.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
拍品專文
This painting is an important addition to a known group of closely related compositions of princes hunting lions from an elephant - first discussed in an essay by Robert Skelton in 1969 ("Two Mughal Lion Hunts", Victoria and Albert Yearbook, London, pp.33-50). The earliest painting from which the others derive depicts several princes, indicated by their aigrettes, hunting various quarry across the page. It is dated circa 1580-85 and is in the Cleveland Museum of Art (Linda York Leach, Indian Miniature Paintings and Drawings, Cleveland, 1986, no. 11, pp. 39-43; 1940.1197). This composition was then adapted to recast the prince on the elephant as Jahangir, who was known to be a keen hunter. There are four known examples of the Jahangir variation. They have subsequently been dated 1590-1600, sold in these Rooms 8 April 2008, lot 297; circa 1610, which is attributed to Farrukh Chela, Aga Khan Museum (AKM121); circa 1615, Aga Khan Museum (AKM161); and circa 1640-50, Bodleian Library (MS.Douce Or.A.1,f33a). Another painting of Prince Salim spearing a lion from an elephant, although with the composition flipped vertically, is in the Soudavar Collection (Abolala Soudavar, Art of the Persian Courts, New York, 1992 no. 130, pp. 322-33). According to Soudavar, the presence of Prince Danyal in the lower right, who is absent from other scenes, dates the painting to before 1601 (op.cit., p.322). It must be around this time that the adaption of the scene to include Jahangir occurred.
The present painting is most closely related to the Cleveland painting and is the only other example of the scene from before the inclusion of Jahangir and likely dates just slightly later. Our painting otherwise includes the same number of additional figures as the Cleveland painting and they are depicted with a similarly Persian-influenced appearance which Linda York Leach uses to help date the Cleveland version (op. cit., p.42). A further detail shared by the two paintings is the man fleeing up the tree in the upper right, who develops a turban on his head in subsequent versions. Where our painter makes a departure from the Cleveland painting is the identification of the protagonist. Rather than multiple princes as in the Cleveland painting or the protagonist being atop the elephant, like later versions, only the horseman here has an aigrette in his turban and this version is unique for that.
Our painting is also the only one to clearly depict tigers rather than lions. Robert Skelton writes that the lion hunt theme, from which this series developed, likely came from earlier Persian and Sassanian prototypes (op.cit., p.33). If the composition derived from earlier prototypes, rather than a specific historical incident, the inclusion of tigers in this version is an interesting quirk by our artist. Depictions of tiger hunts were generally favoured more in Rajput court painting which could make this an important early example in the Mughal context.
Another painting, formerly in the Heeramaneck collection is described by Linda York Leach as the "nearest approximation to the Cleveland composition" (op.cit., p.43). The current whereabouts of that painting is unknown. The main difference between the two is a building and one man which have been added to the former Heeramaneck painting. Our painting has a building in the upper left corner. There is no additional man but our painting has clearly been cropped and it is very feasible that there was an additional figure which has now been lost. She also writes that the other painting is the later version. It is tantalising to think that this is that missing painting.
The present painting is most closely related to the Cleveland painting and is the only other example of the scene from before the inclusion of Jahangir and likely dates just slightly later. Our painting otherwise includes the same number of additional figures as the Cleveland painting and they are depicted with a similarly Persian-influenced appearance which Linda York Leach uses to help date the Cleveland version (op. cit., p.42). A further detail shared by the two paintings is the man fleeing up the tree in the upper right, who develops a turban on his head in subsequent versions. Where our painter makes a departure from the Cleveland painting is the identification of the protagonist. Rather than multiple princes as in the Cleveland painting or the protagonist being atop the elephant, like later versions, only the horseman here has an aigrette in his turban and this version is unique for that.
Our painting is also the only one to clearly depict tigers rather than lions. Robert Skelton writes that the lion hunt theme, from which this series developed, likely came from earlier Persian and Sassanian prototypes (op.cit., p.33). If the composition derived from earlier prototypes, rather than a specific historical incident, the inclusion of tigers in this version is an interesting quirk by our artist. Depictions of tiger hunts were generally favoured more in Rajput court painting which could make this an important early example in the Mughal context.
Another painting, formerly in the Heeramaneck collection is described by Linda York Leach as the "nearest approximation to the Cleveland composition" (op.cit., p.43). The current whereabouts of that painting is unknown. The main difference between the two is a building and one man which have been added to the former Heeramaneck painting. Our painting has a building in the upper left corner. There is no additional man but our painting has clearly been cropped and it is very feasible that there was an additional figure which has now been lost. She also writes that the other painting is the later version. It is tantalising to think that this is that missing painting.