Lot Essay
'Lotto' carpets are perhaps the most generally recognised 'classical' carpets known today. As with many other types of early Turkish weaving, there is some disagreement as to the precise history or origin of the 'Lotto' group. It is generally accepted, however, that they were woven in cottage workshops in the Ushak region of Western Anatolia. The 'Lotto' name derives from the fact that rugs of this type are depicted in numerous paintings by the Venetian artist Lorenzo Lotto (1480-1556.) Lorenzo Lotto, however, was not the first Western artist to depict this group of carpets and they are found in many Italian, Flemish, English and Portuguese paintings from the early sixteenth century through the end of the seventeenth century. The extensive depiction in European paintings and the large number of extant rugs known today indicates that 'Lotto' rugs were exported to the West in substanial quantities. Their popularity in Europe is underscored by the fact that their arabesque design was copied by early domestic European carpets, such as three carpets in the collection of The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry at Boughton House (see King, Donald and Sylvester, David: The Eastern Carpet in the Western World from the 15th to the 17th Century, London, 1983, p.69). As many examples of the 'Lotto' group have been found in Southeastern Europe, Charles Grant Ellis proposes that they were probably woven there instead of Anatolia (Ellis, C. G.: "The 'Lotto' Pattern as a Fashion in Carpets," Festschrift fr Peter Wilhelm Meister, 1975, pp.19-31. Ellis also proposes that the earliest examples of this group, with a kufesque border similar to the present rug, were woven in Konya with later examples woven in Eastern Europe). Based on variations of drawing and design motifs consistently found within the group, Ellis distinguishes three principle design groups for 'Lotto' carpets: the Anatolian- style, the kilim-style and the ornamental-style.
The Bernheimer 'Lotto' rug seen here is distinguished by its outstanding, nearly unbelievable, condition and amazing retention of colour. The field pattern of this example, using Ellis' classifications, is of the kilim-style because of its angular drawing and the jagged, saw-tooth edges seen in areas of the arabesque lattice. The 'boxed' kufesque border seen here, is usually associated with early 'Lotto' rugs from the sixteenth century. Although in most other examples the kufesque border is more visually related to script, the 'boxed' border is found in other pieces of the 'Lotto' group and other types of Turkish rugs as well as in at least one European painting of the period (see Yetkin, Serare: Historical Turkish Carpets, Istanbul, 1981, pl.32 for a 'Lotto' example in the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts, Istanbul; Gantzhorn, Volkmar: The Christian Oriental Carpet, Köln, 1991, illus. 398 for another 'Lotto' example with Eskanazi, Milan; Franses, Michael and Pinner, Robert: "Turkish Carpets in the Victoria & Albert Museum," Hali, Vol. 6, no. 4, p.364, fig. 9 for a 'Lotto' fragment; Kertesz-Badrus, Andrei, Trkische Teppiche in Siebenbrgen, Bucharest, 1985, pl. 2 for a 'Holbein' rug with a 'boxed' border and similar guard stripes; and Mills, John: "'Lotto' Carpets in Western Paintings," Hali, Vol. 3, no. 4, pp.278-289, fig. 20 for a circa 1590 painting, The Chess Players, by Ludovico Carracci). The combination of the kilim-style field and the kufesque border of the present piece is unusual and can be found in another example in the Musée Jacquemart-André, Paris, albeit with a different interpretation of the kufesque border (see Tapis Present de L'Orient A L'Occident, Paris, 1989, pp.66-67).
The individual design elements, drawing, colouration and overall presence appears to be consistent with many of the aforementioned rugs and the 'Lotto' group in general. However, the amazing condition of this rug may cause some people to doubt its authenticity. Another 'Lotto' rug of nearly identical design and condition to the present piece was recently in the Italian trade and, although controversial, was generally accepted as being right. Imperfections in the design, such as the awkward corner resolutions of the border, would also seem to be unlikely in a later, intentional or copy.
The Bernheimer 'Lotto' rug seen here is distinguished by its outstanding, nearly unbelievable, condition and amazing retention of colour. The field pattern of this example, using Ellis' classifications, is of the kilim-style because of its angular drawing and the jagged, saw-tooth edges seen in areas of the arabesque lattice. The 'boxed' kufesque border seen here, is usually associated with early 'Lotto' rugs from the sixteenth century. Although in most other examples the kufesque border is more visually related to script, the 'boxed' border is found in other pieces of the 'Lotto' group and other types of Turkish rugs as well as in at least one European painting of the period (see Yetkin, Serare: Historical Turkish Carpets, Istanbul, 1981, pl.32 for a 'Lotto' example in the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts, Istanbul; Gantzhorn, Volkmar: The Christian Oriental Carpet, Köln, 1991, illus. 398 for another 'Lotto' example with Eskanazi, Milan; Franses, Michael and Pinner, Robert: "Turkish Carpets in the Victoria & Albert Museum," Hali, Vol. 6, no. 4, p.364, fig. 9 for a 'Lotto' fragment; Kertesz-Badrus, Andrei, Trkische Teppiche in Siebenbrgen, Bucharest, 1985, pl. 2 for a 'Holbein' rug with a 'boxed' border and similar guard stripes; and Mills, John: "'Lotto' Carpets in Western Paintings," Hali, Vol. 3, no. 4, pp.278-289, fig. 20 for a circa 1590 painting, The Chess Players, by Ludovico Carracci). The combination of the kilim-style field and the kufesque border of the present piece is unusual and can be found in another example in the Musée Jacquemart-André, Paris, albeit with a different interpretation of the kufesque border (see Tapis Present de L'Orient A L'Occident, Paris, 1989, pp.66-67).
The individual design elements, drawing, colouration and overall presence appears to be consistent with many of the aforementioned rugs and the 'Lotto' group in general. However, the amazing condition of this rug may cause some people to doubt its authenticity. Another 'Lotto' rug of nearly identical design and condition to the present piece was recently in the Italian trade and, although controversial, was generally accepted as being right. Imperfections in the design, such as the awkward corner resolutions of the border, would also seem to be unlikely in a later, intentional or copy.