Statement of the Problem:
Clothing in Persian miniature painting has a visual function that extends beyond its practical role. Garments are part of the representation of figures and are shaped within the artistic conventions of each manuscript, school, workshop, and historical period. The representation of women in Persian miniature painting is therefore not necessarily a direct record of everyday clothing. Layla, as one of the central female figures in the illustrated versions of the story of Layla and Majnun, provides a useful case for examining how clothing is visually constructed in different periods. Although previous studies have discussed women’s clothing, Persian miniature painting, and illustrations of Layla and Majnun, the comparative examination of Layla’s clothing in selected Timurid and Safavid examples, with attention to its possible relationship with the social and cultural context of the two periods, has received less attention in the sources examined for this study.

Research Objective:
The main objective of this research is to identify and examine the formal characteristics of Layla’s clothing in six selected illustrations and to compare the observed characteristics across examples associated with the Timurid and Safavid traditions. The study focuses on overall garment form, volume, sleeves, collar and upper garment, head covering, color, textile patterns, motifs, and decorative elements. A further objective is to examine whether the differences observed in the clothing can be considered in relation to the social and cultural context of the two periods, while avoiding a direct cause-and-effect interpretation.

Research Question:
What differences can be observed in Layla’s clothing in the selected illustrations associated with the Timurid and Safavid traditions, and what relationship can be considered between these differences and the social and cultural conditions of the two periods?

Research Method:
This study is qualitative, descriptive-analytical, and comparative. Six illustrations were selected purposefully according to three practical criteria: visual clarity, the condition of the artwork, and the possibility of observing and comparing Layla’s clothing. The unit of analysis is Layla’s clothing in each illustration. The visual analysis considers the overall form of the garment, its volume, sleeves, collar and upper garment, head covering, color, textile patterns, motifs, and decorative details. First, the characteristics of each illustration are described on the basis of what is visually observable. The examples are then compared in order to identify similarities and differences. The social and cultural interpretation is kept separate from the visual description and is presented as a possible contextual reading rather than as proof of a direct historical cause. The analysis also takes into account the conventions of Persian miniature painting, the characteristics of artistic schools and workshops, manuscript traditions, and the role of the painter’s individual style.

Findings:
The comparison indicates visible differences in the overall form, volume, head covering, color, patterns, and decoration of Layla’s clothing. In the selected Timurid examples, the garments are generally elongated, relatively simple, and visually integrated with the composition. Decorative patterns are present but are less dominant in the selected examples. The clothing also contributes to the balance and rhythm of the image through long lines and a controlled use of color. In the selected Safavid examples, the clothing generally shows more visible detail, a greater variety of patterns and colors, and, in some cases, a stronger decorative presence. Details such as textile patterns, borders, head coverings, and ornaments receive greater visual emphasis. These differences are observable features of the selected images and should not be understood as measurements of actual historical clothing.

Discussion:
The differences observed in the selected examples can be considered alongside the artistic and cultural contexts of the Timurid and Safavid periods. The Timurid examples are associated with the visual language of the Herat tradition, in which harmony of composition, elongated figures, and a controlled relationship among visual elements are important characteristics. The Safavid examples reflect a tradition in which textile patterns, decorative details, color variety, and the visual richness of courtly manuscripts can receive stronger emphasis. These contexts help explain why clothing may appear differently in the two groups. However, the evidence does not allow the observed differences to be attributed solely or directly to social or economic changes. The painter’s style, workshop practice, manuscript type, literary context, and established visual conventions may also influence the representation of clothing.

Conclusion:
The study shows that Layla’s clothing in the six selected illustrations differs in several formal and visual characteristics. The Timurid examples generally show simpler and more elongated forms, while the selected Safavid examples display greater visual detail, patterning, and decorative variety. These differences can be examined in relation to the social and cultural contexts of the two periods, but they are better understood as the result of several interacting historical and artistic factors rather than as a direct reflection of society. The study therefore considers clothing in Persian miniature painting as part of a visual and aesthetic system in which social and cultural context is one of several relevant factors.
Keywords:
Persian Miniature Painting; Layla and Majnun; Timurid Period; Safavid Period; Clothing; Formal Characteristics of Clothing; Social and Cultural Conditions.