Throughout Iran’s history, there have been governments, however large and small, of local rulers and rulers that have been the source of significant influences in the history of our country’s art and civilization. These local rulers are not well-known throughout history, among them the local government of Al Inju and then al-Muzaffar. After the collapse of the Ilkhanid dynasty in Iran, the regions of Kerman, Yazd, and Fars were presented with a competition between the two families claiming al-Inju and Al-Muzaffar. However, the period of the local rule of Al Inju and Al-Muzaffar is bed into significant artistic and cultural developments, which can be seen in Shiraz’s orthography. This is because the remaining copies of the book-layout of Al-Inju and al-Muzaffar are proving to this claim. The question is: What effects has Shiraz’s painting school had on the Iranian Painting art during Al-Inju and Al-Muzaffar? The method of this research is descriptive-analytical with library data collection. Case studies are paintings of Shahnameh version 733 AH in the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg and Shahnameh 731 AH in the Topkapi Museum of Istanbul, Turkey, and Shahnameh Qavam al-Din Hasan 741 AH, all belonging to the Al Inju period, as well as paintings of the 771AH Shahnameh, exists in the Topkapi Library of Istanbul in Turkey, as well as the Khamseh Nezami version, in the late 8th century related to the Al-Muzaffar period in the National Library of Paris. Studying the characteristics based on formal, structural, and themes of Shiraz Artography during the Period of Al-Inju and Al-Mozaffar, the effects of Shiraz Painting School on the art of painting are distinguished. Based on the results of this research, al-Inju’s paintings were under the effect of the tradition of old Iranian painting (reminiscent of Sassanid graffiti) and visualization of Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh and it’s martial scenes, and the use of specific tables for writing parts (calligraphy), the illustration of lyrical systems in the Period of Al-Muzaffar, the application of brilliant colors in the painting of Al Inju and Al-Muzaffar have had a tremendous impact on Iranian Painting in the later era.
Keywords: Shiraz School of Painting, Painting, Local Government, Al-Inju, Al-Muzaffar.
The Inju family were the descendants of the subordinate leaders of the Ilkhans, and after the death of Abu Sa’id in 1335 AD/ 735 AH, they became independent and from that date till 1353 AD/ 753 AH, they ruled Persia until they were banished by the Muzaffar dynasty, who were the rulers of Yazd.
The Al-Muzaffar dynasty ruled the whole southwest of Iran until 1393 AD/ 795 AH. They were taken down by Timur. By studying the history of the rule of these two local governments in Shiraz, it can be seen that Abu Ishaq Inju and Shah Shoja Mozaffar were both supporters of Hafez and perhaps that is why they hired skilled painters to illustrate books (Gary, 2005: 56). The art of painting in Shiraz was specially and seamlessly formed during the Alainjou period and showed a special type of painting that had exactly the characteristics of Iranian Painting and was far from outside influences or felt less salient. “Shiraz’s cultural prosperity continued during the Mozaffarian era (remember that Hafez’s poetry prospered at that time)” (Pakbaz, 2005, p. 69). Shiraz’s art continued to change with cultural perceptions during the reign of Al-Muzaffar, and until the early ninth century, it produced works worth mentioning. Shiraz’s art continued to change with cultural perceptions during the reign of Al-Muzaffar, and until the early ninth century, it produced precious works.
Research Method: The research in this article was performed in a descriptive-analytical manner and the documentary method (library) was used in the collection of research material and images. This research benefited from the historical books of writers from different periods about the history of Alyanjo and Al-Muzaffar, as well as the illustrated manuscripts of that period in Shiraz. Because their paintings are portrayed in a crude and precipitous style and reminiscent of the popular painting art. In the paintings of the Shiraz school, the main topic is “human” and other elements were used as a role and only as decoration and fill the empty spaces in the picture. Moreover, other elements such as the use of tables and a kind of harmonious and delicate coloring can be seen in most of the work of this school (Tavousi, 1390: 16).
From the beginning of the eighth century, workshops in Shiraz began to illustrate literary texts, particularly the Shahnameh. Indeed, to confront the Ilkhans and consolidate their position, they continued a policy of celebrating Iran’s ancient history. Consequently, Chinese art which was common in Tabriz had the least influence on Shiraz painting. Thus, along with innovators such as Ahmad Musa and Shams al-Din, the Shiraz school continued the tradition of Iranian painting (Pakbaz, 2005:68). The most common feature of all Aligno school manuscripts is the copious use of red and yellow, ochre, or gold. Lively and dynamic design, free movement of pen and brush to express members and the exaggerated use of stems and plant flowers are other important features of these paintings.
The art of painting at the Al-Muzaffar School took on a different style than the usual illustrations of Shiraz Alainjo, which not only influenced the works of southern Iran during the first half of the fifteenth century AD but also Indian works. The elegance of this painting contrasts with the composition of Alinejo’s paintings (Titley, 1983: 41). These drawings and compositions of the Al-Muzaffar School were transferred to other art centers through libraries that were illustrated in Shiraz in the eighth century (Blair et al., 2014: 137).
The peculiarities of Mozaffarian’s painting were: round hills, high horizon, scrubland earth, large statues with large heads and bearded faces, delicate design, and sometimes rough craftsmanship. A small part of the overall picture specializes in the blue sky, and the natural landscape is described by several classic patterns. Humans and animals are out there, but they seem more important. In general, compositional elements are increasingly conceptual and symbolical (Pakbaz, 2005: 69).
The way Shiraz school was presented in the periods of Al-Inju and Al-Muzaffar is the continuation of ancient Iranian art and its innovations. These two schools, with their elementary painting and innovations, continued the tradition of book-painting and painting in the 5th and 6th centuries AD, which evolved over the next two centuries and became the dominant special characteristic of painting.
The style of special book-painting of Shiraz’s school of painting during Al-Inju and Al-Muzaffar can be searched in illustrated versions of Shahnameh.
The characteristics of the painting of this era can be divided into three categories: formal, structural, and themes. Shiraz illustrators presented their past cultural and artistic heritage and the extension of Iranian artistic taste before Islam (Parthian and Sassanid graffiti and carvings) as well as attention to the original literature. Like illustrated Shahnameh, the visualization of martial arts scenes was also placed on the agenda of the artists during Al Inju and Al-Muzaffar.
The effect of this theme feature can be seen in schools of later periods, such as Behzad’s painting of Bahram’s battle with dragons in Herat school during the Timurid period. Natural effects and landscape in the form of a formal feature in the al-Muzaffar period painting were much more than al-Inju’s painting. These natural manifestations continue and diversify in the schools of painting in later periods. During the period of Al-Jalayer, the Jalayeri school, these formal features can be seen in the paintings of Junaid Shirazi (see Humay and Homayoun) in the illustrated version of Khajavi Kermani Divan, and also in the illustrated version of Khamseh Nezami (Khosrow and Shirin), and also noticeable during the Turkman period in Tabriz. Illustrators of the Al Inju era attached great importance to the image of humans and animals in paintings, which can be considered as a special feature of Iranian painting in the scene of Bahram battle against dragons by Behzad in Herat school during the Timurid period, as well as tthe scene of the pillar removal by Imam Ali in the School of Turkmens in Shiraz (See Humay and Homayoun), Khajavi Kermani’s Divan in the Period of Al-Jalayer, and Khosrow and Shirin’s paintings in the Turkmanan School of Tabriz.
1. - آژند، یعقوب، (1387). مکتب نگارگری شیراز. تهران: فرهنگستان هنر.
2. - آدامووا ، ادل؛ و گیوزالیان، لئون، (1383). نگارههای شاهنامه. ترجمۀ زهره فیضی، تهران، فرهنگستان هنر.
3. - اسون دیماند، موریس، (1383). راهنمای صنایعدستی ایران. ترجمۀ عبدالله فریار، تهران: شرکت انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
4. - افراسیابی، دُرسا؛ و علیزاده، سیامک، (1393). «مطالعۀ تطبیقی دو نگاره جنگ اژدها با رستم/اسفندیار در مکتب شیراز در دورۀ آلاینجو و تیموری». دوفصلنامۀ دانشکدۀ هنر دانشگاه شهید چمران اهواز، شمارۀ 6، صص: 74- 63.
5. - اقبالآشتیانی، عباس، (1376). تاریخ مغول و اوایل ایام تیموری. جلد 1، تهران: نامک.
6. - بلر، شیلا؛ و بلوم، جاناتان، (1381). هنر و معماری اسلامی. ترجمۀ یعقوب آژند، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
7. - پاکباز، رویین، (1384). نقاشی ایران از دیرباز تا امروز. تهران: انتشارات زرین و سیمین.
8. - پوپ، آرتوراپهام؛ و اکرمن، فیلیس، (1387). سیری در هنر ایران. جلد دهم، تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
9. - پورداوود، محمدابراهیم، (1347). اوستا (یشتها). تهران: زبان و فرهنگ ایران.
10. - پولیاکووا، یانا. آرتیوموونا، (1381). نقاشی و ادبیات ایرانی. ترجمۀ زهره فیضی، تهران: روزنه.
11. - تجویدی، اکبر، (1375). نگاهی به هنر نقاشی ایران از آغاز تا سده دهم هجری. تهران: وزارت فرهنگ و ارشاد اسلامی.
12. - تسلیمی، نصرالله، (1393). سیر هنر در تاریخ(1)، دورۀ پیشدانشگاهی، تهران: شرکت چاپ و نشر کتابهای درسی ایران.
13. - توماجنیا، جمالالدین، (1386). «بررسی تطبیقی مکتب ترکمن و هرات با تأکید بر خصوصیات صوری آنها». فصلنامۀ نگره، شمارۀ 5. صص: 105-91.
14. - حسن، زکیمحمد، (1384). چین و هنرهای اسلامی. ترجمۀ غلامرضا تهامی، تهران: فرهنگستان هنر.
15. - سامانیان، صمد؛ و پورافضل، الهام، (1394). «بررسی تطبیقی ویژگیهای تصویرسازی و نسخهشناسی کلیهودمنه آلاینجو و آلمظفر». نامۀ هنرهای تجسمی و کاربردی، دانشگاه هنر، شمارۀ 16. صص: 89- 71.
16. - ستوده، حسینقلی، (1346). تاریخ آلمظفر. تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
17. - شریفزاده، عبدالمجید، (1375). تاریخ نگارگری ایران. تهران: حوزۀ هنری سازمان تبلیغات اسلامی.
18. - طاووسی، ابوالفضل، (۱۳۹۰). کارگاه نگارگری. تهران: ناشر شرکت چاپ و نشر کتابهای درسی ایران.
19. - کتبی، محمود، (1364). تاریخ آلمظفر. بهاهتمام: عبدالحسین نوایی، تهران: امیرکبیر
20. - کنبای، شیلا، (1391). نقاشی ایرانی. ترجمۀ مهدی حسینی، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه هنر.
21. - گری، بازل، (1384). نقاشی ایرانی. ترجمۀ عربعلی شروه، تهران: نشر دنیای نو.
22. - محمدیخشوئی، مهناز؛ و فرخفر، فرزانه، (1395). «تأثیر اوضاع سیاسی و اجتماعی دورۀ آلمظفر بر مصورسازی شاهنامه مطالعه موردی: مجلس نبرد رستم و سهراب». فصلنامۀ پژوهش هنر، شمارۀ 15. صص: 23 -11.
23. - مراثی، محسن، (1391). «تبیین بررسی چگونگی ترکیب نوشته و تصویر و خاستگاه آن در هنر نگارگری مکتب شیراز آلاینجو». فصلنامۀ نگره، شمارۀ 23، صص: 51-43.
24. - مقدمشرفی، مرجان، (1367). همگامی نقاشی با ادبیات در ایران. ترجمۀ روئین پاکباز، تهران: نگاه.
25. - نبئی، ابولفضل، (1375). اوضاع سیاسی و اجتماعی ایران در قرن هشتم هجری. مشهد: انتشارات دانشگاه فردوسی.
26. - هال، جیمز، (1383). فرهنگ نگارهای نمادها در هنر شرق و غرب. ترجمۀ رقیه بهزادی، تهران: فرهنگ معاصر.
28. - Titley, N. M., (1983). Persian miniature painting and hts in fluence on the art of turkey and india. British Library, London.
29. - www.manuscripts.ir/fa/books/90-news.
30. - www.shahnamaprojectmanuscript.com.