.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The inscription band around the rim on the interior is parts of a Persian quatrain followed by an arabic saying and ending with the signature:
har ... tora khass-e khoda'i
... yak dust nadari
keh be-nazdash ... dari
... .... avari
to az zaman bizari ...
'azza man qana'a wa dhalla man tama'a
katabahu Abi(?) ....
(every ..., You are special to God
It is ... that you have no friends
Whom being with ... you have ...
.... bring.....
You are vexed with time ...
... In ... sorrow ...
Powerful is the one who is content, and contemptible is the one who is greedy ).
written by Ab.....
Under the throne on the interior are parts of a Persian quatrain followed by the date:
... delam be-'afiyat darin bud
dastam ze ... bud
[dar]in vaqe'e-ye 'eshq to ey jan-e jahan
divanegi-o ... [dar]khor bud
kutibahu fi shawwal li-sana arba'a wa sab'in wa khamsa mi'a hijriyya
(...of my heart, in well-being was thus
My hand was ...
In this encounter of love, Oh the soul of the world
Madness, and ... was becoming.
It was written in Shawwal of the year five hundred and seventy-five (March-April 1180 AD).
The kufic around the rim is a repetition of the words al-'izz wa (glory and).
The exterior also has a Persian quatrain followed by another date:
... ja'i ke man miskinam
bar khiz ... to ke man benshinam
sar gashteh-am-o sezay-e sad chandinam
ta bi to chera jahan-e ... binam
kutibahu fi shawwal li-sana arba'a wa sab'in wa khamsa mi'a hijriyya
(... of yours is where I am wretched
Get up ... you ... so that I can sit
I am bewildered, and I deserve a hundred times more
So that without you, why should I see the ... World
It was written in Shawwal of the year five hundred and seventy-four of the hijra (March-April, 1179 AD).
This remarkable bowl relates very closely to another which was sold in these Rooms 19 April 1999, lot 488. Although the present bowl is larger, they both share a very similar composition with a single figure to the left addressing a group of figures enthroned together filling the centre and right hand portion of the bowl. Both have a lengthy two-line inscription below the main composition with the date of 575 written in somewhat more cursory script below that. Each has an outer border design of intricately knotted stylised kufic, and each is decorated under the foot. The identical date would help to indicate that, since the compositions and execution are so similar, they are the work of the same hand.
The catalogue entry to the previous bowl attributed it to the painter Abu Zaid, whose work in enamelled colours was identified by Oliver Watson ('Documentary Mina'i and Abu Zaid's Bowls', in Hillenbrand, Robert (ed.): The Art of the Saljuqs in Iran and Anatolia, Costa Mesa, California, 1994, pp.170-180) and whose lustre ware was also discussed by the same author (Persian Lustre Ware, London, 1985, various references). Dr. Watson, in a private communication, said that he thought that the previous bowl was by a contemporary, comparable, but different potter. The present bowl has a couple of features which also link it to the known work of Abu Zaid. The throne is of exactly the same construction as that shown on three mina'i bowls published by Watson, one in the Metropolitan Museum signed by Abu Zaid and dated 4th Muharram 582, one, unsigned, in the British Museum dated Muharram 582 and the third also unsigned in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art bearing the same date as the British Museum example (mina'i, pls.161 and 165 and 166). On bell-shaped feet, each upright has an unusual section taken out of the external side. The faces of each figure are also each drawn with two lines which meet at the chin. The drawing appears to be a little more careful here than in the Abu Zaid mina'i wares; all the eyes here are well balanced and on the same level, something which is often not the case with the mina'i pieces. Maybe however this is just an indication of the fact that by the time Abu Zaid was producing the mina'i bowls, he had been reproducing similar designs for at least eight years! In addition to these points, there are a number of similarities with the main corpus of Abu Zaid bowls which were already noted in the previous bowl's catalogue entry. The basic composition of people, the headdresses of the principle figures, the triangular upper corners to the throne cover, the main inscription below the figures, creating a horizontal line for the base of the composition, all compare readlily from these two lustre bowls to the mina'i group. Finally there is the question of the signature on the present bowl. Unfortunately the piece bearing the vital name is one of the few fragments whose glaze has considerably suffered. It is all but impossible to read. After the clear word kutibahu the beginning alif and be are legible. It appears to continue into a ye, but since the script is by no means clear, and the style is so close to that of Abu Zaid as noted above, it seems highly probable that the glaze corrosion is playing confusing tricks.
It is interesting that the two dates on the interior and exterior are exactly a year apart, being in the month of Shawwal 575 (interior) and 575 (exterior). Why this should be is difficult to explain; it seems highly unlikely that a bowl would sit on a shelf unfired but with the exterior decoration completed for a year. But any other explanation ventures even further into the realms of insupportable hypothesis. What is clear is that the date on the exterior is the earliest date recorded on a piece of Persian lustre fritware, and it shows the technique and decorative competence to be very well developed indeed. It makes one wonder where all the earlier examples are, on the experience of which masterpieces like the present bowl could be created.
har ... tora khass-e khoda'i
... yak dust nadari
keh be-nazdash ... dari
... .... avari
to az zaman bizari ...
'azza man qana'a wa dhalla man tama'a
katabahu Abi(?) ....
(every ..., You are special to God
It is ... that you have no friends
Whom being with ... you have ...
.... bring.....
You are vexed with time ...
... In ... sorrow ...
Powerful is the one who is content, and contemptible is the one who is greedy ).
written by Ab.....
Under the throne on the interior are parts of a Persian quatrain followed by the date:
... delam be-'afiyat darin bud
dastam ze ... bud
[dar]in vaqe'e-ye 'eshq to ey jan-e jahan
divanegi-o ... [dar]khor bud
kutibahu fi shawwal li-sana arba'a wa sab'in wa khamsa mi'a hijriyya
(...of my heart, in well-being was thus
My hand was ...
In this encounter of love, Oh the soul of the world
Madness, and ... was becoming.
It was written in Shawwal of the year five hundred and seventy-five (March-April 1180 AD).
The kufic around the rim is a repetition of the words al-'izz wa (glory and).
The exterior also has a Persian quatrain followed by another date:
... ja'i ke man miskinam
bar khiz ... to ke man benshinam
sar gashteh-am-o sezay-e sad chandinam
ta bi to chera jahan-e ... binam
kutibahu fi shawwal li-sana arba'a wa sab'in wa khamsa mi'a hijriyya
(... of yours is where I am wretched
Get up ... you ... so that I can sit
I am bewildered, and I deserve a hundred times more
So that without you, why should I see the ... World
It was written in Shawwal of the year five hundred and seventy-four of the hijra (March-April, 1179 AD).
This remarkable bowl relates very closely to another which was sold in these Rooms 19 April 1999, lot 488. Although the present bowl is larger, they both share a very similar composition with a single figure to the left addressing a group of figures enthroned together filling the centre and right hand portion of the bowl. Both have a lengthy two-line inscription below the main composition with the date of 575 written in somewhat more cursory script below that. Each has an outer border design of intricately knotted stylised kufic, and each is decorated under the foot. The identical date would help to indicate that, since the compositions and execution are so similar, they are the work of the same hand.
The catalogue entry to the previous bowl attributed it to the painter Abu Zaid, whose work in enamelled colours was identified by Oliver Watson ('Documentary Mina'i and Abu Zaid's Bowls', in Hillenbrand, Robert (ed.): The Art of the Saljuqs in Iran and Anatolia, Costa Mesa, California, 1994, pp.170-180) and whose lustre ware was also discussed by the same author (Persian Lustre Ware, London, 1985, various references). Dr. Watson, in a private communication, said that he thought that the previous bowl was by a contemporary, comparable, but different potter. The present bowl has a couple of features which also link it to the known work of Abu Zaid. The throne is of exactly the same construction as that shown on three mina'i bowls published by Watson, one in the Metropolitan Museum signed by Abu Zaid and dated 4th Muharram 582, one, unsigned, in the British Museum dated Muharram 582 and the third also unsigned in the Los Angeles County Museum of Art bearing the same date as the British Museum example (mina'i, pls.161 and 165 and 166). On bell-shaped feet, each upright has an unusual section taken out of the external side. The faces of each figure are also each drawn with two lines which meet at the chin. The drawing appears to be a little more careful here than in the Abu Zaid mina'i wares; all the eyes here are well balanced and on the same level, something which is often not the case with the mina'i pieces. Maybe however this is just an indication of the fact that by the time Abu Zaid was producing the mina'i bowls, he had been reproducing similar designs for at least eight years! In addition to these points, there are a number of similarities with the main corpus of Abu Zaid bowls which were already noted in the previous bowl's catalogue entry. The basic composition of people, the headdresses of the principle figures, the triangular upper corners to the throne cover, the main inscription below the figures, creating a horizontal line for the base of the composition, all compare readlily from these two lustre bowls to the mina'i group. Finally there is the question of the signature on the present bowl. Unfortunately the piece bearing the vital name is one of the few fragments whose glaze has considerably suffered. It is all but impossible to read. After the clear word kutibahu the beginning alif and be are legible. It appears to continue into a ye, but since the script is by no means clear, and the style is so close to that of Abu Zaid as noted above, it seems highly probable that the glaze corrosion is playing confusing tricks.
It is interesting that the two dates on the interior and exterior are exactly a year apart, being in the month of Shawwal 575 (interior) and 575 (exterior). Why this should be is difficult to explain; it seems highly unlikely that a bowl would sit on a shelf unfired but with the exterior decoration completed for a year. But any other explanation ventures even further into the realms of insupportable hypothesis. What is clear is that the date on the exterior is the earliest date recorded on a piece of Persian lustre fritware, and it shows the technique and decorative competence to be very well developed indeed. It makes one wonder where all the earlier examples are, on the experience of which masterpieces like the present bowl could be created.