the Simurgh in the plurality of its guises. The representation of the Simurgh
does not aim for historical authenticity, but for the accretion of meanings
underlying a consistent iconography. In this unique double-folio frontis-
piece of the courts of Solomon and Bilqis, not only does a Simurghfly
above Solomon, but itfights with a dragon. Although the meanings of such
conflicts changed in China, and there is no reason to assume that visual
associations from one culture would transfer with the image, such scenes of
conflict between the Fenghuang and other mythical creatures were com-
mon, including associations with the male/creative and female/destructive
forces of the universe (yin/yang), the cardinal directions, and the empress
(bird) and emperor (dragon). The association of the dragon with evil by
Qazvini (d. 1283), author ofWonders of Creation(Aja’ib al-Makhluqat),
suggests a more local meaning.^73 Similarly, in Fakhr al-Gurgani’s eleventh-
century epic romanceVis and Ramin,“the sun is delivered from the
dragon.”^74 In the context of the Shahnameh, the fight between the
Simurgh and the dragon foreshadows the heroic defeat of dragons, further
associating the rule of mythological and contemporary Persian kings with
the just rule of Solomon.
This layering underscores the limitations of understanding painting in
isolation from the intertextual literary–perceptual–spiritual system embo-
died in poetry, music, and image. The facile assertion of an Islamic image
prohibition amplifies Christian oculocentrism through an insistence on
distinct sensory categories. It persists because of a modern preference for
demonstrative prose over poetry as the proper space of analytical expres-
sion, and a preference for extrinsic over intrinsic mimesis as the primary
vehicle of representation. Rather, the interplay of multiple poetic texts
informs the meanings that disappear and accrue to a visual symbol such
as the Simurgh as it migrates across times and places. As Chad Kia points
out, the frequent inclusion of extra-textual images in paintings renders the
visualfield part of a broader intertextual discourse.^75 Madhu Khazanad's
inclusion of the Simurgh obliquely represents the presence of the divine in
the work, through a long sequence of sophisticated allusion.
If we imprison our questions within the paradigm of visual art, we
ignore much of premodern Islamic perceptual culture. Rather, a method
invested in the multiple media and genres of the pastfiltering to us through
the veils of time informs the kinds of questions and frameworks through
which we can understand the culture they construe. Our disciplinary
distinctions recede, enabling a complex nexus of perception to reveal itself.(^73) Ettinghausen, 1971 : 72. (^74) Kuehn, 2011 : 195. (^75) Kia, 2006.
102 The Insufficient Image