µþ·¡±á´ÜÄ€¶Ù, KAMÄ€L-AL-DĪN, master painter, proverbial for his skill, active in Herat during the reign of the Timurid Ḥosayn BÄyqarÄ (875-912/1470-1506). BehzÄd’s name has become synonymous with the high level of artistic skill displayed by the painters of this period, although the precise nature of his personal contribution is a matter of conjecture. Several manuscript illustrations and numerous single paintings have been ascribed to his hand but only a few of these are widely accepted as his work. Foremost are the illustrations in a BÅ«²õ³ÙÄå²Ô manuscript of SaÊ¿dÄ« preserved in the National Library of Egypt in Cairo.
The most reliable sources of information are probably the persons directly connected with Herat such as the historian ḴᵛÄå²Ô»å²¹³¾Ä«°ù, the Mughal ruler BÄbor, and the historian MÄ«rzÄ á¸¤aydar DūḡlÄt. Authors connected with the Safavid dynasty such as DÅ«st-Moḥammad, QÄżī Aḥmad QomÄ«, and Eskandar Beg MonšÄ« are also generally reliable. Less credence should be given to statements by Ottoman or Mughal authors whose understanding of BehzÄd was distorted by the considerable mythology that evolved around him and his work.
No author gives a coherent biography of BehzÄd, but certain facts about his life can be gleaned from the first two groups of sources. The Herat authors stress that BehzÄd was employed first by MÄ«r Ê¿AlÄ«-ŠÄ«r NavÄʾī and then by Sultan Ḥosayn BÄyqarÄ. In both instances BehzÄd worked as a subordinate of Rūḥ-AllÄh MÄ«rak NaqqÄš, who directed the workshop first of MÄ«r Ê¿AlÄ«-ŠÄ«r and then of Sultan Ḥosayn. DÅ«st-Moḥammad and QÄżī Aḥmad provide further details about both BehzÄd and MÄ«rak NaqqÄš. QÄżī Aḥmad stresses the close personal ties between the two, stating that after BehzÄd was orphaned as a youth he was reared and trained by MÄ«rak. DÅ«st-Moḥammad adds that MÄ«rak’s full name was AmÄ«r Rūḥ-AllÄh and that he belonged to a family of sayyeds known as bowmakers, although MÄ«rak himself was particularly renowned as a calligrapher. No author suggests that BehzÄd and MÄ«rak were related or mentions how the two became acquainted. BehzÄd evidently had at least two siblings because their descendants are said to have been his students. The course of BehzÄd’s life after the demise of Sultan Ḥosayn BÄyqarÄ in 1506 is poorly documented. BÄbor links him with the patronage of Moḥammad ŠaybÄnÄ« (Šaybak) Khan, the ruler of Herat between 1507 and 1510.
BehzÄd probably spent the last years of his life in TabrÄ«z, where he was employed at the Safavid court. He must have moved there with his close relatives because his nephew, the calligrapher Rostam-Ê¿AlÄ«, is known to have been trained at TabrÄ«z, and the same is implied of his grandnephews Moḥebb-Ê¿AlÄ« and Moẓaffar-Ê¿AlÄ«, both of whom were painters.
The date and circumstances surrounding BehzÄd’s move to TabrÄ«z are unknown. A decree in the name of Shah EsmÄÊ¿Ä«l and dated to 928/1522 appointing BehzÄd to head his manuscript workshop is often cited as evidence of BehzÄd’s connection with that ruler. However, that document is preserved in a copy of ḴᵛÄndamÄ«r’s NÄma-ye nÄmÄ« (Bib. Nat. Ms Suppl. Pers. 1842), a collection of examples of epistolary style dated on the basis of a chronogram to 925/1519. This chronological discrepancy calls into question the authenticity of the decree. Furthermore, Safavid authors such as DÅ«st-Moḥammad, Eskandar Beg, and QÄżī Aḥmad QomÄ« specify that BehzÄd was employed by Shah ṬahmÄsb but make no mention of a link to Shah EsmÄÊ¿Ä«l. QÄżī Aḥmad specifies that BehzÄd arrived in TabrÄ«z at a time when Shah ṬahmÄsb’s library was already established, and its director, Solá¹Än-Moḥammad, was instructing the ruler in painting. Aside from the decree, the most commonly cited evidence for BehzÄd’s association with Shah EsmÄÊ¿Ä«l is an anecdote in ManÄqeb-e honarvarÄn composed by the Ottoman scholar Moá¹£á¹afÄ-Ê¿AlÄ« of Gallipoli in 995/1587. He describes how BehzÄd and the calligrapher ŠÄh MaḥmÅ«d NÄ«šÄpÅ«rÄ« accompanied Shah EsmÄÊ¿Ä«l to the battlefield at ÄŒÄlderÄn and were hidden by him in a cave because he feared for their safety in the event of an Ottoman victory. This anecdote is coupled with prophecies of the Ottoman victory, which casts doubt on its historicity. Other statements by Moá¹£á¹afÄ-Ê¿AlÄ« demonstrate that for him BehzÄd was a mythic figure to be invoked in vague superlatives.
Little is known of BehzÄd’s activities in TabrÄ«z at the Safavid court. QÄżī Aḥmad mentions a volume of NeẓÄmÄ«’s á¸Âë³¾²õ²¹ copied by ŠÄh MaḥmÅ«d NÄ«šÄpÅ«rÄ« that was illustrated by BehzÄd. DÅ«st-Moḥammad adds that BehzÄd died in ṬahmÄsb’s service and was buried in TabrÄ«z alongside Shaikh KamÄl ḴojandÄ«. A chronogram gives the date of BehzÄd’s death as 935/1535-36.
Evaluations of BehzÄd’s importance as a painter also show a considerable range of opinion. ḴᵛÄndamÄ«r’s ḴolÄá¹£at al-aḵbÄr composed in 905/1499-1500, which describes events until 875/1471, gives a glimpse of BehzÄd’s status in Herat. He mentions BehzÄd’s support first by MÄ«r Ê¿AlÄ«-ŠÄ«r and then Sultan Ḥosayn BÄyqarÄ and praises his work. However, he does not stress BehzÄd’s superiority over his contemporaries. Indeed his list of painters begins with MÄ«rak NaqqÄš, who thus is probably the leading artist of the time, and his greatest praise is reserved for BehzÄd’s contemporary QÄsem-Ê¿AlÄ«. Statements by MÄ«rzÄ á¸¤aydar DūḡlÄt and BÄbor also demonstrate that during the 9th/15th century at Herat BehzÄd was regarded as only one of several skilled painters active in the circles of Ê¿AlÄ«-ŠÄ«r and Sultan Ḥosayn. Some evidently preferred the work of ŠÄh Moẓaffar or QÄsem-Ê¿AlÄ« to that of BehzÄd.
The evaluation of BehzÄd as an artist of superlative achievement first appears during the Safavid period. Typically, authors praise him in glowing but very general terms and compare his skill to that of MÄnÄ«, the paragon of painting in Persian literature. In the revised version of his historical text, ḤabÄ«b al-sÄ«ar, completed in 930/1524, ḴᵛÄndamÄ«r is more lavish in his praise of BehzÄd, whom he compares to MÄnÄ« and says that his skill surpasses that of all other artists. BehzÄd is also linked to MÄnÄ« and extolled as the “model of painters” in the decree mentioned above ascribed to Shah EsmÄÊ¿Ä«l which carries a date of 928/1522. Other Safavid authors echo these sentiments.
The paintings of BehzÄd. BehzÄd’s illustrations for a BÅ«²õ³ÙÄå²Ô of SaÊ¿dÄ« made for the library of Sultan Ḥosayn BÄyqarÄ, with a text colophon of 893/1488, provide an indication of the nature of his accomplishments. The manuscript contains a double-page frontispiece and four illustrations. BehzÄd’s signatures are either incorporated into architectural inscriptions or placed inconspicuously on an object in the painting. Two of the paintings are dated to 894/1488-89. All of the paintings contain text panels that have been carefully integrated into the overall scheme of the pages suggesting that BehzÄd and the calligrapher, Solá¹Än-Ê¿AlÄ« KÄteb, must have worked closely together. The paintings are noteworthy for their carefully balanced compositions that achieve a clarity of spatial definition unusual for Persian painting. The figures, although created as idealized types rather than idiosyncratic individuals, often convey a sense of mood and personality more subtle and expressive than is customary in Persian manuscripts. Moreover, the paintings show the precise drawing and control in execution that is the hallmark of 9th/15th-century Herat painting.
Similar stylistic traits are evident in paintings contained in several other manuscripts produced in Herat during the last quarter of the 9th/15th century. I. Stchoukine has compiled a record of the opinions of various scholars on this question. Manuscripts frequently linked to BehzÄd are a copy of the Ẓa´Ú²¹°ù-²ÔÄå³¾²¹ of YazdÄ« dated to 872/1468 (in the Johns Hopkins University Library), the 888/1483 manuscript of Ê¿Aá¹á¹Är’s Maná¹eq al-á¹ayr in the Metropolitan Museum, New York, the 890/1485 copy of Ê¿AlÄ«-ŠÄ«r NavÄʾī’s á¸Âë³¾²õ²¹ divided between the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and the John Rylands Library, Manchester, and two copies of NeẓÄmÄ«’s á¸Âë³¾²õ²¹ in the British Library, Add. 25900 where paintings were added to a text copied in 846/1442, and Or. 6810 dated to 900/1495.
During the l0th/16th century collectors were particularly anxious to include paintings by BehzÄd in their ³¾´Ç°ù²¹±ç±ç²¹Ê¿²¹s or albums. Both ḴᵛÄndamÄ«r and QÄżī Aḥmad mention albums of this kind. A further example is provided by an anthology of calligraphic specimens dated to 930/1524 now in the Freer Gallery, Washington (no. 44.48). It opens with two “heirlooms,” a page of calligraphy by the mid-9th/15th-century calligrapher Shaikh MaḥmÅ«d, and a single painting by BehzÄd who is extolled as “the sun of the zenith of skill” in the manuscript’s preface. This šamsa or circular painting shows two figures—a youth and an old man—in a landscape. The youth wears a type of turban usually associated with the Uzbeks, so that this painting may have been produced at Herat during the interlude of Uzbek domination (913-16/1507-10). Another painting associated with BehzÄd’s later years is preserved in an album prepared for the Mughal ruler JahÄngÄ«r. It shows two fighting camels and their keepers in a broadly conceived hillside covered with stones, a detail that becomes a mannerism in painters active in Herat and Bukhara during the first half of the 10th/16th century. An old man watches the scene from the upper left. An inscription on the painting states that BehzÄd executed it during his seventieth year. Unfortunately his birth date is unknown. The painting’s execution places it within the 10th/16th century but the circumstances that led to its creation are unknown.
The traits of precision in pattern, calligraphy, and design is an important legacy of BehzÄd’s style and is clearly evident in the work of ŠayḵzÄda, a painter active in Herat, TabrÄ«z, and Bukhara during the first half of the 10th/16th century. The Ottoman historian Moá¹£á¹afÄ-Ê¿AlÄ« states that ŠayḵzÄda was a student of BehzÄd. From ŠayḵzÄda and his contemporaries this style passed to the painters of Bukhara where it became increasingly rigid and lifeless.
Paintings signed by or attributed to BehzÄd were also an important source of inspiration for artists in Mughal India. Even though BÄbor, the founder of the dynasty, did not display great personal enthusiasm for BehzÄd’s work, his successors came to view the latter as the epitome of the Persian tradition. Several of the manuscripts now thought to contain paintings by BehzÄd were owned by the Mughal emperors Akbar, JahÄngÄ«r, and ŠÄh-JahÄn. An examination of Mughal painting shows that some compositions by BehzÄd were used as models by artists at the Mughal court. Particularly important are the Baltimore Ẓa´Ú²¹°ù-²ÔÄå³¾²¹, the British Library NeẓÄmÄ«Or. 6810, and the Rothschild Collection Gole²õ³ÙÄå²Ô of 991/1486.
Bibliography:
Primary sources: ẒahÄ«r-al-DÄ«n Moḥammad BÄbor, µþÄå²ú´Ç°ù-²ÔÄå³¾²¹, tr. A. S. Beveridge, London, 1922, pp. 272, 291, 329.
DÅ«st-Moḥammad b. SolaymÄn HeravÄ«, A Treatise on Painters and Calligraphists, Lahore, 1936, p. 29. Eskandar Beg, I, p. 174.
NÅ«r-al-DÄ«n Moḥammad JahÄngÄ«r, TÅ«zok-e jahÄngÄ«rÄ« II, p. 116.
ḴᵛÄå²Ô»å²¹³¾Ä«°ù, ḤabÄ«b al-sÄ«ar (Tehran) IV, p. 362.
Idem, Faá¹£l-Ä« az ḴolÄá¹£at al-aḵbÄr, Kabul, 1345 Š./1966, pp. 63-64.
Idem, MakÄrem al-aḵlÄq, ed. T. Ganjei, Cambridge, 1979, p. x.
²Ñ´ÇṣṲ¹´ÚÄå-Ê¿´¡±ôÄ«, Hattatların ve kitab sanatçılarının destanları (Menakib-i HunervarÄn), ed. M. Curbur, Ankara, 1982, pp. 21, 73, 112, 114, 116, 118.
QÄżī Aḥmad, Gole²õ³ÙÄå²Ô-e honar, pp. 87, 100, 133-37, 141; tr. Minorsky, pp. 135, 147, 159, 179-81, 183, 186.
M. QazvÄ«nÄ« and L. Bouvat, “Deux documents inédits relatifs à Behzad,” Revue du monde musulman 26, 1914, pp. 14-160.
Secondary sources: T. W. Arnold, Bihzad and His Paintings in the Zafar-namah Ms., London, 1930.
L. Binyon, V. S. Wilkinson, and B. Gray, Persian Miniature Painting, London, 1933, pp. 81-92, 105-06, 109-12, 114-16, 186, 190-91, nos. 77, 78, 81-84, 88, 89, 94.
A. Sakisian, La miniature persane, Paris, 1929, pp. 62-80, 103-05, and passim.
I. Stchoukine, Miniatures persanes, Paris, 1954, pp. 19-27, 68-86, pls. 72-73, 76-88.
(Priscilla Soucek)
Originally Published: December 15, 1989
Last Updated: December 15, 1989
This article is available in print.
Vol. IV, Fasc. 2, pp. 114-116
