comparison to the audience scene in the Zafarnama is the frontispiece
of "A party at the court of Sultan Husayn Mirza" in a Bustan of Sa' di dated 1488 from Herat, com-
missioned by Sultan Husayn and definitely painted by Bihzad. 46 The two scenes are remarkably
different from one another, even though they were commissioned by the same patron, possibly
painted by the same artist, and treat the same subject. The frontispiece showing the court of Sul-
tan Husayn captures the festive atmosphere of the gathering and the interaction between people
listening to music, dancing, drinking, and eating; Sultan Husayn himself, although distinctive, is
taking part in the celebration. In contrast, the people in the audience scene of the Zafarnama
hardly interact with one another, Timur's figure is isolated, and there is no sense of festivity.
Everything looks very formal, almost frozen. While the figures in the frontispiece do not occupy
the entire page, there is a balance among the elements-architecture, tent, vegetation, and peo-
ple. The figures in the Zafarnama audience scene tend to be large in relation to their background
and thus create a sense of monumentality in their appearance.
224 MIKA NATIF

There are two battle scenes, or perhaps siege scenes, in the Zafarnama of Sultan Husayn
which involve an attack on a castle (Figs. 2, 6). These are based on a known convention for de-
picting a fort or castle; the building is shown at an irregular angle with warriors on the top of the
wall or roof, while the attacking army surrounds the foot of the structure. The two compositions
in the Zafarnarna, although based on an old model, differ in details from the regular scene. Since
they are tied to a text, the technical details of the mechanism of war are shown: the drawbridge
in t~e attack on Khiva (Fig. 2), the temporary wooden bridge built by Timur's engineers in the
attack on the Knights of St. John (Fig. 6), or the use of wooden screens as shields, again in the
attack on the Knights of St. John. This composition, including individualized details, is repeated
in an unfinished single-page painting, "Assault on a castle," from a lost manuscript. 47 The latter
work, ascribed to Bihzad, 48 contains a genre scene at the top left. However, the unfinished paint-
ing conveys a more dramatic mode, with rapid movements, smoke, and fire, like a brilliant action
scene, while the scenes from the Zafarnama are more subdued. The format of the double-page
breaks the composition into two almost independent paintings, and there is no specific compo-
sitional link between one part and the other; one can replace the castle of the Knights of St. John
with the one at Khiva.
A completely different battle scene is the one in which Timur's army attacks the survivors
of the town of N erges in Georgia (Fig. 4). This is truly a unique scene that has no parallels. Some
of its features can be found in a Tirnur-nama of Hatifi, from Bukhara, a painting in which warriors
in rope-slung baskets are lowered over a scarp into a valley to battle half-nude adversaries, and
in other paintings attributed to Bihzad. The strange rocky landscape, so important to under-
standing the scene in the Zafarnama, appears in the miniature "Iskandar visiting the hermit,"
from Amir Ali Farsi Barlas's Khamsa of Nizami (mentioned above). 49 However, in the painting
from the Khamsa, the rocks convey a dramatic accent, as if in their distinctive colors and sharp
angles they had a life of their own. In the Zafarnama scene, it is the people who occupy the main
aspect of the composition, and they seem to be large even against the mountains, a device that
makes them appear monumental. The arrangement of the personages, riding in line one behind
the other, in the Zafarnama miniature recalls that of a royal hunting scene attributed to Bihzad
from the Hash Bihisht of Amir Khusraw Dihlavi, dated 1496-97. 50 Here, too, the mounted
hunters are arranged in a line or a circle against a rocky landscape. Lentz and Lowry argue that
the general organization of this painting with its vignettes is derived from the double-page fron-
tispiece to the Shalinama copied in Herat for Baysunghur in 1430. 51 It is possible that Bay-
sunghur's Shalinarna was in the library of Sultan Husayn in Herat, as was the Zafarnarna of
Ibrahim Sultan.
The scene depicting the construction of the Friday mosque has no parallel in the Zafarnarna
of Ibrahim Sultan from 1436. The latter contains a textual description of the construction of the
Aq Saray, but the miniature actually shows Timur sitting in an ivan with a woman (f. 153r), and it
is thus unrelated to the text. 52 A construction scene on two separate pages, by the artist known
as Siyah Qalam, appears in a different collection of works, in the Topkapi Soray Museum, Hazine
2153 (ff. 89a, 141b). 53 These two pages are about ten centimeters larger then the miniatures of
Sultan Husayn. This scene, however, does not show an actual construction; rather, it depicts an
abstraction of a building scene, a conception of the process of construction, and there is no in-
dication of what is being built. 54 The Siyah Qalam pages seem like a close examination of the
 THE ZAFARNANIA OF SULTAN HCSAYN MIRZA 225

components, zooming in on the aspects of workmanship in a construction site. Despite the dif-
ferent approaches in the Zafarnama scene and the one in Hazine 2153, there are interesting sim-
ilarities in details: people carrying heavy stones and blocks; someone sawing wood; various props
and tools; the supervisor rushing the workers; and the small groups formed by two or three peo-
ple who are working together. These little vignettes evoke an overall picture and make up the
composition in the two paintings.
The image in the Khamsa of Nizami of the "Construction of the palace in Khawarnaq," from
1494-95 (f. 154b), appears to be a refined, planned, and polished version of the construction
scene from the Baltimore Zajarnania. 55 It captures on a single page the variety of work activities,
with their human and humorous aspects spread harmoniously on the page, creating a perfectly
balanced and fascinating composition. Similar to the construction site in the Zafarnama, the
Kharnsa painting includes the objective of the construction, but here the viewer looks directly at
the palace; there is no attempt to show the building from different angles, as in the miniature of
the Friday mosque.
The three construction scenes share a number of characteristics which may be based on
some kind of model or convention. Although this model is either lost or still unknown, two of the
three paintings, in the Zafarnama and the Hazine 2153 album, present a feature that may take us
one step further regarding a hypothetical explanation of the miniatures: the monumentality of
the scenes. This monumentality in conception and composition stands out very clearly in all the
miniatures of Sultan Husayn's Zafarnama.
The miniatures are also unusual in their choice of format. There is no text incorporated
within the paintings, they are on a large format of double pages, their subject matter and com-
position are very different from those of the other Zafarnama illustrations. The unusual double-
page format of the paintings deserves some closer examination, since double-page illustrations
were not a common feature in this period and were generally used only in frontispieces. It has
been suggested that they were chosen for the illustrations in the Garrett manuscript as a result
of the influence of the Zafarnama of Ibrahim Sultan. This latter manuscript has five double-page
compositions, and five more double-page paintings can be postulated because of compositional
and physical evidence; all are inspired by the format of frontispieces. 56 While the miniatures in
the 1436 Zajarnama illustrate a narrative sequence (the manuscript included about thirty minia-
tures),57 the Garrett illustrations are independent from one another and suggest a source of in-
spiration other than a manuscript. Kurt Weitzmann's theory for Early Christian and Byzantine
manuscript illustration suggests that a clear separation existed between the two characteristic
types of book illustration: one derived from a narrative cycle directly connected to the story; the
other came from monumental architectural sources such as wall paintings or mosaics that em-
phasized a single suhject and developed into a single large painting. 58 Extending this distinction
between narrative and monumental cycles to the illustrations of the Zajarnama, we may specu-
late that these paintings were modeled after wall paintings with subject matter similar to what was
selected to illustrate this manuscript; such a model might also explain the large format.
Literary evidence points to the presence of wall painting during the Timurid period. 59 Lentz
suggests that there is a parallel formal development between narrative wall painting and book il-
lustration. 60 Ibn Arabshah's account (after 1408-9) offers a detailed view of how painting was
used on walls under the Timurid ruling elite. His description of the wall paintings ordered by
226 MIKA NATIF

Timur for his garden palaces at Samarqand reveals the existence of an extensive figural program
centered around the "Great Amir" himself. These paintings consisted of representations of
Timur ("now smiling, now austere") and his assemblies; his battles and sieges (including his vic-
tories in the Dasht-i Qipchaq, Iran, and India); conversations with kings, amirs, lords, and sages;
sultans offering homage and gifts; his hunting nets and ambushes; likenesses of his sons, grand-
sons, amirs, and soldiers; public feasts; cupbearers and musicians; his dalliances and representa-
tions of concubines and royal wives. 61 Other accounts are more generalized and mention paint-
ings in the gardens, among them in the Bagh-i Sefid at Herat; these were ordered by Abu Sa'id
(r. 1459-69). 62 Another example of the use of wall painting can be found in a document called
the arzadasht, which has been attributed to the scribe J a'far al-Baysunghuri, head of the
kitabkhana [library] of Baysunghur Mirza. This document mentions a structure known as
suratkhana, a term translated as "picture house" or "portrait gallery"; it may refer to a building
whose interior walls were covered with paintings. All these accounts reveal that the subjects of the
wall painting were royal and historical in nature. However, no extant wall paintings or fragments
match these descriptions. 63
Lentz concludes that the subject matter ofTimurid wall painting shows historical motives be-
hind the commissioning of murals which recorded for contemporary viewers, as much as for the
Timurids themselves, the celebration of the Timurid past and present. Ibn Arabshah's statement
of Timur's intentions for wall painting confirms this notion: "He intended that those who knew
not his affairs should see them as though present. "64 Recorded for the viewer were the demon-
strations and prerogatives ofTimurid power-victory in battle, audiences, and the submission of
rivals. Yet this picturing of the Timurid self-view was both commemorative and panegyric. Be-
cause of its formal choices and selectivity of view, it can be regarded on one level as a linked vi-
sual counterpart to the panegyric histories of the Timurid house. These narratives were highly
stylized, rhetorical accounts that presented an idealized, flattering view of the dynasty, just as text
illustrations visualized the legends and lessons of Iranian literature in Timurid guise. 65 And on
another level, this manuscript tells us something about Sultan Husayn. He did not depict his own
achievements but enjoyed the sight of his ancestors. Thus, it is possible to imagine that the choice
of format and subject matter for the Zafarnama of Sultan Husayn was not inspired by another Za-
farnama manuscript but was modeled after wall paintings that depicted on a monumental scale
historical subjects of the house of Timur. Such a theory would explain the choice of a non-
narrative sequence of paintings for the illustrations, their unusual double-page format, and their
subject matter of four battle scenes, an audience, and the construction of a mosque.
Many original features of the miniatures were not emulated in later manuscripts. For exam-
ple, Sultan Husayn did not commission any other illustrated manuscript of Yazdi's Zafarnama
even though about thirty complete copies of manuscripts without illustrations have survived from
the fifteenth century; most of these date from the time of Sultan Husayn's rule in Herat. 66
The language of these illustrations can be appreciated for its originality and the lack of ex-
tensive borrowing: the miniatures are truly original works. Even when they did borrow, such ele-
ments were transformed into something new. The association of the illustrative program with the
text was more than the creation of a setting for well-known events. The combination had to sup-
port events that were unknown to many and to illustrate a text that was new and for which only
one visual manuscript model existed, the Zafarnama of Ibrahim Sultan from 1436. The result is
 THE ZAFARNAMA OF SULTAN HUSAYN MIRZA
different from any other contemporary manuscript. Whereas past research has labored over con-
textualizing the manuscript within a pictorial tradition of miniatures and associations with the
artist Bihzad, 67 the present analysis demonstrates that the closest parallels for the miniatures lie
not in manuscripts but in wall paintings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank Professor Oleg Grabar for his encouragement and advice on my work.
NOTES
1. The manuscript was re-bound in the twentieth cen-
tury when the pages were sewn very tightly together; see
M. Lukens-Swietochowski, "The School of Herat from
1450 to 1506,'' in The Arts of the Booh in Central Asia, ed.
B. Gray (Boulder, 1979), 181.
2. T. Arnold, Bihzad and His Paintings in the Zaf01~
Namah Manuscript (London, 1930).
3. E. Sims, "The Garrett Manuscript of the Zafa1~
name: A Study in Fifteenth-Century Timurid Patronage"
(Ph.D. diss, New York University, 1973).
4. Sharaf al-Din Ali Yazdi, ZafaMiama (1424-25), ed.
Muhammad Abbasi (Tehran, 1957-58).
5. ]. Woods, "The Rise of Timurid Historiography,''
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46, no. 2 (1987), 100.
6 Ibid., 101.
7. Ibid., 105.
8. Ibid.
9. Sims, "The Garrett Manuscript of the Zafar-name"
(as in note 3), 97.
10. Arnold, Bihzad and His Paintings (as in note 2),
2-3.
11. Ibid., 2.
12. Ibid., 4; Sims, "The Garrett Manuscript of the
Zafar-name" (as in note 3), 282.
13. Arnold, Bihzad and His Paintings (as in note 2), 3.
14. F. R. Martin, The l\!Iiniature Painting and Painters of
Persia, India, and T1.trhey, from the 8th to the 18th Century
(London, 1912), vol. 1, 113.
15. Arnold, Bihzad and His Paintings (as in note 2),
5-6.
16. Literally means the "lord of the conjunction."
Timur's title refers to the conjunction of the two lucky
stars, Venus and Jupiter, under which he supposedly was
born. Chingis Khan was the only person who had this
title before Timur.
17. Arnold, Bihzad and His Paintings (as in note 2), G.
18. Ibid.
19. Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, Narrative of the Embassy of
Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo to the Court of Timu1; at Samar-
cand, 1403-6, trans.GR. Markham (London, 1859), 20.
227
20. Sims, "The Garrett Manuscript of the Zafar-name"
(as in note 3), 218-19.
21. Ibid., 245-46.
22. The left-hand side of the picture has suffered dam-
age from repainting; see Arnold, Bihzad and His Paint-
ings (as in note 2), 7.
23. Sims, 'The Garrett Manuscript of the Zafar-name"
(as in note 3), 246.
24. Arnold, Bihzad and His Paintings (as in note 2), 7.
25. Yazdi, Zafai~nama (as in note 4), vol. 1, 328.
26. Sims, "The Garrett Manuscript of the Zafar-name"
(as in note 3), 258-59.
27. Ibid., 289.
28. Ibid., 266-67.
29. Yazdi, Zafa1~nama (as in note 4), vol. 2, 96.
30. Sims, "The Garrett Manuscript of the Zafar-name"
(as in note 3), 276.
31. Sims, "The Garrett Manuscript of the Zafar-name"
(as in note 3), 284. There is a 1486 Zafarnama (in the
Turk ve Islam Eserleri Muzesi, 1964) which contains thir-
teen miniatures; most of them are related to Timur's ca-
reer in Mawarannahr. The manuscript's patron and lo-
cation are unknown, it has mediocre-quality paintings,
and it is very ambiguous (Sims, 206-8).
32. B. W. Robinson, A Descriptive Catalog1.te of the Per-
sian Paintings in the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1958), 16.
33. E. Bahari, Bihzad, Master of Persian Painting (New
York, 1996), 68.
34. Ibrahim Sultan's 1436 Zafarnama was in Herat by
1480; see Sims, "The Garrett Manuscript of the Zafar-
name" (as in note 3), 365.
35. Bartold bases this date only on al-Razzaq's Matla'-i
Sa'dayn, and not, as Sims writes, also on Habib al-Siyar;
see V. V. Bartold, "A Short History of Turkestan," in Four
Studies on the History of Central Asia, trans. V. Minorsky
and T. Minorsky, vol. 1 (Leiden, 1956), 26.
36. Sims, "The Garrett Manuscript of the Zafar-name"
(as in note 3), 349.
37. Ibid., 353.
38. T. Lentz, "Changing Worlds: Bihzad and the New
228 MIKA NATIF
Painting," in Persian Niasters: Five Centuries of Painting,
ed. Sheila Canby (Bombay, 1990), 45; T. Lentz, and G.
Lowry, Timur and the Princely Vision (Washington, D.C.,
1989).
39. Sims, "The Garrett Manuscript of the Zafar-name"
(as in note 3), 355.
40. P. Soucek, "Behzad," Encyclopedia Iranica, vol. 4,
115.
41. I. Stchoukine, Les peintures de manuscrits tiinourides
(Paris, 1954), 138-39; R. Ettinghausen, "Bihzad," Ency-
clopedia of Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 1, 1213.
42. Lukens-Swietochowski, "The School of Herat" (as
in note 1), 184.
43. See the Zafarnama oflbrahim Sultan from 1436,
folios 128v-129r: Timur holds audience in Balkh on the
occasion of his accession (in E. Sims, "Ibrahim-Sultan's
Illustrated Zafar-Nameh of 839/143fi," Islamic Art 4
[1991], figs. 1-2).
44. See the Khamsa of Nizami, copied for Amir Ali
Farsi Barlas, Herat (?), 1494-95, folios 1v-2r: double-
page frontispiece of an outdoor court (in Bahari, Bihzad,
Master of Persian Painting [as in note 33], 130-31). The
manuscript was commissioned by Amir Ali Farsi Barias,
one of the amirs of Sultan Husayn in Herat and is now in
the British Library (Or. 6810).
45. A. Soudavar, Art of the Persian Courts (New York,
1992), 110-11.
46. See the Bust an of Sa' di, copied for Sultan Husayn,
Herat, 1488, folios lv-2r: a double-page frontispiece of a
party at the court of Sultan Husayn Mirza (in Bahari,
Bihzad, Master of Persian Painting [as in note 33], 102-3).
The manuscript is now in Cairo, General Egyptian Book
Organization, Adab Farsi 908. Scholars accept the minia-
tures in this manuscript to be authentic work of Bihzad;
see Ettinghausen, "Bihzad" (as in note 41), 1212 and
Soucek, "Behzad" (as in note 40), 115.
47. The painting is dated c. 1500, Iran; now at the Har-
vard University Art Museums, Cambridge, no. 1960.199;
see Lentz and Lowry, Timur and the Princely Vision (as in
note 38), 241, cat. no.135.
48. Simpson argues that it is more likely that it was
painted by one of Bihzad's students; see M. S. Simpson,
Arab and Persian Painting in the Fogg Art Nluseum (Cam-
bridge, Mass., 1980), 48.
49. Folio 273a. See note 44. Published in Lentz, and
Lowry, Timur and the Princely Vision (as in note 38), 250,
cat. no. 140.
50. Double-page frontispiece, folios lv-2r, Topkapi
Palace Library, Istanbul, H.676; published in Bahari, Bih-
zad, lVIaster of Persian Painting (as in note 33), 166-67.
51. Now in Tehran, Gulistan Palace Library, no. 61.
This Shahnama manuscript of Firdawsi was copied for
Baysunghur ibn Shahrukh, Herat, 1430; see "Baysun-
ghur hunting," in Lentz and Lowry, Timur and the
Princely Vision (as in note 38), 132, fig. 42.
52. See the Zafarnama of Ibrahim Sultan from 1436,
folio 153r: The building of Aq Saray, in Sims, "Ibrahim--
Sultan's Illustrated Zafar-Nameh" (as in note 43), 186,
fig. 5.
53. M. Ipsiroglu, Siyah Qalam: Edizione comp let a in fac-
simile delle tavole del iviaestro Mehmed Siyah Qalam (Rome,
1984), figs. 59, 60.
54. There are indications that the pages were cut; how-
ever, they are of a relatively large size already (35.2 x 26.8
cm), and it is difficult to imagine that a significant part
is missing that would have included the monument it-
self.
55. Khamsa ofNizami copied for Amir Ali Farsi Barias,
Herat. (?), 1494-%. See note 44 above. Folio 1Fi4h is re-
produced in Bahari, Bihzad, Niaster of Persian Painting
(as in note 33), 148.
56. E. Sims, "Ibrahim Sultan's Illustrated Zafarnama
Manuscript of 1436 and Its Impact in the Muslim
World," in Timurid Art and Culture, ed. L. Golombek
and M. Subtelny (Leiden, 1992), 138; Sims, "The Garrett
Manuscript of the Zafar-name" (as in note 3), 149, n. 3.
57. Sims, "Ibrahim-Sultan's Illustrated Zafar-::•fameh"
(as in note 43), appendix 1, 212-13.
58. Such is the case in Byzantine art with the Rabula
Gospel book, which has single scenes that even kept
their mosaic-like borders, while the mosaic in San Marco
depicts a series of paintings, the Genesis cycle, and cor-
relates in appearance to the narrative type. See K Weitz-
mann, Illustrations in Roll and Codex (Princeton, 194 7),
116 ff.
59. The literary evidence for wall painting during the
fifteenth century is generally well known and has been
summarized by Stchoukine, Les peintures de manuscrits
timourides (as in note 41).
60. T. Lentz, "Dynastic Imagery in Early Timurid Wall
Painting," Muqarnas IO (1993), 253.
61. Ahmad Ibn Arabshah, Tamerlane or Timur the Great
Amii; trans. J. H. Sanders (London, 1936), 310.
62. Lentz, "Dynastic Imagery" (as in note 60), 253.
63. Lentz, "Dynastic Imagery" (as in note 60), 254.
64. Ibn Arabshah, Timur the Great Amir (as in note 61),
310.
65. Lentz, "Dynastic Imagery" (as in note 60), 263.
66. See C. A. Storey-Bregel, Persidslwia literatura, bio-
bibliograficheshi [Persian Literature, bio-bibliographyJ,
translated into Russian and revised, with additions and
correclious, by Yuri Bregel, 3 vols. (Moscow, 1972).
67. Sims, "The Garrett Manuscript of the Zafar-name"
(as in note 3), 278.