.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
Johan Zoffany’s primary version of ‘Colonel Mordaunt’s Cock Match’ was done for the Governor General – Warren Hastings – in Lucknow between 1784 and 1788. It is widely regarded as one of the most iconic images, by a European artist, that survives from 18th-century India. Indeed it marked the pinnacle of Zoffany’s five years in India and it is the evocation of Asaf-ud-Daula’s Lucknow itself – cosmopolitan, brilliantly colourful, lively and disorderly. It shows an encounter between the Nawab and his close friend Colonel Mordaunt. Both were passionately fond of Cock fighting – a pastime as popular in India as it was among all levels of Society in England at the time. In attendance were Indians of every description – members of the Court, Hindus jostling with Muslims and also various members of the European community in Lucknow at the time – they included Zoffany’s friends – Colonel Claude Martin, John Wombwell and his fellow artist Osias Humphrey. Few other paintings captures so precisely the close relationship that then existed between Indians and Europeans – something that was to change within a very few years.
A second version of the Cock Match (done for the Nawab himself) was, until recently, thought to have been lost – it had been widely suggested that it was destroyed during the upheavals of 1857 in Lucknow. The so called Ashwick version (White’s Club) has been the subject of much disagreement over many years. Although Manners and Williamson, in their biography of Zoffany published in 1920, identified this work as by Zoffany (correctly as it now seems) almost everything else they wrote about it was inaccurate. Subsequently Mildred Archer attributed the work to Robert Home and others suggested that it was by a Company painter. At the time of the Zoffany retrospective exhibition at the Royal Academy in 2012 the painting was carefully re-examined. What was revealed was entirely unexpected. It was clear that various figures including Mordaunt, the Nawab, Claude Martin, Benoit de Boigne (absent from the Hastings version), Marcus Sackville Taylor and others were done by Zoffany himself. Much of the background including the distant landscape and the sofa also seem to be by Zoffany. But most of the other Indian figures and some of the Europeans were clearly finished by an Indian hand, probably over Zoffany’s outlines. This suggests that when Zoffany left Lucknow for the last time early in 1789 he had still not completed the Nawab’s version (probably through lack of payment from the Nawab) and the Nawab then employed one of his local artists to finish it for him. More recent examination of these figures suggest that he is likely to have been an artist closely associated with the clever painter Nevasi Lal.
As with the Ashwick painting there has always been a certain degree of disagreement among scholars about our work. When previously offered for sale (Sotheby’s, London, 24 Nov. 2005, lot 78) any attribution to a possible artist or even school was left open. At the time there was confusion as to where this painting had been done – in India or back in London, and whether it derived solely from the original painting or alternatively after Earlom’s mezzotint print. Careful scrutiny of the details in the various versions reveals that our painting must derive from the Earlom mezzotint done in 1792 rather the original Hastings version – there is no doubt that the characterisation of the figures resembles those in the print rather than the original painting and there are numerous other details found in our painting that are included in the print but absent in the original. For instance Lieutenant Golding is shown seated on a red lined cushion as in the print but not shown in the original, and the Nawab’s green cummerbund appears in the print but not in the Hastings painting. The artist here must also have been familiar with the Nawab’s version – for instance Hasan Reza Khan’s vivid blue coat is identical in our painting and in the Nawab’s version (patterned in the Hastings painting); Mr Wheeler is shown here in a brown coat as in the Nawab’s version, whereas it is dove grey in the Hastings original, and the Nawab’s striped pyjamas are taken straight from the Nawab’s picture.
The present painting appears to have been done on thick handmade Indian paper and is unusual, in that it is on single large sheet. Paper making was recorded in the Indian Subcontinent as early as 7th century in Gilgit but it was generally unknown in India until the Muslim invasions. Paper manufacturing became widespread across Northern India following the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate in the 13th century. As early as the 15th century the Chinese traveller Ma Huan praised the high quality of the paper that was being produced in Bengal. By the 18th century, paper of exceptional quality was produced in many centres, and some consider that it far surpassed that made in Europe at the time. Careful examination of the painting reveals extensive under drawing in pencil over which the thin oil paint has been applied. This technique closely resembles the application of gouache or watercolour to interior Court scenes by Lucknow artists working for Asaf-ud-Daula. It is clearly not by Nevasi Lal, whose figures were entirely different from those shown here. We can only guess at other possible hands. There is evidence that the Delhi artist Lalji was working with and possibly assisting Zoffany in Lucknow in the mid-1780s. It is probable that he would have familiarised himself with the European technique of oil painting while working with Zoffany. While he seems to be the most probable artist to have done this work in the 1790s, absence of other comparable examples precludes any firm attribution.
Charles Greig, 8 September 2019
A second version of the Cock Match (done for the Nawab himself) was, until recently, thought to have been lost – it had been widely suggested that it was destroyed during the upheavals of 1857 in Lucknow. The so called Ashwick version (White’s Club) has been the subject of much disagreement over many years. Although Manners and Williamson, in their biography of Zoffany published in 1920, identified this work as by Zoffany (correctly as it now seems) almost everything else they wrote about it was inaccurate. Subsequently Mildred Archer attributed the work to Robert Home and others suggested that it was by a Company painter. At the time of the Zoffany retrospective exhibition at the Royal Academy in 2012 the painting was carefully re-examined. What was revealed was entirely unexpected. It was clear that various figures including Mordaunt, the Nawab, Claude Martin, Benoit de Boigne (absent from the Hastings version), Marcus Sackville Taylor and others were done by Zoffany himself. Much of the background including the distant landscape and the sofa also seem to be by Zoffany. But most of the other Indian figures and some of the Europeans were clearly finished by an Indian hand, probably over Zoffany’s outlines. This suggests that when Zoffany left Lucknow for the last time early in 1789 he had still not completed the Nawab’s version (probably through lack of payment from the Nawab) and the Nawab then employed one of his local artists to finish it for him. More recent examination of these figures suggest that he is likely to have been an artist closely associated with the clever painter Nevasi Lal.
As with the Ashwick painting there has always been a certain degree of disagreement among scholars about our work. When previously offered for sale (Sotheby’s, London, 24 Nov. 2005, lot 78) any attribution to a possible artist or even school was left open. At the time there was confusion as to where this painting had been done – in India or back in London, and whether it derived solely from the original painting or alternatively after Earlom’s mezzotint print. Careful scrutiny of the details in the various versions reveals that our painting must derive from the Earlom mezzotint done in 1792 rather the original Hastings version – there is no doubt that the characterisation of the figures resembles those in the print rather than the original painting and there are numerous other details found in our painting that are included in the print but absent in the original. For instance Lieutenant Golding is shown seated on a red lined cushion as in the print but not shown in the original, and the Nawab’s green cummerbund appears in the print but not in the Hastings painting. The artist here must also have been familiar with the Nawab’s version – for instance Hasan Reza Khan’s vivid blue coat is identical in our painting and in the Nawab’s version (patterned in the Hastings painting); Mr Wheeler is shown here in a brown coat as in the Nawab’s version, whereas it is dove grey in the Hastings original, and the Nawab’s striped pyjamas are taken straight from the Nawab’s picture.
The present painting appears to have been done on thick handmade Indian paper and is unusual, in that it is on single large sheet. Paper making was recorded in the Indian Subcontinent as early as 7th century in Gilgit but it was generally unknown in India until the Muslim invasions. Paper manufacturing became widespread across Northern India following the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate in the 13th century. As early as the 15th century the Chinese traveller Ma Huan praised the high quality of the paper that was being produced in Bengal. By the 18th century, paper of exceptional quality was produced in many centres, and some consider that it far surpassed that made in Europe at the time. Careful examination of the painting reveals extensive under drawing in pencil over which the thin oil paint has been applied. This technique closely resembles the application of gouache or watercolour to interior Court scenes by Lucknow artists working for Asaf-ud-Daula. It is clearly not by Nevasi Lal, whose figures were entirely different from those shown here. We can only guess at other possible hands. There is evidence that the Delhi artist Lalji was working with and possibly assisting Zoffany in Lucknow in the mid-1780s. It is probable that he would have familiarised himself with the European technique of oil painting while working with Zoffany. While he seems to be the most probable artist to have done this work in the 1790s, absence of other comparable examples precludes any firm attribution.
Charles Greig, 8 September 2019