عنوان مقاله [English]
The present article is an attempt to comparatively study two different versions of Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh (Compendium of chronicles). The Rampour Library version has been illustrated over three centuries. The illustrations of this version were embellished in the Timurid, Safavid royal courts. After that, they were transferred to India, and were merged and re-illustrated in the royal court of Mughal Emperor Akbar. The work was finally left unaccomplished in 1003 AH (1604 AD). Therefore, this version of the book contains illustrations from the school of Herat, the school of Tabriz and the Indo-Iranian school. Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh (the Golestan Palace version) was written and illustrated during the Emperor Akbar period in 1004 AH (1605 AD). The author of the present article believes that the painters of the Mongol royal court were influenced by the interactive discourse dominant over the elements of power and consequently over the royal library and painting galleries, as well as the influence of religion on Akbar Shah's "Din-e Elahi" ) Divine Religion( as a greater cultural framework. This project led to invitation of artists with different perspectives from different parts of India and other countries such as Iran, whose contribution to the project is truly represented by the artwork under study. In other words, artists freely created artworks using the interactive discourse created within the context of "Din-e Elahi" propounded by Akbar Shah.
According to Norman Fairclough, the fate of art texts is decided by discourses. In other words, discourse determines the type of text to be produced, the manner in which it is distributed, the manner in which it is consumed, and the extent to which it is consumed. Finally, a series of statements and ideas interact. Discourse can be personal or institutional, but when carried out within the society it falls within the category of institutional discourse. The interaction of various institutional discourses in society leads to the emergence of a discourse that is dominant over other discourses and is referred to as dominant discourse. The first step in the process of critical discourse analysis proposed by Fairclough deals with text description which is associated with the first act of the artwork. According to Fairclough, every work of art or literature covers three kinds of value: experiential values, relational values, recitative values. In more specific words, in an attempt to trace these three values in an artwork, one can correspond them with styles, schools and theories, which refer to individuals, an institution of related individuals, and the society as a whole, respectively.
The second stage of Fairclough's critical discourse analysis is referred to as discourse interpretation that is related to the second act of the artwork. According to Fairclough, discourse should, under ideal conditions, be distributed based on common sense or common-sense principles, but ideologies often break this rule. Fairclough believes that discourses can move either horizontally (diachronically), or vertically, (synchronically). Finally, the third stage of Fairclough's critical discourse analysis deals with the social explanation that is related to the third act of the artwork.
In this study, Fairclough discourse analysis is used to figure out why a manuscript was reproduced (Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh the KAkh-e Golestan version), while another version of the manuscript (Rampour version) had already been completed one year before. the results showed that Emperor Akbar could only show his connection with history by merging new illustrations into the primary illustrations of the historical narrative as part of an attempt to reproduce a new version of the artwork. By moving to the heart of history and by illustrating the course of history, he probably sought to create a kind of important genealogy for himself and consequently show his conscientiousness towards his Mongol ancestors. Moreover, taking into account the "Din-e Elahi " and Akbar Shah's unrestrained attitude, religions and ideas, and his unbiased attitude towards monarchy, it can be argued that painters were able to work with free will and create works as they wished. On the other hand, since illustrative sources, including Indian, Iranian, Turkmen, European sources were abundant, the creation of artworks with complete freedom in using personal styles was deemed to be much more appealing.
After analyzing the visual and written texts, this article, succeeded in deciphering the hidden layers of the texts, and finally, using the relations within the text, situational, social and political context, he found that the interactive discourse of the royal painting institute derived from religion was made by Akbarshah. "It led to the invitation of artists with different perspectives, and this was reflected in their works.
Thus, it seems that both reviewed versions gave Mughal artists a unique opportunity to artistically revive their patron role as the revivalist of interactive Islam and the herald of the millennium. Discussed, using old patches and adding roles in their contemporary style, Not through imitation but by emphasizing the characteristics from which they separate their work, they enter a historical lineage. In this version, the historical nature of the text and its drawings are particularly striking. A series of historical periods from a not so distant past, as the lineage and ancestors of the Mughals. It can be an explanation for using the old part in the drawings of Rampour version. In doing so, they emphasized the historical uniqueness of the appendages of the image, and in a way served to emphasize the contemporary or newness; of Mughal artistic term.
This time writing and illustrating a complete version in a new representational way, that is, based on the new discourse that was created in the institution of the monarchy and in the nature of the institution of the painting. These stylistic elements and features have freed themselves from the distinctive features of Iranian painting to such an extent that it has become an independent style that affects various European, Indian, and Iranian-born schools. That is, it is the combination of different styles, including being influenced by European paintings, and achieving a style that, while almost freeing itself from the Iranian style and trying to be independent in style. Create a work of art together. In the Rampour version, of course, due to the single style of different periods, it cannot create the purity of the new style in all images. This, it seems, could be a reason to abandon the Rampur version and create another version of Jamiut- Tawarikh in the new "contemporary" style of Mughal. The product of this new creation, of course, was the version of Golestan Palace, which is completely pure in Mughal style, and opens with the desired arrangement and intended by the patron (Akbarshah) of the images. We find out how the artist can determine the fate of a work of art according to his position and the position of the supporting power. Thus, in the end, Akbar Shah succeeded in showing his selfishness towards his ancestors in showing power-oriented in illustrating historical narrations.