.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This is an important double-sided folio from the well-known album known as the "St. Petersberg Muraqqa". On one side is a Mughal painting derived from a European print and on the other are three specimens by the Safavid master calligrapher Imad al-Hassani. The margins and borders of both sides are splendidly decorated by the leading painters of the Afsharid court.
The painting is an Indian reimagining of a Sadeler engraving Amore Letheo (see Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, RP-P-0B-35.686), which itself derives from the painting Amori by Franck Pauwels, circa 1585-89, which is in the Kunst Historisches Museum, Vienna (Gemäldegalerie, 2363). Our artist has carefully studied the source, including the overall composition, before giving the women Indian heads and embellishing them with luxurious gem-set necklaces, bracelets and bazubands. The artist further transforms the scene into one more familiar to a Mughal audience with the addition of the group of four ladies sat on the far bank which departs from the grouped figures in the Amore Letheo. Two women sit listening to a third playing music and the fourth, sat slightly apart from the others, smokes a huqqa. Compared to the six women depicted in the manner of the source material, this group of four are far more in keeping with Mughal painting. Another study of the Sadeler image is in the Musée Guimet, Paris (Inv. No. MA1032;P221). Dated to the mid-eighteenth century (Welch 1983, no.79), it shows three of the women from the same engraving - only one fully painted - but situated in a more compact arrangement than our painting.
As is the case for many paintings in the St. Petersburg muraqqa the painting has been later extended on the left and right sides to fit the format of the margins. However, our painting may be the only one where the painting extensions have been signed, in this case "Mahmud". It is unlikely that this is the identity of the original painter because it is most plausible that the extensions were created at the time of mounting the works in the Afsharid margins and borders, even if the curation of some of the paintings had been decided in the Muhammad Shah iteration of the album. If Mahmud was responsible for extending the paintings in the Mashhad atelier, why did he not sign others? Or could Mahmud be an attribution that the painting came with - either documented or verbally - when it arrived in Iran with the rest of the material from Muhammad Shah's library?
The painting was almost certainly placed opposite a similar painting from a folio of the St. Petersburg Muraqqa which was sold in these Rooms, 25 April 2013, lot 49 (and previously Sotheby's London, 12 October 1990, lot 130). That painting, similarly dated to 1680, depicts eight women at a riverbank bathing, washing clothes and fetching water, however they are being watched by Krishna who is hiding in the trees (in a manner reminiscent of the well-known episode of Krishna spying on the gopis). As per the intended layout of the muraqqa both paintings are set within beautiful matching floral margins against a brilliant gold ground. The margins on our folio as well as the pendant folio are signed by Muhammad Baqir, one of the three artists known to have worked on the decoration and composition of the St. Petersburg muraqqa alongside Muhammad Hadi and Muhammad Sadiq. Muhammad Baqir signed twenty-five margins of the known folios but the majority of the minor borders on a crimson ground can also be attributed to him (Ivanov in Arte et al. 1996, p.28). For a full description of Muhammad Baqir and his work refer to the note for lot 88.
Muhammad Hadi carried out the majority of the work on the margins but was responsible for all the gold illuminated blue margins around the calligraphic panels, of which eighty-two are signed and dated between 1747-59. Little is known of the life and work of Muhammad Hadi, but B.W. Robinson confirms that a man of that name was seen in Shiraz on the 10th September 1821 by the English traveller Claudius Rich who described him as a very old man who no longer practiced his art (Robinson 1967, no.94, p.78), although this could have been a different Muhammad Hadi. It is worth mentioning that he also described him as amongst "the most distinguished artists in Persia passionately fond of flowers" (Robinson 1967, p.78). If the Muhammad Hadi in Rich's account and the artist who worked on the St. Petersburg Muraqqa are the same, then he would have been over ninety years old on Rich's sighting. This means he would have been relatively young when he undertook the commission for this album which would reflect his talent as an artist to have the status to have been invited to work on such a project at a young age (Arte et al. 1996, p.27). Diba records him as an illuminator who specialized in floral designs. He is also known to have worked on a number of other works including a qalamdan which was formerly in the Niyavaran Palace Collection and which is dated AH 1148 / 1735-36 AD and many single leaves of narcissus, carnations and roses (Diba 1989, p.154).
All the calligraphic specimens in the St. Petersburg Muraqqa are the work of Mir Imad al-Hassani, whose signature is found on two of the three specimens found here. Two of the specimens are siyah mashq, one of which is signed (al-haqir al-mudhnib imad al-hasani ibn ibrahim). The unsigned specimen contains verses from Jami's Yusuf wa Zulaykha, written over a ground of nasta'liq which includes a line from a ghazal by Amir Khusraw. The third specimen is in nasta'liq. It is also signed (al-faqir imad al-hasani) and contains text from the Munajat of Khwaja Abdullah Ansari.
Considered one of the three colossi of Persian calligraphy (Akimushkin in Arte et al 1996, p. 40), Mir Imad was born around the year AH 961 / 1553-4 AD in Qazwin, the capital of Safavid Iran. He moved to Tabriz where he was apprenticed to the master Muhammad Husayn Tabrizi, moving back to the capital on completion of his studies with Malik Daylami in AH 981 / 1573-4 AD. As was customary, he travelled as an itinerant craftsman before becoming appointed as personal calligrapher to Shah Abbas after the relocation of the capital to Isfahan in 1597-98. He would later suffer from court intrigues, losing favour and was murdered in AH 1024 / 1615-16 AD by an agent of the Shah.
As is the case for the present lot, the majority of paintings in the St. Petersburg Muraqqa are from Mughal India and date between the mid-16th century and shortly before 1739 when Nadir Shah Afshar (r. 1736-1747) sacked Delhi. A smaller number of paintings are from 17th and 18th century Iran. The exact circumstances of the album's commission are unknown but the album is thought to have been assembled in Afsharid Mashhad between 1747-59 (despite the binding by renowned lacquer artist Ali Ashraf being dated slightly earlier) during the period of relative stability of Nadir Shah's grandson Shahrukh (1748-96). Since Shahrukh was blinded in 1750 the most likely patron is Mirza Mahdi Khan Astarabadi, Nadir Shah's biographer and trusted secretary (Fraser 2021, pp.187-88). Perhaps Asterabadi intended to use the album as a triumphant memorial to the victories of Nadir Shah through the assembling of his exquisite artistic spolia and therefore establish cultural and political legitimacy for Afsharid rule (Botchkareva 2018). Nonetheless, unfinished folios indicate that the project was never completed, probably due to the death of Astarabadi, which occurred sometime between 1759 and 1768, and the resulting disintegration of the atelier in Mashhad (Fraser 2021, p.188).
The album remained in Iran until the early 20th century when material from the Qajar Royal Library was being sold (Archives 1909, p.6). A large group of folios and the original binding were bought by Tsar Nicholas II and sent to the Museum of Alexander III, St Petersburg, giving the album the name it is now known by (first published by Ivanov et al. 1962). At least twenty six folios are in European or American private or public collections. In 1912 the Metropolitan Museum purchased one leaf which appears to be the earliest known provenance not in St. Petersburg. Another six important folios were then sold to the Freer Gallery, Washington D.C. in 1931.
The known folios are unpaginated and a number of those recognised more recently have been split but efforts have been made reconstitute the album and its structure (Arte et al 1996; Adamova, 2008). We do know that the manuscript runs in bifolios of matching marginal decoration comprising two facing paintings alternating with bifolios of calligraphic samples. Adamova proposes chapter-like groupings consisting of: royal audience scenes, battles and hunts, imperial portraiture, royal gatherings with holy men, genre scenes, and finishing with bird, animal and plant paintings. The present lot is grouped with the genre scenes, many of which are derived from European prints and models. It is likely that many of the Indian paintings were previously organised and mounted in pairs prior to moving to Iran with early iterations of the final album existing under Shah Jahan and later Muhammad Shah. The influence of European artistic models is evident in the painting mounted in our folio and others from the surrounding section of the album. Interestingly Adamova also suggests that the curation and ordering of the album was also influenced by European prints because the seventeenth century volumes of Netherlandish engravings so loved by Jahangir and Shah Jahan were curated by subject-matter and not by artist or period (Adamova 2008, p. 97).
Other than the aforementioned folios, other folios from the St. Petersburg Muraqqa are in the Musee du Louvre, Paris (no. 7.171), the Royal Ontario Museum (no. 924.12.146) and the Art and History Trust Collection (Soudavar 1992, no. 131). Further pages have been sold at auction. These include one sold in these Rooms 21 April 2016, lot 19; 26 April 2012, lot 319; 25 April 2013, lot 49; two sold 8 October 1991, lots 50-51;. A calligraphic folio from the album sold 25 April 2013, lot 49. Most recently a folio was sold at Bonhams, London, 12 November 2024, lot 155.
The painting is an Indian reimagining of a Sadeler engraving Amore Letheo (see Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, RP-P-0B-35.686), which itself derives from the painting Amori by Franck Pauwels, circa 1585-89, which is in the Kunst Historisches Museum, Vienna (Gemäldegalerie, 2363). Our artist has carefully studied the source, including the overall composition, before giving the women Indian heads and embellishing them with luxurious gem-set necklaces, bracelets and bazubands. The artist further transforms the scene into one more familiar to a Mughal audience with the addition of the group of four ladies sat on the far bank which departs from the grouped figures in the Amore Letheo. Two women sit listening to a third playing music and the fourth, sat slightly apart from the others, smokes a huqqa. Compared to the six women depicted in the manner of the source material, this group of four are far more in keeping with Mughal painting. Another study of the Sadeler image is in the Musée Guimet, Paris (Inv. No. MA1032;P221). Dated to the mid-eighteenth century (Welch 1983, no.79), it shows three of the women from the same engraving - only one fully painted - but situated in a more compact arrangement than our painting.
As is the case for many paintings in the St. Petersburg muraqqa the painting has been later extended on the left and right sides to fit the format of the margins. However, our painting may be the only one where the painting extensions have been signed, in this case "Mahmud". It is unlikely that this is the identity of the original painter because it is most plausible that the extensions were created at the time of mounting the works in the Afsharid margins and borders, even if the curation of some of the paintings had been decided in the Muhammad Shah iteration of the album. If Mahmud was responsible for extending the paintings in the Mashhad atelier, why did he not sign others? Or could Mahmud be an attribution that the painting came with - either documented or verbally - when it arrived in Iran with the rest of the material from Muhammad Shah's library?
The painting was almost certainly placed opposite a similar painting from a folio of the St. Petersburg Muraqqa which was sold in these Rooms, 25 April 2013, lot 49 (and previously Sotheby's London, 12 October 1990, lot 130). That painting, similarly dated to 1680, depicts eight women at a riverbank bathing, washing clothes and fetching water, however they are being watched by Krishna who is hiding in the trees (in a manner reminiscent of the well-known episode of Krishna spying on the gopis). As per the intended layout of the muraqqa both paintings are set within beautiful matching floral margins against a brilliant gold ground. The margins on our folio as well as the pendant folio are signed by Muhammad Baqir, one of the three artists known to have worked on the decoration and composition of the St. Petersburg muraqqa alongside Muhammad Hadi and Muhammad Sadiq. Muhammad Baqir signed twenty-five margins of the known folios but the majority of the minor borders on a crimson ground can also be attributed to him (Ivanov in Arte et al. 1996, p.28). For a full description of Muhammad Baqir and his work refer to the note for lot 88.
Muhammad Hadi carried out the majority of the work on the margins but was responsible for all the gold illuminated blue margins around the calligraphic panels, of which eighty-two are signed and dated between 1747-59. Little is known of the life and work of Muhammad Hadi, but B.W. Robinson confirms that a man of that name was seen in Shiraz on the 10th September 1821 by the English traveller Claudius Rich who described him as a very old man who no longer practiced his art (Robinson 1967, no.94, p.78), although this could have been a different Muhammad Hadi. It is worth mentioning that he also described him as amongst "the most distinguished artists in Persia passionately fond of flowers" (Robinson 1967, p.78). If the Muhammad Hadi in Rich's account and the artist who worked on the St. Petersburg Muraqqa are the same, then he would have been over ninety years old on Rich's sighting. This means he would have been relatively young when he undertook the commission for this album which would reflect his talent as an artist to have the status to have been invited to work on such a project at a young age (Arte et al. 1996, p.27). Diba records him as an illuminator who specialized in floral designs. He is also known to have worked on a number of other works including a qalamdan which was formerly in the Niyavaran Palace Collection and which is dated AH 1148 / 1735-36 AD and many single leaves of narcissus, carnations and roses (Diba 1989, p.154).
All the calligraphic specimens in the St. Petersburg Muraqqa are the work of Mir Imad al-Hassani, whose signature is found on two of the three specimens found here. Two of the specimens are siyah mashq, one of which is signed (al-haqir al-mudhnib imad al-hasani ibn ibrahim). The unsigned specimen contains verses from Jami's Yusuf wa Zulaykha, written over a ground of nasta'liq which includes a line from a ghazal by Amir Khusraw. The third specimen is in nasta'liq. It is also signed (al-faqir imad al-hasani) and contains text from the Munajat of Khwaja Abdullah Ansari.
Considered one of the three colossi of Persian calligraphy (Akimushkin in Arte et al 1996, p. 40), Mir Imad was born around the year AH 961 / 1553-4 AD in Qazwin, the capital of Safavid Iran. He moved to Tabriz where he was apprenticed to the master Muhammad Husayn Tabrizi, moving back to the capital on completion of his studies with Malik Daylami in AH 981 / 1573-4 AD. As was customary, he travelled as an itinerant craftsman before becoming appointed as personal calligrapher to Shah Abbas after the relocation of the capital to Isfahan in 1597-98. He would later suffer from court intrigues, losing favour and was murdered in AH 1024 / 1615-16 AD by an agent of the Shah.
As is the case for the present lot, the majority of paintings in the St. Petersburg Muraqqa are from Mughal India and date between the mid-16th century and shortly before 1739 when Nadir Shah Afshar (r. 1736-1747) sacked Delhi. A smaller number of paintings are from 17th and 18th century Iran. The exact circumstances of the album's commission are unknown but the album is thought to have been assembled in Afsharid Mashhad between 1747-59 (despite the binding by renowned lacquer artist Ali Ashraf being dated slightly earlier) during the period of relative stability of Nadir Shah's grandson Shahrukh (1748-96). Since Shahrukh was blinded in 1750 the most likely patron is Mirza Mahdi Khan Astarabadi, Nadir Shah's biographer and trusted secretary (Fraser 2021, pp.187-88). Perhaps Asterabadi intended to use the album as a triumphant memorial to the victories of Nadir Shah through the assembling of his exquisite artistic spolia and therefore establish cultural and political legitimacy for Afsharid rule (Botchkareva 2018). Nonetheless, unfinished folios indicate that the project was never completed, probably due to the death of Astarabadi, which occurred sometime between 1759 and 1768, and the resulting disintegration of the atelier in Mashhad (Fraser 2021, p.188).
The album remained in Iran until the early 20th century when material from the Qajar Royal Library was being sold (Archives 1909, p.6). A large group of folios and the original binding were bought by Tsar Nicholas II and sent to the Museum of Alexander III, St Petersburg, giving the album the name it is now known by (first published by Ivanov et al. 1962). At least twenty six folios are in European or American private or public collections. In 1912 the Metropolitan Museum purchased one leaf which appears to be the earliest known provenance not in St. Petersburg. Another six important folios were then sold to the Freer Gallery, Washington D.C. in 1931.
The known folios are unpaginated and a number of those recognised more recently have been split but efforts have been made reconstitute the album and its structure (Arte et al 1996; Adamova, 2008). We do know that the manuscript runs in bifolios of matching marginal decoration comprising two facing paintings alternating with bifolios of calligraphic samples. Adamova proposes chapter-like groupings consisting of: royal audience scenes, battles and hunts, imperial portraiture, royal gatherings with holy men, genre scenes, and finishing with bird, animal and plant paintings. The present lot is grouped with the genre scenes, many of which are derived from European prints and models. It is likely that many of the Indian paintings were previously organised and mounted in pairs prior to moving to Iran with early iterations of the final album existing under Shah Jahan and later Muhammad Shah. The influence of European artistic models is evident in the painting mounted in our folio and others from the surrounding section of the album. Interestingly Adamova also suggests that the curation and ordering of the album was also influenced by European prints because the seventeenth century volumes of Netherlandish engravings so loved by Jahangir and Shah Jahan were curated by subject-matter and not by artist or period (Adamova 2008, p. 97).
Other than the aforementioned folios, other folios from the St. Petersburg Muraqqa are in the Musee du Louvre, Paris (no. 7.171), the Royal Ontario Museum (no. 924.12.146) and the Art and History Trust Collection (Soudavar 1992, no. 131). Further pages have been sold at auction. These include one sold in these Rooms 21 April 2016, lot 19; 26 April 2012, lot 319; 25 April 2013, lot 49; two sold 8 October 1991, lots 50-51;. A calligraphic folio from the album sold 25 April 2013, lot 49. Most recently a folio was sold at Bonhams, London, 12 November 2024, lot 155.