Thomas Daniell, R.A. (1749-1840) and William Daniell, R.A. (1769-1837)

Part of the Palace within the Fort of Allahabad

细节
Thomas Daniell, R.A. (1749-1840) and William Daniell, R.A. (1769-1837)
Part of the Palace within the Fort of Allahabad
inscribed 'The AMNABAD part of the PALACE, in the FORT of ALLAHABAD' (on the artists' original mount, overmounted) and further inscribed and numbered 'N - 3 The Amnabad Interior part of the Palace/Allahabad-' (on the reverse of the artists' original mount)
pencil and watercolour, watermark 'J. WHATMAN' within a black-lined border, on the artists' original mount
19 5/8 x 29 5/8in. (49.8 x 75.3cm.)
展览
Commonwealth Institute, 1960, no.26.
Spink, 1974, no.32.
London, The National Portrait Gallery, The Raj, India and The British 1600-1947, 19 October 1990 - 17 March 1991, no.82.
刻印
T. Daniell, aquatint engraving, September 1795, for Oriental Scenery, vol.I, no.8.

拍品专文

The building shown is a palace pavilion, probably part of the women's quarters, within the fort of Allahabad (see lot 42), built in 1583. It is square in plan, subdivided in the interior into nine rectangular apartments, the whole enclosed on the exterior by a deep veranda. The roof of the veranda forms one terrace, and the roof of the hall another, with small square kiosks at the corners. A famous building of Akbar's reign, it is typical of his experimentation with indigenous architectural styles, akin to the palace at Fatehpur Sikri built a decade earlier. The result is one of the finest of Indian halls, comparable to that built by Man Singh in the Amber Palace in the 1620s. Others besides the Daniells have admired it: indeed, the Daniells heard an alarming rumour about the extent of the Nawab of Avadh's liking for it:

'Since this view was drawn, the Nabob of Oud has ordered the whole building to be taken down and carried to Lucknow [his capital], with the intention, it is said, to be again erected in that city, a circumstance much to be lamented' (Oriental Scenery).

This plan was not carried out, and later it was the British who desecrated it, as recalled by James Fergusson:

'It was turned into an arsenal; a brick wall was run up between its outer colonnades with windows of English architecture, and its curious pavilions and other accompaniments removed; and internally, whatever could not be conveniently cut away was completely covered up with plaster and whitewash, and hid by stands of arms and deal fittings' (Fergusson, 1876, vol.II, p.298).

It is much admired today, no doubt, by members of the Indian army, who do not permit visitors to see it. The Daniells' picture is therefore doubly important: both as a work in itself and as a record of the original form of a building now very rarely seen. (For further notes on its recent condition, see Ebba Koch, 1991, pp.61-2.)