Eman Farhan

Gender Tropes in Illustrated Manuscripts of the Mughal Atelier

18 April 2023

What are the negotiations between the “Doting Lover” or Majnun and 17th century Mughal

masculinity?

In the 17th century, the image of Majnun from the Arabic tale Layla Majnun became

increasingly relevant as an imperial Mughal symbol. Jahangir and Shah Jahan have both self-

identified with Majnun1, a lover gone mad, through various paintings in manuscripts, inscriptions

and albums. With reference to the Persian translation of the tale by Nizami and the

Jahangirnama, I will analyze three paintings from the 17th century which do not just exemplify

the king as a doting lover but highlight dissonances between their masculinity and a gendered

reading of Majnun’s image.

The tale of Layla and Majnun follows the titular characters’ forbidden love, where

Majnun’s title means “deranged”. He retreats into the wilderness of Najd after Layla’s parents

forbid the two from meeting. Throughout the tale, his state of insanity progresses and the

physicality of his grief and desperation are integral to his characterization and the story’s

tragedy.2 Koch evidences Jahangir’s self-identification through various forms, one of which

being the manuscripts he commissioned for his Muraqqa, which included the Western

iconography of Orpheus, the bringer of Spring. Both Jahangir and Shah Jahan’s image as the

Doting Lover, a Solomonic king, can symbolize the Mughal padshah.3 However, Majnun’s

1
Koch
2
Nizami
3
Koch
characterization in Nizami’s translation calls for a deeper analysis of all his attributes and at

times clashes with the ideal, masculine Mughal ruler.

Fig. 1 demonstrates the Solomonic harmony as described by Koch, where pairs of tigers

and deer share the same space peacefully. They draw the eye towards Majnun by surrounding

him and nestling against his lap. This image is congruous with Majnun’s character as a peaceful

man who was affectionate towards the animals of the wilderness he withdrew into. So is his

comportment, as he is shown to be emaciated, bare except for a loincloth, a result of forgoing

food, drink and basic human necessities in his grief and love for Layla.

Yet in his hunger, he refused to hunt and scorned a hunter for trapping two gazelles in a

snare in the wilderness of Najd4, which comes in direct conflict with fig. 2, where Jahangir is

shown with the reaps of his hunt. The blindfolded leopard on the lower left corner exemplifies

his capabilities as a hunter, but also as a king, as he has tamed even the most ferocious predator.

He recorded an instance in the Jahangirnama where lions roamed freely without causing harm

during his reign, specifically on the occasion of his Lunar weighting ritual.5 Furthermore, when

describing his father’s “divine grace”, he referred to an incident where Akbar tamed the most

unruly of elephants by simply mounting it.6

Fig. 2’s depiction of Jahangir epitomizes the perfect male warrior and a king of nature,

with an arrow in hand and dagger at the waist, yet does not reflect Majnun’s pacifist and simple

nature because of the visual difference in comportment. He is fully erect in posture, clad in fine

robes, jewels and hunting attire. The same can be said for Shah Jahan in fig. 3, with his turban

4
Nizami, page 46
5

6
and weapon. It is interesting to note that Jahangir’s representation of himself as Majnun in fig. 4

is similar, he is out in the wild and helpless, yet his dress clearly signifies his kingship.

Anooshahr described three pillars of Mughal masculinity, one of which being ready to

exact violence at any given time. To be kamarbasta (erect and bound at the waist with a

cummerbund) was a signifier of masculinity, and both fig 2 and 3 present the kings in this image.

Majnun, however, both in fig. 1 and the text by Nizami,

In the text Layla and Majnun by Nizami, Majnun is portrayed as a peace loving man and

during his retreats into Najd, he repeatedly scorned hunters for hunting gazelles and stags. He

displayed affection towards these animals and refused to hunt them himself. This comes directly

in conflict with Anooshahr’s pillars of Mughal masculinity and O Hanlon’s text about the 17th

century BM Mirzah Namah, both of which encouraged hunting albeit in different capacities.

Explain the differences.

However, in fig 2, Jahangir is portrayed sitting in the wilderness after a hunt, animals not

congruous and at peace with each other but bloodied - a show of masculinity. Furthermore the

blindfolded cheetah lion thing adds to the emperor’s image as a competent warrior and king - the

lion is tamed, yet this is not a Solomonic image nor does it align with the masculinity of Majnun.

This image connects to an anecdote in the Jahangirnama (RMR TO MENTION ITS IN A

MEMOIR FORMAT) where hes praising his father Akbar as a divine king in reference to him

being able to tame the wildest of elephants.

 In Layla and Majnun, someone tells Majnun a fable about a king who tamed the wildest,

most demonic dogs and then punished a youth by giving him to the dogs, but they didnt maul

him. Ok read this again.

Furthermore, in accordance with Anooshahr’s three pillars, Jahangir was quite the manly king in

some regards as evidenced in the Jahangirnama. He was ready to exact violence at any point,

shown by his temper (explain the anecdote of page 136 of jahangirnama). This is in direct

conflict with Majnun, who was affectionate towards animals and himself did not have any

inclination to fight or war (tell how he said ur killing my friends when Nawfal waged war on the

Amiris)

Another indicator of masculinity is comportment - fig 2 and 3 show two kings, fully

clothed and erect bring in Anooshahr’s masculinity pillars. Majnun may be upright as well but he

is unclothed and emaciated, no weapon or cummerband. He does not, at any point in the Nizami

text and in fig 1, look even remotely inclined to violence.

Furthermore Jahangir is known by many historians to have been a lover of finery,

evidenced from the Jahangirnama about clothing exclusive for him. Explain. Reference to BM

Mirzah Namah where a man should be refined. also talk about consumerism with the change of

trade and etc.

However, in the Nizami text, Majnun becomes somehow more kingly and a solomonic

figure after the death of his father. Van Leeuwen says that these stories serve a dynastic purpose

in some ways in their structure, and this point where all the animals are around him and hes
literally called a king shows the redemption arc in some way. In this heroic sense, Majnun does

corroborate with Mughal imperial masculinity but this is an isolated incident from the entire

story.

It’s important to note that Jahangir also touted himself as a pious man, aligned with the

Chishtis and had a great love for ascetics. Majnun can be seen as an ascetic, who gives into ishq

and forgoes aql. In line with broader Sufi ideas of ishq and aql, paired with the fact that (first line

of paragraph). Majnuns surrender to ishq itself is not masculine, and even genderbends as there

are many references to Layla and Majnun both being mirrors of each other. It’s interesting to

note that in early sufi thought in india the book, Sheikh Nasiruddin Chishti, from the Chishtiyya

order, described his love for God with a Layla Majnun reference where theyre mirroring each

other. Ishq transcends gender at this point, yet Jahangir and Shah Jahan seem rigid in their

masculinity in their comportment. Mirza Namah also talks about mirzas not being confused with

mirza begums.

When it comes to shows of grief, Shah Jahan was very loud about it, and was likened to

Majnun after Mumtaz died, as told by Koch. Jahangir was also grieving once as described by hm

in the jahangirnama when his dad died page 81 he didnt eat or drink for four days. Being

transparent and vulnerable was not manly, yet Majnun was everything about a loud display to the

pont where his father and Nawful tried to intervene MANY times. He’d attract crowds of people.

Interestingly, in Nizami’s text, it’s Layla who hides her grief from the world and is noble about

it.
 It is important to note that the timeline of all three paintings is ascribed to the early to mid

17th century - fig 1 and 2 in Jahangir’s rule and fig. 3 in the beginning of Shah Jahan’s. The Late

Shah Jahan Album was started by Jahangir and passed on to Shah Jahan, (MOMA link). Koch

says Majnun symbolized the Mughal padshah in his “Golden Age”, so the timeline of these

images is that they emerged during the beginning of each of their reigns. While fig 2 and 3, in

terms of their earliness in each emperor’s rule, can be seen as a gender performance to

consolidate or exacerbate dynastic power, they do not fully align with the self identification with

Majnun which was happening in tandem. This is because Majnun, though a Solomonic figure at

a point in the Nizami text, did not tick all the boxes of imperial Mughal masculinity, and his

image was adopted in such a way by Jahangir and Shah Jahan that it does not compromise their

kingliness or manliness.

Pg 46 LM

Pg 70 JHNMA

uring a conversation about the boundaries of the beloved and the lover.
 and the Jahangirnama, I will analyze three paintings from the 17th century which do not just

exemplify the king as a doting lover but highlight dissonances between their masculinity and a

gendered reading of Majnun’s image.

Fig. 1 demonstrates the Solomonic harmony as described by Koch, where pairs of tigers

and deer share the same space peacefully. They draw the eye towards Majnun by surrounding

him and nestling against his lap. This image is congruous with Majnun’s character as a peaceful

man who was affectionate towards the animals of the wilderness he withdrew into. So is his

comportment, as he is shown to be emaciated, bare except for a loincloth, a result of forgoing

food, drink and basic human necessities in his grief and love for Layla.

Yet in his hunger, he refused to hunt and scorned a hunter for trapping two gazelles in a

snare in the wilderness of Najd7, which comes in direct conflict with fig. 2, where Jahangir is

shown with the reaps of his hunt..

Fig. 2’s depiction of Jahangir epitomizes the perfect male warrior and a king of nature,

with an arrow in hand and dagger at the waist, yet does not reflect Majnun’s pacifist and simple

nature because of the visual difference in comportment. He is fully erect in posture, clad in fine

robes, jewels and hunting attire. The same can be said for Shah Jahan in fig. 3, with his turban

and weapon. It is interesting to note that Jahangir’s representation of himself as Majnun in fig. 4

is similar, he is out in the wild and helpless, yet his dress clearly signifies his kingship.

Anooshahr described three pillars of Mughal masculinity, one of which being ready to

exact violence at any given time. To be kamarbasta (erect and bound at the waist with a

cummerbund) was a signifier of masculinity, and both fig 2 and 3 present the kings in this image.

Majnun, however, both in fig. 1 and the text by Nizami,

7
Nizami, page 46
 In the text Layla and Majnun by Nizami, Majnun is portrayed as a peace loving man and

during his retreats into Najd, he repeatedly scorned hunters for hunting gazelles and stags. He

displayed affection towards these animals and refused to hunt them himself. This comes directly

in conflict with Anooshahr’s pillars of Mughal masculinity and O Hanlon’s text about the 17th

century BM Mirzah Namah, both of which encouraged hunting albeit in different capacities.

Explain the differences.

However, in fig 2, Jahangir is portrayed sitting in the wilderness after a hunt, animals not

congruous and at peace with each other but bloodied - a show of masculinity. Furthermore the

blindfolded cheetah lion thing adds to the emperor’s image as a competent warrior and king - the

lion is tamed, yet this is not a Solomonic image nor does it align with the masculinity of Majnun.

This image connects to an anecdote in the Jahangirnama (RMR TO MENTION ITS IN A

MEMOIR FORMAT) where hes praising his father Akbar as a divine king in reference to him

being able to tame the wildest of elephants.

In Layla and Majnun, someone tells Majnun a fable about a king who tamed the wildest,

most demonic dogs and then punished a youth by giving him to the dogs, but they didnt maul

him. Ok read this again.

Furthermore, in accordance with Anooshahr’s three pillars, Jahangir was quite the manly king in

some regards as evidenced in the Jahangirnama. He was ready to exact violence at any point,

shown by his temper (explain the anecdote of page 136 of jahangirnama). This is in direct
conflict with Majnun, who was affectionate towards animals and himself did not have any

inclination to fight or war (tell how he said ur killing my friends when Nawfal waged war on the

Amiris)

Another indicator of masculinity is comportment - fig 2 and 3 show two kings, fully

clothed and erect bring in Anooshahr’s masculinity pillars. Majnun may be upright as well but he

is unclothed and emaciated, no weapon or cummerband. He does not, at any point in the Nizami

text and in fig 1, look even remotely inclined to violence.

Furthermore Jahangir is known by many historians to have been a lover of finery,

evidenced from the Jahangirnama about clothing exclusive for him. Explain. Reference to BM

Mirzah Namah where a man should be refined. also talk about consumerism with the change of

trade and etc.

However, in the Nizami text, Majnun becomes somehow more kingly and a solomonic

figure after the death of his father. Van Leeuwen says that these stories serve a dynastic purpose

in some ways in their structure, and this point where all the animals are around him and hes

literally called a king shows the redemption arc in some way. In this heroic sense, Majnun does

corroborate with Mughal imperial masculinity but this is an isolated incident from the entire

story.

It’s important to note that Jahangir also touted himself as a pious man, aligned with the

Chishtis and had a great love for ascetics. Majnun can be seen as an ascetic, who gives into ishq

and forgoes aql. In line with broader Sufi ideas of ishq and aql, paired with the fact that (first line
of paragraph). Majnuns surrender to ishq itself is not masculine, and even genderbends as there

are many references to Layla and Majnun both being mirrors of each other. It’s interesting to

note that in early sufi thought in india the book, Sheikh Nasiruddin Chishti, from the Chishtiyya

order, described his love for God with a Layla Majnun reference where theyre mirroring each

other. Ishq transcends gender at this point, yet Jahangir and Shah Jahan seem rigid in their

masculinity in their comportment. Mirza Namah also talks about mirzas not being confused with

mirza begums.

When it comes to shows of grief, Shah Jahan was very loud about it, and was likened to

Majnun after Mumtaz died, as told by Koch. Jahangir was also grieving once as described by hm

in the jahangirnama when his dad died page 81 he didnt eat or drink for four days. Being

transparent and vulnerable was not manly, yet Majnun was everything about a loud display to the

pont where his father and Nawful tried to intervene MANY times. He’d attract crowds of people.

Interestingly, in Nizami’s text, it’s Layla who hides her grief from the world and is noble about

it.

It is important to note that the timeline of all three paintings is ascribed to the early to mid

17th century - fig 1 and 2 in Jahangir’s rule and fig. 3 in the beginning of Shah Jahan’s. The Late

Shah Jahan Album was started by Jahangir and passed on to Shah Jahan, (MOMA link). Koch

says Majnun symbolized the Mughal padshah in his “Golden Age”, so the timeline of these

images is that they emerged during the beginning of each of their reigns. While fig 2 and 3, in

terms of their earliness in each emperor’s rule, can be seen as a gender performance to

consolidate or exacerbate dynastic power, they do not fully align with the self identification with

Majnun which was happening in tandem. This is because Majnun, though a Solomonic figure at
a point in the Nizami text, did not tick all the boxes of imperial Mughal masculinity, and his

image was adopted in such a way by Jahangir and Shah Jahan that it does not compromise their

kingliness or manliness.