 Good evening. Thank you for joining this second research seminar in Islamic Art of Russia. I'm very happy that many people are here already. I'm very happy also to introduce Dr. Natasha Morris, who is our speaker tonight. Dr. Natasha Morris is currently an associate lecturer in the Arts of Islam in Iran at the Kortel Institute. She has previously been Moijin, another project curator for modern Middle Eastern Art and the British Museum. She's an alumna of the Kortel. She's done her BAMA PhD there and she's also taught a UCL and has written on the Arts of Iran for a number of publications, including The Guardian, The Berlito Magazine and Even Time Out. Natasha is the author of several exhibition catalogues on contemporary artists from the Middle Eastern. She was co-author of Hunar, the Hamid Collection on Modern and Contemporary Iranian Art, which was published in 2017 and more recently Reflections, Contemporary Art of the Middle Eastern North Africa, which was the catalogue of an exhibition at the British Museum to 2020. Natasha next year will also be the co-convener of Islamic Art of the Asian Art postgraduate diploma that sits in the School of Arts in Sohas. So please, as usual, write your questions or discussion points in the chat and Natasha has kindly agreed to have a discussion through chat after the seminar and I will then read your questions out at the end of it. Okay, well welcome Natasha over to you. Thank you, thank you very much Anna for your kind introduction and also my thanks to you and Tanya and Matty for organizing everything so smoothly during a pandemic. So hello everyone, thank you for coming along. Tonight's presentation is a condensed version of the research that went into the final chapter of my doctoral thesis, which is currently being worked into a book. The endeavor as a whole is an exploration of masculinity and the male image in the arts of Qajar era Iran and this is a period spanning most broadly 1789 to 1925. And my study perhaps turns the expected approach to this material on its head as I end with rather than beginning my inquiries with the following examination of images of the zenith of masculine power, both profane and sacred. So that's of the Shah and by extension that of the Shi'i Imams. I'm doing this through a case study of Qajar era portrait miniatures. So these small pendant portraits that are often on watercolor ivory, ceramic or enamel are each examples of a medium that was at its most popular in Iran during the mid to late 1800s. The ubiquity of medallions at this time was partially due to the incorporation of such kind of miniatures into the order of the imperial effigy or Tem Salih al-Mayuni under Nasserdin Shah Qajar in 1848. Although immediately we can see that these are related to the European equivalent in composition and form, I will argue however that these are conceptually closer to the bodily placement of religious round all portraits known as Shamayel and physical behaviors that were enacted towards the monumental life size oil painting of the period. What I mean by conceptually here is the treatment of the images that's both devotionally and bodily by both their holders and also the relational power that they're then seen to contain. So this has substantial implications for how Qajar portrait miniatures can then be read as gendered objects which are part of the masculine visual and material culture of the period. So within this presentation I will be drawing on Persian concepts concerning the psychology and symbolism behind figural image making as well as contemporary textual sources about public and private responses towards the iconography of both Shah and Saint in the 19th century. So here we have an early portrait of Muhammad Shah Qajar who reigned between 1834 and 1848. This is dated to within the first decade of his rule and we see it residing here in a decorative gold frame that started with diamonds. So aside from having such a brilliant surround the enamel round all at the center of this precious object is an equal subject of all. A richly ornamented costume of the king is peppered with shards of diamond that accentuate the regret which is attached to his hat as well as the fastenings of his silk overcoat and the armbands or bazoo bands that are worn over the top. Despite its diminutive proportions so this object is the kind of palm sized 10 by 8 centimeters it is still a vision of wealth and material luxury. The likeness of Muhammad Shah himself is enshrined in a smooth oval of enamel so the image of the king then becomes a treasure jewel at the center of the pendant proper. Now the use of enamel like Lakka was a technology that grew in popularity and refinement under the Qajar's and allows for a rich palette with this kind of certain luminosity that is particularly evident in areas of skin and silk. As an object therefore it has this compelling tactile as well as visual appeal that invites you to touch it and hold it. The sensuous mixing of textures, the glittering shine of the surface and even the appealing novelty of its small scale are all qualities that give it an almost magical tangible allure. So attached to the frame of the portrait are two small loops of gold I believe the pin is a later addition and I've highlighted these here. In any case the portrait was intended to be worn to hang close to the body and to be felt and displayed upon the chest in alignment with the heart. So this particular attachment to kind of a body object articulation in the function materiality and display of the Qajar era portrait medallion is the central hinge of this paper enabling us to read them as explicitly masculine coded objects that formed parts of the imperial and religious body both collective and individual of the Qajar Shahs. So this human connection of these objects images is particularly charged from the large body of visual evidence that we have in which they're depicted on the lapels of courtiers and kings we can discern that in their Persian manifestation portrait miniatures were primarily worn on the chest of the male body and this is rather than being secreted away in albums pockets or drawers as their contemporary equivalents were elsewhere and this is particularly important concerning those that were owned by women. This mode of public specifically bodily display as I will argue was tied up in the explicit gendering of the Qajar portrait miniature as male and therefore produced an entirely different sentimental drive to those miniature traditions that were more expressly implicated in colonial European manners of wear collection and display. In the statement of wearing the miniature on the chest in the Qajar mode the veil body then acts as an exhibition space most importantly this is a canvas primarily supplied by the bodies of the elite. As a behaviour that was limited to the imperial and bureaucratic echelons of Qajar high society it had a tenuous cognate equivalent in the societies of 18th and 19th century Europe. Napoleonic France for example a small portrait medallion which was usually drawn and then engraved was used to represent a male sociability that was enlightened so it represented loyalties to politicians, the admiration of a particular artist or writer or musician, kind of connective bonds between friends. In one was basically a democratised departure from its previous use as a signifier of royal attachment and this is of course because of a changing sociopolitical landscape which also necessitated the repurposing of the genre of a portrait miniature following the interruption of state-sponsored commissions. In fact this fraternal significance of the portrait miniature was recognised as so significant that the period of 1789 to 1999 witnessed a real proliferation of their creation. However this fraternal linking is the closest worn equivalent we have to its use in Qajar culture where it is a medium that remained entirely reserved and entirely worn between men of a higher social strata. So when wearing the miniature there is a direct connection made between both an image of a man and the bodies of other men so as well as a likeness being encased in diamonds and pearls as the miniature itself is. There is this further visual and physical linking of two male subjects which is of such symbolic importance that is often re-inscribed again as a motif in large scale portraiture and we also see it later in photography. So here we have two examples of the portrait miniature being represented as a key part of men's imperial apparel. So a cursory glance shows us their visual and material affinity with not only other chivalric orders which may surround them as part of aquaizine military royal regalia but also with the trimmings those bazoo or armbands the egg grates and the epaulets. There is also here the ubiquitous blue sash that is worn by both prince and Shah which was also reserved for the outfitting of the ruler in his progeny. We know through primary sources that khajar portrait miniatures were understood as connective devices between men. Medallions activated authority and established relationships between men through this physical act of wearing. So in the diaries of Sultan Ahmad Mirza Azad Daaleh, the 49th son of Fatali Shah Khajar, he writes that Hossein Ali Mirza Farman Farma, another of the late Shah's extensive progeny would wear a pearl-studded image and this is referred to in his diaries as Tamsale Humayunni or Tamsale Mubarak Shah and Shah. So literally the auspicious likeness or portrait of the king. Such portraits as described by Sultan Ahmad are not dissimilar to extant examples that show Fatali Shah, arguably the most glamorous ruler of the dynasty. And we see here him pictured at the center. His account also places emphasis on the wearing of the miniature and this is again evidenced by the looping that is placed on the reverse and the top of the frames. So this attachment to wearing the royal portrait is further underlined when miniatures are re-inscribed in large-scale portraits. We see this particularly with those of Muhammad Shah, who was frequently pictured with a portrait of Fatali Shah, his grandfather and predecessor. And this again was pinned to his chest as part of his richly ornamented military-inspired costume in a continuation of this thread of dynastic continuity and patrimonial reverence. And it's most notably during and after the reign of Muhammad Shah Khadja from 1834 to 1848 that the increasing popularity of portrait miniatures was driven by a conceptualization of the authority of these objects as connective devices. So this acknowledged their power in creating and emphasizing relationships between figures of masculine authority that were then knowingly activated through the physical act of pinning and display on the chest. So looking closer here at these two portraits of Muhammad Shah, we can discern the portrait proper within the round all of the miniature that he is wearing. In this case, each of the larger portraits of Muhammad Shah Khadja are sporting the smaller image of his predecessor Fatali Shah. And again, this is not similar to the ones that were described in the diaries of Sultan Ahmad Mirza. So this likeness of Fatali Shah is discernible evil from a slight distance. And this is owing to his long black beard and the length of the Khadja Khayyana crown, which together create his signature silhouette. The evocative power of the Khadja portrait miniature spoke to a specifically persianate notion of the encasement of the essence or meaning of the subject within an image surat. This dynamic is evident in written accounts. We have of encounters with large scale Khadja portraiture, the weapon of choice that was used to consolidate the earlier rule of Fatali Shah. These paintings were recorded as having been received with as much excitement as if it had been the Shah himself. So here we have two foreign observations on the treatment of portraits of the Shah at public presentations within a decade or so of each other. Firstly, the British diplomat Sir John Malcolm commented on crowds showing marks of respect towards the image that were, quote, hardly short of those that would have been shown to the sovereign himself, unquote. Later on, the Russian general Yermilov recounted along similar lines that portraits in general, particularly those of the Shah, received, quote, the same external marks of respect as the persons themselves, unquote. And this created an atmosphere of reverence that was, quote, as if the king had actually been present, unquote. So viewer behaviors towards the image that we see illustrated by these accounts with actions such as genuflection and salutation were both bodily and emotional involvements that mirrored those that would have been similarly conducted in the physical presence of the king himself. Furthermore, there's the connection that a Persian understanding of portraiture has with the distillation of an individual's essence within their appearance. And this is fundamental to this relational understanding of the portrait miniature. So these dual concepts of Mahna and Surat that were most notably described by the 16th century artist Sadiq Ibeg Asha in his Canon of Forms, and that are also attested to in numerous later literary sources, are remarked upon as being a specifically Persian response to images. So Yves Porteur wrote on the form and meaning of portraits in the Safavid period, quoting Sadiq Ibeg's treatise in an explanation of a Persian sense of realism, which was positioned as differing from the Western imagining of verism. So instead, the Persian approach sought quote, away from the formal image, Surat, towards the inner meaning that now. So I want to foreground these concepts here as they can provide an indication of where localized ideas of accessing the persona or the subject of the image beyond its surface likeness can come from. So Ghaja miniatures are also recorded as having been exchanged, often in lieu of the actual physical presence of the subject. Although he's not pictured wearing miniatures in the manner that his successes were, small framed portraits of Fatali Shah Haja were frequently conferred on foreign envoys and other dignitaries in exchange for their services. And this was done as well within the court itself as a sign of the monarch's personal favor. The Scottish diplomat Dr. John McNeill, for example, received a medallion of Fatali Shah set in diamonds for his assistance during the negotiations that led to the Treaty of Turkomanshai in 1828. And also a subsequent miniature was also produced locally based on his own portraits of the Shah. Portraits of European sovereigns were in turn gifted to the Persian court. And this is a diplomatic practice that perhaps seems relatively unsurprising, given what we know historically about the etiquette of gift giving between different kingdoms. But this is a dynamic that continued to inform the production and symbolism of these object images throughout the 1800s. With the reign of Muhammad Shah commencing in 1834, the meaning and utility of portrait miniatures in the Persian vernacular had shifted somewhat. Portrait miniatures with Muhammad Shah as the subject himself are exceedingly rare, with the Third Haja monarch preferring instead to adorn himself with the image of his predecessor. And this was also done rather than widely disseminate his own portraits amongst his own court or to diplomatic guests. So these choices are important. Muhammad Shah is not positioned in scholarship as a member of the Khaja family line, who was renowned for his investment in the visual arts, nor is he known for kind of sustaining his own idiosyncratic tradition of portraiture. Comparatively, his 14 year reign was brought to an end aged 40, after suffering with the disease of kings, gout. And unlike his grandfather, many of his offspring did not survive infancy. Perhaps as a result of this, his time as Shah is reported more quietly, with an emphasis on his sickly demeanour and a more insular tendency towards his own religious interests. His entire persona, therefore, is a marked contrast to the splendour and prowess of his grandfather, Fatali Shah, a figure who was ardently invested in his own image, as well as siring as many children as he possibly could. So an extant example from around 1845 of a miniature of Fatali Shah is recorded in the Nasadi Khalili collection of Islamic art. What only does this round all depict, Muhammad Shah, but he is also rendered again in this signature Khaja military dress, pinned to which is yet another portrait miniature, again a Fatali Shah. So here we have a portrait within a portrait, as he is not patronising the monumental art style that his predecessor was. Muhammad Shah's penchant for sporting a miniature speaks of a kind of emulation by proxy, rather than enacting a more direct homage in his own mode of rulership and patronage. So as if he is aware of the legacy with which he has tasked to continue, but he has invested his own less grandiose means of consolidating his rule. The rarity of examples of his own likeness both in miniature and life-sized formats indicates that perhaps there was a level of unconcerned towards manifesting his own image and a concern instead with the talismanic properties of his forebear, who had already dedicated his rule to cultivating a highly accessorised aura of kinship. Portrait miniatures, those that are expressly concerning an individual of some esteem, also share this characteristic that allows them to act as a repository of the essence of the subject depicted. However, this is not achieved by their size, as it was with oil paintings which were often life-sized or indeed grander, but instead this is done through those anthropological concerns with human object entanglement, specifically their necessity to be worn and therefore connected to the body of another rather than simply sold away or placed in an album or other repository. So in seeing a portrait of the Shah, then in turn wearing a miniature portrait of his ancestor, or even his spiritual source of power, and this is something that we will examine shortly, also implicates the viewing agendas and trajectories of the Shah's own seeing practices in gaze. So what I mean by this is how he saw himself and then how he defined himself in relation to those with whom he was both physically and conceptually aligned through this image. The crisscrossing of these gazes then between wearer, subject and beholder is interwoven with the material charisma of the object itself and its inherent ergonomic and visual tactility. Khajar portrait miniatures existed as a constant invitation to look, to touch and to revere the men who were associated with them. They were not only indicative of how viewers see these works, the outer surat, and by extension feel them, that connection made to the inner essence, but are also significant of how the Khajar kings saw and felt themselves to be, their masculine subjectivity if we will. Despite having such associative power, the diminutive size of portrait miniatures and the fact that they have often been executed in the media of watercolor on ivory, gouache on card or painted enamel, has often relegated them to the margins of a genre more widely associated with the grand public images or psychologically penetrating evocations of a subject in more stately oil on canvas. Not only this, but although Khajar portrait miniatures have appeared in major exhibition catalogues on art of the long Khajar century, this is from the generative royal Persian paintings in 1998 and its companion Khajar portraits in 1999 to most recently L'Empire de Hose in 2018 have yet to be the sole subject of inquiry as to their role in the process of creating and disseminating the royal image, so this remains underconsidered. A recent inclusion of a collection of portrait miniatures within the British Museum exhibition inspired by the east which ran from October 2019 to January 2020 simply describes them within the catalogue as quote medals that represent Middle Eastern responses to European practices unquote. So such a simplified statement is part of a wider dismissal of Khajar portrait miniatures as being purely derivative of European examples without due attention paid to the local resonances of the medium as something portable, tactile, emotive and associative within the vernaculars that was specifically both Persian and Khajar. So there's a little solid evidence as to how and why the portrait miniature was so enthusiastically absorbed into royal Khajar iconography during the first quarter of the 19th century. Julian Rayby describes the development of chivalric orders placed in both portrait miniatures and the shirok or sheed the order of the lion and sun medallion under this rubric. But this was done as one aspect of quote European influence unquote that had begun to take hold quote increasingly in the 1850s and 1860s unquote. So the origin of the medium is positioned as undoubtedly European and the adoption of the miniature prototype into Khajar visual culture is again corroborated by Enfield Fastakud who argues that this was as a result of contact with Mughal and Ottoman examples via the circulation of European originals. So these versions of events are key as they situate the portrait miniature firmly within a broader context of transcultural and diplomatic exchange with Europe. However, most examinations of miniatures pinpoint the beginning of the Khajar fascination with the portrait miniature far later than we have the earliest examples of both the order of the lion and sun and the Semsaleh Mayuni during the reign of Fatali Shah at the beginning of the 19th century. Each account also perhaps stopped short of explaining why portrait miniatures were then adopted differently in the Indian subcontinent and the Ottoman Empire. Whilst the Khajars married its formal and material appeal with the Shemoyel of Shiai Saints and pre-existing local traditions of working in miniature that then again further distance the Khajar iteration of the portrait miniature away from any European archetype. A familiarity with the conceptual formal and technical qualities of the portrait miniature have been achieved through the exchange of diplomatic niceties. However, there's also a consideration to be made of how Persian knowledge of the European version became interlinked with local traditions of small scale portraiture which both predated the European archetype and developed concurrently to its appearance in Iran. The specificity of enamel is also a key part of this narrative given the Khajar investment in the medium. Although a preference for enamel may be distinctive of a local taste, Khajar miniatures generally follow an archetypal circular round or shape with some extending into a teardrop oval. So the latter of these settings was chosen for an early miniature by Bahir, a court artist under Fatali Shah which shows the monarch resplendent and rosy cheeked against the backdrop of a palace wall complete with a luxuriant pink curtain in a composition that is a condensed version of a larger painting that was also the work of the same artist. The markers of the Shah's physical magnificence, so those long connected arches of his eyebrows, the beauty spots or moles so beloved by poets and the rouge cheekbones that flush from beneath his beard are all traditional marks of male as well as female beauty that still had currency during the period of his rule. And all of the metaphors that are used in poetry to circumscribe the preciousness of this desired physical ideal are here embodied in the materiality of the miniature itself. Again this kind of luminosity of the enamel which lends his countenance to this kind of inner silken light and extends to the frame which is just as prettily rendered and elegant in its form as its subject. The frame itself is simple but unusual based on a 17th century moogle-style turban pin or tulip. Such framing is evocative of a desire to create a top-to-toe cohesion within a costume, complimenting and mirroring the shape of the egg grate which is worn by Fatali Shah that is twisted around his astro-can hat. So the frame appears as if it was wound from the green stems of flowers which then bloom at the narrow tip of the frame. The artist's signature is also placed in a bulb at the figure's right shoulder. This is a choice shape that further echoes the form of the frame and enhances this feeling of delicacy and whimsy whilst undergirding the suitability of this kind of visual parallel to the imperial turban pin in framing the portrait of the Shah. The importance of the miniature in the accessorising of the royal body can be understood within the broader material treatment of luxury accessories in painting and this is a category into which the portrait miniature falls. So the worn portrait exists as part of the larger decorative repertoire of the body of the king where his entire being can then be seen to sparkle erratically. This process of re-inscription was not limited to large-scale portraiture as some of the clearest examples of the re-inscription of portrait miniatures can be found in works on paper. So this is a portrait of Muhammad Shah in the British Library by Muhammad Hassan Afshar and this is part of an album of collated images of Persian nobles and it shows the king Bedeck in royal regalia and gems which sparkle thanks to these wispy lines of white that shoot off from every diamond and pearl. I've given a detail here of the original image so you can see this close up. An ovoid portrait of Fatali Shah which is set in a frame that's dripping with teardrop shaped gems is pinned to Muhammad Shah's breast on his left hand side. The frame is topped with a crown that's surrounded by diamond encrusted plumage that echoes the crowned head of his grandfather within the miniature. Although there are no facial details visible Fatali Shah again is further identifiable as the subject of the portrait miniature thanks to his copious beard which extends to at least three times the size of his head. A glint of the frame of the portrait miniature on Muhammad Shah's chest is the primary device that catches the eye in Muhammad Hassan Afshar's painting. It is a miniature aura of pearls diamonds and light around the picture of his grandfather and this is melded within the overall adornment of his own body. So again we have these similarly finished epaulettes spazoo bands and cuffs creating a frame of reflected light around his person. The ostentation of the frame provided yet another avenue for the artist to explore his virtuosity in rendering the sparkle of the jewels. Yet the fluffy sparks of white also suggest some difficulty in doing justice to the deflection of light against so many glittering surfaces that were presented by the king's outfit. In fact each of the khajar Shahs has an idiosyncratic approach to the portrait miniature and how they intended to express and consolidate their own power. So we move on now to Nasser Adin Shah who ruled from 1848 to 1896 and he was a narcissist in comparison to Muhammad Shah. His visage still adorns kitschy dinner services and behest tea pots that can be found in the China cupboards of most Iranian households today. So where his investment was in slapping his face on everything and everyone there are countless paintings of members of the courts and government officials who are sporting a miniature of Nasser Adin in his own time as a gesture of loyalty. So his penchant was not to link himself with one of his forebears by pinning a miniature of his father or his grandfather to his chest but instead to draw the image of Imam Ali closer to his own. So this notion of charisma both holy and imperial is particularly pertinent in this regard. The portrait miniature as an object that both held an incited emotive power especially when deploying the image of an Imam integrates the genre within a wider context of the codification of Shi'i material culture in the Khaja period. So unlike large-scale portraits the intended place of a miniature is not as at a distance, it's not intended to be grasped by sight alone. The qualities conveyed through its tactility and its small scale therefore demand a close viewing practice that involves both a bodily and emotional investment on the part of the beholder. Royal portraits and other representations of the royal effigy have always played a crucial role in the cultivation and communication of monarchical power in Iran from the command of coinage and base release during the ancient glories of the Achaemenid and Sassanid dynasties through royal representations of Safavid kings in illustrated manuscripts or directly painted onto palace walls. So these portrait paintings of the Khaja monarchy that were framed and sent to audiences in lieu of the Shah Iranian rulers have consistently relied on portraiture albeit in different iterations of media to both symbolize and consolidate their sovereignty. These traditions began at their most epic in being literally embedded into the face of the land before then seesawing between the monumental and the miniature across the ruling dynasties of the ancient Persian empire through to the state of Iran of modernity. The fundamentals of Persian kingship extend back for centuries whilst the preferred mediums depended to a greater extent on the mode of rule. Each king was expected as part of his embodiment of ideal kingship to then live up to this ideal. So the conflation of divinity and humanity was exemplified in both the political authority and the visual culture of early modern Iran. In establishing 12 Ashiyism as the state religion, Safavid rulers were at once Sufi sheikhs and Shia monarchs whose genealogy linked them with the Prophet Muhammad propagating a cult of kingship to which placed a great deal of emphasis on the adoration of the people of the house namely the immediate family of the Prophet Muhammad. Similarly the Khaja portrait miniature gained its power from the Shia approach to monarchy that had been delineated by the Safavids. The role of embodiment in the representation of the Shia saints in image and practice was repeated by the Khajas and taken to its logical conclusion with the invention and wearing of the order of Imam Ali. It was established under Nasir ad-Din Shah Khaja for his exclusive wear. The order was ultimately still a portrait miniature in its form and appearance and as per the Khaja iteration this still necessitated a bodily connection to the chest in the manner of images of the Shia. The continued interdependence of the royal with the holy image underscores how far kingship and religion were understood to be complementary. This played an enduring part in the cultivation of the rulers divinely sanctioned self-image throughout the 19th century. When we see portrait medallions fixed to the uniform of Nasir ad-Din Shah these are often aligned with the order of the lion and sun and on close inspection we can see that there are also instances of the order of Imam Ali and this was instituted under Nasir ad-Din Shah in 1856 and this was an honor that outranked all others. Just like images of the Shah portrait miniatures of Shia saints were worn as a mark of devout loyalty further to this they signified a very personal alignment with this persona. They were pinned not on the chest of the royal coterie as the Shah's own likeness was but only at the breast of the king as his sole preserve. The Shata sport of picture of Imam Ali was to make both a visual and physical connection with the only other individual above his own station as king and who therefore was worthy of a similar material treatment in being recast as a precious object. So it was not just the likeness of the royal self, Tamsali Humayunni which was encased in a round all of diamonds and pearls. Khajar portrait miniatures are beset within a context of both physical charisma and material charm and this included not just the terrestrial Shah but the aspirational and devotional qualities of the Shia imams. Secreted within bookbindings and mirror cases in closing the image of Imam Ali demanded a close considered reception from the beholder which again included a bodily interaction with the image object by way of opening touching and caressing. Placing the imam within a golden roundel and this is a surround that's often punctuated by foliated decoration and jewel-like embellishments of colour. Established a sacred aura around the image and also foregrounded the framing of the holy persona as a portrait medallion. Moreover as part of this tactile heritage images of the Imam Shemayel that were involved within ambulatory rituals that were associated with Ashura the 10th day of the month of Muharram necessitated a degree of physical contact that these had to be carefully held during parades and performances. As portraits of the Shah travelled and were exchanged or stood in for him in diplomatic absence portraits of Imam Ali if not more statically set into the bindings of Qurans or sensitively depicted in leaves of watercolor were also involved in the ambulatory rituals of viewing and reception Shemayel Qadani during the month of Muharram. Miniature portraits in their diminutive size and both formal and semiotic closeness to medallions represent portraiture in its most portable iteration. Despite the often circular composition of Shemayel being easily translated into a miniature format it is their portability that brings the portrait miniature into the closest comparison. Moreover both Shemayel and the portrait miniature necessitate a connection with the body in order to activate the symbolic potential of the object and underline a sense of emotional investment towards the subject shown within its frame. Imaginary portraits of the Shia imams therefore share compositional material and conceptual parallels with those of the Khaja kings and as such are also taken into consideration within this talk. Portrait miniatures of Imam Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad, have a particular role to play in this regard. So instigated in addition to the imperial effigy during the rule of Nasser ad-Din Shah, miniatures of Imam Ali became an expression of the pious self aligning the monarch and by extension the nation with the Imam. Just like images of the Shah portrait miniatures of Imam Ali were born as a mark of devoutness and further to this they signified a very intimate alignment with this persona. Shemayel are in particular symptomatic of a wider reinvigoration of Shia religious cultural output that was stimulated at both civic and imperial levels of patronage during the 19th century and this included the visual performative rituals of Tazia and Pada. Portrait miniatures of both Shah and Imam were worn as a symbol of either royal or pious devotion and by extension they were a signal of homosocial loyalty and virtue. The two were frequently conflated as multiple pendants of both sacred and profane subjects were often worn together and this is evidenced here by this portrait of Nasser ad-Din Shah posed in a European chair by Bahram Kirman Shahi where the Shah is wearing both the order of Imam Ali and the national emblem of the order of the lion and son and these are pinned in a small diagonal from his chest to his throat which draws complex political and religious semantics. Our understandings of this physical and material duality of masculinity and its inherent power are then informed by theoretical applications of the physical and esoteric division of a masculine persona supremacy most notably that of the king's two bodies. So Kantorovitz's literary based concept considers the entity of the crown as as comprising of two halves and this is epitomized by the statement the king is dead long lives the king these two parts respectively named as the body natural and the body politic Kantorovitz covers the rupture of the king's physical and spiritual political beings into two entities of authority one that corresponds to his temporary presence on earth and the other his immortality by divine right and his position as a theological and corporate figurehead however useful in approaching what is a largely universal notion of divinely sanctioned kingship reminiscent of the Khaja notion of the Shah as God's shadow on earth it doesn't go as far to encompass the ability that this power has then of transference or association so there is a need to investigate how this would relate to Persian epistemological notions of both kingship and image making what the duality that Kantorovitz describes however can do for a reading of Khaja portrait miniatures is to help to investigate how local ideas of being an essence can operate in relation to the royal image how the body of the king can be split not only conceptually but also in terms of the corporeal and material how association between men can still be made for example through the wearing of the miniature as both visual and sensory act of touch connecting another body's essence despite its physical absence these relationships were created and maintained by miniatures which operated across temporal boundaries and their qualities as gifts which establish social relationships and continually act upon their wearers miniature portraits are in the sense of Alfred Gell artifacts with agency so to conclude within art history as a whole and not just within the realms of Persian material portrait miniatures are a rather minor branch of inquiry although Khaja era miniatures have cropped up in exhibition catalogue essays such publications although extremely helpful a largely descriptive efforts portrait miniatures have yet to be the sole subject of inquiry as to the process of creating and disseminating the royal image and so far there has been little to say regarding the miniatures role in the larger visual culture in which it functioned Khaja portrait miniatures are often overlooked in favour of the larger and more bombastic life size oil painting which dominates the visual legacy of the Khaja Kings as a result the royal body is mostly confined to canvas in scholarship with its power read as analogous to the size with which it is depicted well an alternative case study of miniature portraits allows us to do is to read this power with greater nuance with more attention paid to its gendered implications where the associated authority of regal masculinity is apparent beyond the imposition of size and instead can relate to subtle material and corporeal interrelation between imperial men and other men's bodies be they noble or holy that was achieved without actual bodily contact this contact resulted in parallels being drawn between male personages of varying degrees of power depending on who was doing the wearing and who was being worn creating a sliding scale of loyalty fraternity and even sacralization by association for one of time of course there are many other aspects that come to bear on a reading of Khaja portrait miniatures as as inherently gendered objects I welcome any questions that you may have and I hope to cover such points that may remain outstanding so thank you very much for your attention thank you very much Natasha for this very interesting and rich seminar small objects that open up big fields so please do write your questions or points in the chat maybe while we're waiting I can ask you a question I was I was wondering you know in who the audience for these miniature portraitures was how were they seen some of them have inscriptions but very small of course and some if I if I'm right don't so they need a visual reference to be identified understood a different another visual reference I wonder whether you can say something about that yeah so I mean the question of audience is an interesting one primarily because of the size of these things as I said you know in the lecture they demand a very kind of intimate close inspection to actually take in the whole detail of the of the object both in terms of its decoration and in terms of the figuration in the center you know to work out who is being or what is being worn you would need to look quite closely and I think this is an issue that would come up both if you were viewing the miniature in real life being worn by someone and also if you're viewing it as it is reinscribed in a another portrait you would have to operate kind of at two levels of distance in order to to take it in not only that but how it would then you know become potentially swallowed up in the ornate-ness of imperial regalia as it is kind of very similar in its embellishment to the rest of the costuming I think when we're looking at comparative traditions of portrait miniatures particularly in in the european context these objects were inherently you know very personal they were things that were exchanged you know between one or two people they were often commissioned especially as kind of mementos or keepsakes they didn't necessarily always have a public function which is something which I've read at least into into the khaja versions it just seems to be very specific to their context and use in the persian court is is something that's very public something that's never kind of put away in a draw or worn underneath something or kind of those manners of a very yeah kind of personal intimate procurement and display which aren't really displayed at all so it's their public-ness that I found really interesting and it's their public-ness which in terms of an audience you know the audience was potentially everybody who was either to be gifted one or to come into contact with one I think it's very telling that Queen Victoria you know was photographed wearing the miniature rather than simply receiving it although it was later cannibalized into a necklace so she obviously wasn't that attached to it but again to to wear it in in the same mode as those who had conferred it on her was a statement in itself yes I thought that was very interesting that portrait that you showed yeah yeah so I think I think very much yeah at least in in their persian iterations that the audience is is intended to be one that would be able to make and conflate those relationships between the person depicted and the person who was wearing them so that relationship had to be very legible yeah um yeah so I think that's that's partially although you know we don't have anything that says very very specifically this was who was intended to see a portrait miniature um they do have very specific um behaviors associated with them sure thank you very much uh we have a couple of questions in the chat so so Heila says what is the relationship between Kaja Miniatuz and Elizabeth the first Miniatuz thank you for brilliant talk thank you oh thank you very much this is this is a really good question so Elizabeth and Miniatuz are probably the most immediate point of comparison to the Kaja examples this is partially because of that kind of genealogy that scholarship has drawn out with European examples being kind of circulated within not only the Persian court but also the Mughal court and the Ottoman court and the examples would have been a mixture of kind of contemporary and also Elizabethan examples of portrait miniatures um so formally at least there are obviously um similarities uh in the kind of construction of these things um the framing and the central roundel but again the behaviors and the context of their creation are very different um Elizabethan portrait miniatures have an interesting kind of gendered um nature in that they were a very masculine craft but it was kind of a to to make and commission one was a almost a kind of romantic sensitive act if you see what I mean um the act of limning um was something that was bound up in kind of lyrical chivalric practices of masculinity um that are again you know different um to the to the Kaja situation so they're an interesting um comparative point you know things like Nicholas Hilliard and and um kind of portraits of of Elizabethan courtiers again were were commissioned as kind of affectionate markers um within the court though it's very it was much more kind of democratized in terms of of who could be the subject of the miniature in a way that you don't see um reflected in in Persian miniatures they're very much kind of a very specifically elite um endeavor with with only you know a select couple um of people um you know considered worthy of of being a miniature most notably the Shah um and his predecessors so now it's an interest in this is something which um I draw out in the chapter um but kind of yeah demands kind of a greater more nuanced investigation by the time I end up turning it into a chapter but yeah it's it's a it's an interesting question because it's one of the main comparison points that when you're looking at portrait miniatures you come up against thank you um Giada Vercelli says thank you very much Dr Maurice wonderful talk you define the traits of masculinity you discussed also in comparison to female gendered objects in the Kaja court thank you again that's a that's a very good question um there was actually a specific order um the order of aftab or sunshine um which was created for women within the Kaja court um and this basically had that feet feminized sun face um within kind of a greater sunburst of diamonds usually I think I've got a picture of one if I zoom back it's not terribly big but it's right it's the one that's um above the number two so these were made and conferred especially for women in the Kaja court um but it's interesting that they're not given a specific persona to connect with they're given a national emblem and I think this is probably there's probably um a greater point to be made here in terms of a gendered conceptualization of nationhood and this is something that um the work of asfano natural body does really really well um in looking at kind of the the way that national symbols were gendered in the Kaja period and kind of the the literal changing face um of the lion and sun hanumikoshi so um the other kind of point of comparison that I bring out here would be miniatures of uh kind of beautiful youths um that again are not a specific person they're not a portrait or a likeness of um of an actual living being um they're more these kind of romanticized figures that you would have found in single sheet painting or manuscript painting kind of in the early modern period they're kind of the direct relatives of that um and again you find these kind of transferred over things like pipes um again pen boxes uh things like that and I think those objects are much more explicitly feminized or female coded um rather than uh rather than the the portrait miniature the imperial effigy for example or uh shemail so it did exist like portrait miniatures for ladies but they weren't in the same iteration as as uh as these you wouldn't have had a portrait miniature of a of a king for example um being kind of kept like a lover's locket is it it wouldn't that that wasn't again it was a very kind of public statement to be conferred amongst men thank you um so I hope that there will be other questions please write them in the in the chat um while we're waiting maybe I can ask you another question um you showed us that the there were wearing these mini portraits of their predecessors or ancestors and I think you also said that you that were also worn by the individuals themselves but but rare if I mean like like almost in a self-referential way I wonder whether you can expand on that if I well understood I think um I'll probably clarify that a bit my think the part that you're referring to is um the the rareness of the likeness of Muhammad Shah oh right okay portraits so yeah you wouldn't have had um someone wearing a portrait of themselves right and then you know it's not for granted that that doesn't happen no well I wouldn't have put it past Nasred Inshad to be honest because he had so many going on and as I say the amount of stuff that you find even now with them with his face on it is amazing it's kind of a pop culture phenomenon now as much as it was once an image and objective of great value but no I haven't found any examples of someone wearing themselves it's only those kind of changing behaviors kind of between Muhammad Shah and Nasred Inshad where you have you know Muhammad Shah is very very attached to this image of Fatali Shah but actually most portraits of him you will see him sporting a miniature whereas Nasred In you know the the references to Muhammad Shah aren't there at all his concern is with with Imam Ali and kind of integrating this um gesture of personal piety into his uh into his imperial image which he does through you know creating his own kind of order of portrayment which is um but yeah no sorry if that wasn't terribly clear but yeah thank you very much so Maria Mehtia says thank you for stimulating talk and then Flaskerud says if the miniatures express how the Shah wants to be seen by others are there specific iconographical symbolic differences for intended audiences thank you for a great talk oh that's a great point let me just write this down can you see the chapter shall I repeat it I can see it in the chat yeah miniatures express how the Shah wants to be seen by others are there specific iconographic or symbolic differences for intended audiences I think this is something that I wouldn't be able to answer in the fullness I would want to at this stage that is something that I think would be particularly important carrying what was the chapter of my dissertation forward into a book because I think it's something very important um again I haven't kind of examined I've examined when you see these things but not where so that would entail kind of looking at the audiences for where portrait you can see portrait miniatures being re-inscribed perhaps if there's changes in instances of portraiture of Nasseruddin Shah for example in the combinations of the orders that he's wearing or in the kind of fineness and details of of particular miniatures and then if you can find an equivalent perhaps in real life an example that you know can make that kind of direct link but no I'm afraid that's something that yeah I would have to delve into a bit more to give you a very specific answer but hopefully I'll be able to answer that when I get around to fleshing it out thank you Caroline Mayower says where these portrait miniatures passed on to descendants hey that's a good question it's I think when we see examples of of them being worn uh you there's a difficulty in concerning whether something was commissioned at the time for us you know the specific again this kind of uh links into the the previous question um if something was commissioned for a particular event for example you have no way of knowing when it's re-inscribed in a portrait whether this thing was passed down from Fatali Shah to Muhammad Shah or whether Muhammad Shah commissioned a picture of his grandfather to be worn if you see what I mean without having an example of the miniature itself existing in a collection somewhere with the actual objects themselves of course you can date them and see where they've come from and the obviously they they circulated um within the you know the court they they were kind of part of the uh imperial costuming for for quite some time so we can deduce that they would have been conferred from son to grandson to um father and in kind of a a manner that reflects their purpose of dynastic continuity in the way that they were then conferred on to conferred on to each other and I think that that's an intrinsic part of them being symbolic of these kind of patrilineal and kind of broader concepts of of dynastic linkage you see what I mean so those exchanges would be important if you could you know really solidly pin down kind of trajectories of exchange thank you um are there any other questions otherwise thank you so much um Natasha and um I'm I'm looking forward to see you again um on the 16th of December for our last ratio of the term with Maximilian Hathmuth and um thank you very much Natasha for this wonderful talk thank you and then thank you everybody for coming bye bye bye bye bye thank you