.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
This is an important portrait by Mu‘in Musavvir of Shah Abbas’s court poet and royal physician. Like lot 85, it clearly demonstrates the artist’s remarkable interest in historical referencing through his paintings and his enduring urge to pay tribute to his teacher Reza Abbasi.
The portrait depicts a male figure with a distinctive face, sitting cross-legged, his right arm held across his body gripping his left arm in a somewhat unusual pose. In front of him are a pen-case, an inkwell, a pair of scribe’s scissors and two closed manuscripts, all indicating a literary connection. There are three very informative inscriptions. The inscription directly below the figure’s legs, in Mu‘in’s hand, gives the signature and date of 15 Muharram AH 1085 / 21 April 1674 AD. The inscription near the lower left edge, also in Mu‘in’s hand, states that the portrait was based on an original by Reza from AH 1044 / 1634-5 AD. At the top of the page is an inscription in a different hand stating that this is a portrait of the “Plato of the Age, Hakim Shifa’i”.
Hakim Shifa’i was one of the royal physicians to Shah Abbas I (r.1588-1629 AD). According to the contemporary chronicler Iskandar Beg Munshi (quoted in Canby 1998, pp.88-89), he came from a medical family in Isfahan, was also a well-known and talented poet who was appointed poet laureate and was a favourite of Shah Abbas. He was mentioned by many contemporary and later historians and commentators, including Iskandar Beg Munshi, Sadiqi Beg and Reza Quli Khan. Most sources give his date of death as 5 Ramadan AH 1037 / 9 May 1628 AD (see de Bruijn, EI2, “SHIFA’I”).
We know from several other examples that Mu‘in was in the habit of painting his own versions of works by his master Reza Abbasi (see, for example, discussion of lot 85 in this sale, see also Rendlova 2015, figs.5-6). In the present case there are four possible candidates for the Reza original of Hakim Shifa’i that Mu‘in refers to in the inscription, some of which have been discussed by scholars in the past (see Soudavar 1992, pp.262-4; Canby 1998, pp.87-8; Rendlova 2015). One is in the British Museum, 1920,0917,0.298.2. It is a fully coloured version and is inscribed with Reza’s name but no date, but the authenticity of the signature has been question by Stchoukine and Titley, and rejected by Canby (1996, p.208, no.33). A second is in the Bibliothèque National, Paris Mss or. Suppl. Persan 1572, f.3). Francis Richards has read the mostly erased inscription as mentioning Reza and the date 1043 AH/1633-4 AD (Richard 1997, pp.207, 218, no.150). A third is in the National Gallery in Prague (inv. VM 1165) and bears the date AH 1038 / 1628-9 AD (see Rendlova 2015, figs.1-4). Rendlova suggested that the Prague version is the original by Reza referred to by Mu‘in in the present work. However, it does not have a signature of Reza and the inscription is not in a hand typically found on Reza’s accepted works, and furthermore the date (AH 1038⁄1628-29 AD) does not accord with the date of the Reza original referenced by Mu‘in on the present painting. A fourth, heretofore unrecognised and unpublished version, is a drawing in one of the albums in the Topkapi Saray Library in Istanbul (TSK H. 2146). It bears an inscription naming Reza Abbasi and the date Rajab AH 1036 / April-May 1627 AD. Like the Prague example, it was thus executed within the lifetime of the Hakim Shifa’i himself, although, like the Prague and Paris examples, the date does not accord with the date of the Reza original referenced by Mu‘in on the present painting.
Close observation of these four works reveals that they appear closer to the style of followers of Reza rather than that of the master. Regarding the Paris example, despite the fact that one of the erased inscriptions appears to name Reza and the date of AH 1043 / 1632 AD, there is a further erased inscription below the figure’s legs, where a date ending “87” is legible and a “1” is faintly visible, suggesting an additional date of 1087 (1676-7). The definitive original model for the present work thus remains as yet unidentified, and may well be lost. Nevertheless, this complex pictorial web involving Reza Abbasi, Mu‘in Musavvir and these various iterations of the portrait of Hakim Shifa’i is an important and absorbing aspect of the rich tapestry of 17th century Persian painting.
A further notable aspect of the present work is that the borders are the same as those of the well-known Mu‘in portrait of Reza in Princeton (Garrett no. 96G, see discussion of the Princeton painting in lot 85), and the two works were clearly part of the same album. Canby suggested that this may indicate that in the 1670s Mu‘in was asked to prepare an album depicting famous figures from Shah Abbas’s reign (Canby 1998, p.88). However, the borders are of 19th century origin, so although the two pictures must have been in the same album during the Qajar period, they were not necessarily part of the same album in the 17th century. However, they were probably part of the same collection in the early 20th century, because both the present work and the Princeton portrait were with the London bookseller Bernard Quaritch in 1935 (see Arnold 1935; Kuhnel 1942). The present painting was then purchased by Hagop Kevorkian, while the Princeton work was acquired by Robert Garrett, who donated it to his alma mater in 1942.
The portrait depicts a male figure with a distinctive face, sitting cross-legged, his right arm held across his body gripping his left arm in a somewhat unusual pose. In front of him are a pen-case, an inkwell, a pair of scribe’s scissors and two closed manuscripts, all indicating a literary connection. There are three very informative inscriptions. The inscription directly below the figure’s legs, in Mu‘in’s hand, gives the signature and date of 15 Muharram AH 1085 / 21 April 1674 AD. The inscription near the lower left edge, also in Mu‘in’s hand, states that the portrait was based on an original by Reza from AH 1044 / 1634-5 AD. At the top of the page is an inscription in a different hand stating that this is a portrait of the “Plato of the Age, Hakim Shifa’i”.
Hakim Shifa’i was one of the royal physicians to Shah Abbas I (r.1588-1629 AD). According to the contemporary chronicler Iskandar Beg Munshi (quoted in Canby 1998, pp.88-89), he came from a medical family in Isfahan, was also a well-known and talented poet who was appointed poet laureate and was a favourite of Shah Abbas. He was mentioned by many contemporary and later historians and commentators, including Iskandar Beg Munshi, Sadiqi Beg and Reza Quli Khan. Most sources give his date of death as 5 Ramadan AH 1037 / 9 May 1628 AD (see de Bruijn, EI2, “SHIFA’I”).
We know from several other examples that Mu‘in was in the habit of painting his own versions of works by his master Reza Abbasi (see, for example, discussion of lot 85 in this sale, see also Rendlova 2015, figs.5-6). In the present case there are four possible candidates for the Reza original of Hakim Shifa’i that Mu‘in refers to in the inscription, some of which have been discussed by scholars in the past (see Soudavar 1992, pp.262-4; Canby 1998, pp.87-8; Rendlova 2015). One is in the British Museum, 1920,0917,0.298.2. It is a fully coloured version and is inscribed with Reza’s name but no date, but the authenticity of the signature has been question by Stchoukine and Titley, and rejected by Canby (1996, p.208, no.33). A second is in the Bibliothèque National, Paris Mss or. Suppl. Persan 1572, f.3). Francis Richards has read the mostly erased inscription as mentioning Reza and the date 1043 AH/1633-4 AD (Richard 1997, pp.207, 218, no.150). A third is in the National Gallery in Prague (inv. VM 1165) and bears the date AH 1038 / 1628-9 AD (see Rendlova 2015, figs.1-4). Rendlova suggested that the Prague version is the original by Reza referred to by Mu‘in in the present work. However, it does not have a signature of Reza and the inscription is not in a hand typically found on Reza’s accepted works, and furthermore the date (AH 1038⁄1628-29 AD) does not accord with the date of the Reza original referenced by Mu‘in on the present painting. A fourth, heretofore unrecognised and unpublished version, is a drawing in one of the albums in the Topkapi Saray Library in Istanbul (TSK H. 2146). It bears an inscription naming Reza Abbasi and the date Rajab AH 1036 / April-May 1627 AD. Like the Prague example, it was thus executed within the lifetime of the Hakim Shifa’i himself, although, like the Prague and Paris examples, the date does not accord with the date of the Reza original referenced by Mu‘in on the present painting.
Close observation of these four works reveals that they appear closer to the style of followers of Reza rather than that of the master. Regarding the Paris example, despite the fact that one of the erased inscriptions appears to name Reza and the date of AH 1043 / 1632 AD, there is a further erased inscription below the figure’s legs, where a date ending “87” is legible and a “1” is faintly visible, suggesting an additional date of 1087 (1676-7). The definitive original model for the present work thus remains as yet unidentified, and may well be lost. Nevertheless, this complex pictorial web involving Reza Abbasi, Mu‘in Musavvir and these various iterations of the portrait of Hakim Shifa’i is an important and absorbing aspect of the rich tapestry of 17th century Persian painting.
A further notable aspect of the present work is that the borders are the same as those of the well-known Mu‘in portrait of Reza in Princeton (Garrett no. 96G, see discussion of the Princeton painting in lot 85), and the two works were clearly part of the same album. Canby suggested that this may indicate that in the 1670s Mu‘in was asked to prepare an album depicting famous figures from Shah Abbas’s reign (Canby 1998, p.88). However, the borders are of 19th century origin, so although the two pictures must have been in the same album during the Qajar period, they were not necessarily part of the same album in the 17th century. However, they were probably part of the same collection in the early 20th century, because both the present work and the Princeton portrait were with the London bookseller Bernard Quaritch in 1935 (see Arnold 1935; Kuhnel 1942). The present painting was then purchased by Hagop Kevorkian, while the Princeton work was acquired by Robert Garrett, who donated it to his alma mater in 1942.