however, are the animals. They are badly drawn and look positively dead. Akbar’s
painters were masters at illustrating animals, and these creatures would surely not
have qualified as well-drawn unless there was some real intent to the rendition.^17
The solution to unclear intent becomes a judgment of poor quality.
In contrast, Ebba Koch convincingly interprets the illustration through
Mughal associations between the Quranic King David, King Solomon, and
the sovereignty of the Mughal ruler with thefigure of Orpheus pacifying
the beasts, a theme shared by Renaissance illustrations and late antique
mosaics.^18 The composition suggests models from European prints show-
ing animals around a central Orphicfigure.^19 Such Orphic symbolism
would become central to the iconography of kingship developed under
Shah Jahan (1628–58), who included an image of Orpheus playing to the
beasts, surrounded by images of birds, inset inpietre duremarble behind
the throne at his palace in Delhi. Although arguing for local rather than
imported craftsmanship, Koch denies Mughal knowledge of the Orphic
tradition. Rather, perpetuating the segregation of Western and Islamic
traditions, she suggests:“In the reign of Jahangir, exploiting European
forms, images, symbols and allegorical compositions cut loose from their
original content to express– in a new fusion of literature and art–
conventional Islamic, Iranian, or Indian themes of rulership, had become
...established.”^20 She argues that thepietre dureinsets, imports reflecting
the wealth and cultural capital of the dynasty, expressed a Solomonic
theme of just rule through affinity between King Solomon, the birds, and
the animals surrounding the throne.
The artist Madhu Khazanad engages these themes in the detailed paint-
ings on the organ. Plato’s handsfloat over the keyboard, his eyes looking in
rapt attention at the images. On top, a scene of a supplicant woman holding
a baby before a seated ruler suggests Solomon’s decision not to split a baby.
Underneath, a scene of Majnun (the symbolic beloved who becomes a
hermit because of his separation from Layla, who also represents the
divine) with the animals confirms Koch’s interpretation of the myths as
intertwined. Her analysis concerning the royal symbolism surrounding
Jahangir emphasizes Nizami’s comparison between Majnun’s sovereignty
over the animals to that of Solomon.^21 It does not, however note that(^17) Wade, 1998 : 153.
(^18) Syriac writing on a mosaic from the region of Edessa (modern Urfa) deaccessioned from the
Dallas Art Museum (DEACC.1999.305) and restituted to Turkey in 2012 suggests the regional
resonance of the theme.
(^19) Koch, 2010 : 286. (^20) Koch, 1988 : 11. (^21) Koch, 2010 : 291.
84 The Insufficient Image